Thoughts on preemptively banning Gen-AI?
-
Public domain or stock images combined with an afternoon of Gimp/Krita. Had a friend who started with no experience and they managed to make some damn professional looking art for their playbook.
-
Just because you generally need a cover image doesn't mean that it's good to support systems whose primary use case is to drive real artists into hiding.
-
Sure. But wouldn't such rule mean we dismiss also those who do bring something to the table but just try to get anyone's attention?
Not if they don't scam people to do it.
-
If someone doesn't care enough about their product to actually do work on it, why should I care about looking at it? If I wanted to see AI generated slop, I'd go to one of the many megacorps that'll generate it for me rather than paying some guy on Itch.io.
-
This is indeed the thing, there is a long road between using an AI powered spell checker, and a full AI generated game. Let's go further, if a volunteer uses their deepl subscription to translate an indie game they like (with the author's permission) , and do a manual review afterward. The kind of stuff you can sometimes do for your player, is it AI slop?
-
That is right. But that is not what all AIGen stuff is. If someone creates a cool adventure but uses AIGen to make their fluff box sound like a radio speaker because they lack the skills to make it so, is that a not caring enough?
Nope, it isn't.
Cheaters should never be allowed to prosper. It undermines the entire idea that creative work is of value, and will inevitably lead to a day when artists are seen as as much of a piece of scum on someone's shoe as cashiers are.
-
Not if they don't scam people to do it.
-
Nope, it isn't.
Cheaters should never be allowed to prosper. It undermines the entire idea that creative work is of value, and will inevitably lead to a day when artists are seen as as much of a piece of scum on someone's shoe as cashiers are.
-
So you're arguing so hard to replace artists because you already don't value them?
-
It's meant to be a high bar forever.
"Generative AI" is a scam perpetrated by people who hate artists, while envying their capacity to create art, while also not understanding what art really is. Period.
-
That is a straw man. I never said banning non open source. I equated corporate "AI" with the corporate practice of stealing open source projects.
-
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've been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don't really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I'm soliciting feedback from y'all on this, please let me know what you prefer.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 problem of people just posting their AI-generated character portraits and the feed getting flooded by those, 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.
-
So you're arguing so hard to replace artists because you already don't value them?
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 -
It's meant to be a high bar forever.
"Generative AI" is a scam perpetrated by people who hate artists, while envying their capacity to create art, while also not understanding what art really is. Period.
-
Yes, one can do that. But, probably because of how content ( in broad meaning) works, it's not being done. That's why I'm afraid such rule would mostly cut out the small-friesWhat 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.
