Well, there’s plenty of AI that isn’t “corporate” AI, and that is itself open. So the distinction you’re drawing isn’t going to put all AI on one side and all non-AI on the other side.

Heck, there’s plenty of “corporate” RPGs that are near-universal staples of the hobby. D&D is owned by Hasbro, along with a lot of its tools.

I would propose a rule like this:

Posts solely containing AI-generated content are banned. Posts that contain AI-generated content as part of a larger piece or project that is human-created are okay.

This prevents the potential problem of people just posting their AI-generated character portraits and the feed getting flooded by those (which is the reason why I personally block multiple AI art communities), but does not prevent people who used AI generation in part to put together an adventure or something like that from sharing their work.

You closed with “No AI.” It doesn’t feel like a straw man. It’s fine to say no corporate AI but that might be even harder to single out.

I’m personally looking into domain specific fine tunes of small, open source models that can compete with larger models in at least one small area - specifically in roleplaying, though my interest is creating a chat bot to facilitate group gaming, not generating systems or art.

No. For one I don’t believe it will replace artists. What I expect is that we will never be able to hold wotc, hasbro, etc to this standard. Which means they’ll have an even higher advantage against one-person creators
The artists working for big ones will be using AIGen to speed up their work. Same as using search engines to find info and references
Creators for which the AIGenned cover is enough, won’t commission a real artist anyway
I’m afraid that such rule here ( meaning we are social network, not the shop) would skew the scale towards the big ones - they’ll be getting more coverage, even here

I think https://piefed.zip/post/511096#comment_1614098 also addresses this point

What makes you say it’s not being done? Where are you somehow finding a lack of content?

There’s free tools, maps, oneshots, entire games with 1-2 page rulesets being posted online all the time that aren’t utilizing AI. All for free. The TTRPG community is bursting with content.

So… you have no concrete support except a gut feeling?

I would be okay with a ban on AI generated content.

At the very least, I request a disclosure on any AI content.

So like, if you make a little RPG yourself and used some AI tool to make the art, you are required to disclose that. Likewise, if the flavor text for some of your game came from an AI, would-be consumers should be alerted. Heck, if it was used in the editing phase put that in the ai disclosure blurb.

I'm thoroughly unconvinced by the argument that because giant corporations are doing evil things, the little guy ought to as well in order to "compete", and treating "AI" art as the only kind that will be posted either way.

That’s not a bad idea if we are going to allow it in some form

‘Upvotes mean it’s fine’ is how you get /r/Funny with different CSS.

‘People say it’s a tool, but they use it for the thing it does!’ … what?

How else could you use generative AI, except to generate a thing for you?

Most things that could be commissioned - aren’t. The money is never spent. The money isn’t real. No one is robbed when a robot does the thing instead, because what it’s instead of, is the thing not happening.

You cannot kvetch about this replacing all artists forever and still insist it’s a flash in the pan. The tech works. You can run it on your own computer, to-day. It plainly serves a desirable purpose. That alone makes comparisons to NFTs as spurious as those dolts insisting ‘people doubted the internet.’

Any visions of this blowing over should’ve vanished when it became a porn faucet.

The kinds of people who find replacing artists a "desirable purpose" do not belong in a creative community.

Having art is desirable. Only self-professed haters think it’s replacing much of anything, versus what I just fucking explained - it makes things that otherwise would not get made. No money is lost if there is no money.

Ban that shit!

I have an example where I’m sure the dry presentation does a disservice to the content. For someone who does not care about AI vs no-AI, it will look less professional than the titles next to it. But I don’t want to turn this into a vivisection of a particular example

Drama that deepens prejudice.

People insist it’s low-quality. And if it’s good, then it’s robbing artists. And if you’ve never commissioned an artist in your life, then it’s anti-environmental. And if running it locally barely warmed your video card, then it’s theft. And if you’d otherwise borrow images from online… then shut up. Shut up is why it’s bad.

I’d understand marking it, because some people still don’t recognize it. But when they do they try to un-feel whatever reaction they just had. Oh that clever idea was illustrated by a robot? Then it means nothing, lacks intent, isn’t art, fnord fnord etc. The minature version of tearing posters off your wall, insisting you never liked your favorite band.

Folks, the robot that draws anything isn’t going anywhere. Make your peace. The software is aggressively available for local use, apparently simple enough that tech-bro douchebags can figure it out, and most damningly, was immediately adopted for pornography. It could at worst be chased underground… but it won’t be. You will see people make things with this tech, when they otherwise couldn’t, and at some point your distaste has to end.

Mostly stuff that is not fantasy and not a spaceship

I don’t suppose I see all that is happening in modern+ RPG branch (niche?). But I do support a few creators on Patreon, I follow a few creators on DTRPG, I follow a bunch of blogs. And I see all walks of AIGen

• things without AIGen that look well good for the creators that they are able to do the content AND a cover image/presentation
• things without AIGen that look poor but the content is good I would not hold it against the creators to try improve the looks with AIGen. I know that this is the point we don’t agree on, I just wanted to point this out
• things with AIGen that have good contents clearly the creators like from the previous point but after taking that decision
• things with AIGen that IMO are crap yeah, this is a waste of everything

That’s why I’m more in “let downvotes tell the story” camp. Because in the end it’s not the use of AIGen that makes a thing bad. It’s the decision of the creator that “this is good enough”. And without covering the bad stuff too, we are just sweeping it under the rug

How is that confusing to you? A hammer is a tool, and a hammer does not replace a carpenter. Tools do not replace creatives. Logically following, since AI is used to replace creatives, AI is not used like a tool.

How else could you use generative AI, except to generate a thing for you?

You seem to think this is a point in gen AI’s favour.

You cannot kvetch about this replacing all artists forever and still insist it’s a flash in the pan.

You’re right. Which is why I didn’t say forever. People are using it to replace artists, and it’s going to die off soon. Those are not contradictory.

It plainly serves a desirable purpose.

False. Making art is desirable. Having art is only desirable if you like the art, and AI images make me nauseous (not hyperbole). Nausea is not desirable. If you think having is better than making, you aren’t a creative.

That alone makes comparisons to NFTs as spurious as those dolts insisting ‘people doubted the internet.’

People did doubt the internet. We have articles. But people also massively over-hyped the internet, leading to the dot com bubble. I think comparing a tech bubble to a tech bubble is a fair comparison, especially since it’s the same people peddling a new brand of snake oil.

@mindbleach @sirblastalot My distaste knows no end.