You realize that no one complained that ai art would discourage people from drawing, right? It’s because the ai scans other artists works and designs an imitation based on its prompt. It’s stops artists from being able to profit from their work because it introduces a free alternative that stole their designs to learn.
I think the bigger concern than whether or not it’s good will be what it learned from.
I’m pretty sure about it. No one who suggested that deserves to be taken seriously. But intellectual property theft is a legitimate concern and comparing them as equal concerns is disingenuous.
Lots of people produce content and make a living off of 5e, and not just 3rd party producers, plenty of people use patreon as a means to distributetheir work. Will the ai be trained exclusively on WOTC playtesting or will it be able to scour the internet for plot hooks and npcs and loot and whatever else it needs? It’s inevitable, and well known that some of that content has been reposted and copied in various places across the internet. The damages they suffer from user piracy wouldn’t be comparable to an ai running multiple games on an online platform owned by the ‘world’s most popular rpg’ not to mention that they would be charging for at least a onednd or dnd beyond or whatever they’re calling it this week, subscription.
It’s not as simple as “oh cool, more people could play”. It’s just their next attempt at eliminating the third party market.
It’s just their next attempt at eliminating the third party market.
Since third parties can make AIs too I don’t see how this would do that. It’s just an innovative new product they might be first to market with, others can also join the market with their own versions of it.
You realize that no one complained that ai art would discourage people from drawing, right? It’s because the ai scans other artists works and designs an imitation based on its prompt. It’s stops artists from being able to profit from their work because it introduces a free alternative that stole their designs to learn.
I think the bigger concern than whether or not it’s good will be what it learned from.
Don’t be so sure about that “no one”, I’ve seen plenty of hyperbolic arguments along those lines.
Stopping artists from being able to profit is a separate issue, and not particularly relevant to DMing since most DMs don’t charge for it.
I’m pretty sure about it. No one who suggested that deserves to be taken seriously. But intellectual property theft is a legitimate concern and comparing them as equal concerns is disingenuous.
Lots of people produce content and make a living off of 5e, and not just 3rd party producers, plenty of people use patreon as a means to distributetheir work. Will the ai be trained exclusively on WOTC playtesting or will it be able to scour the internet for plot hooks and npcs and loot and whatever else it needs? It’s inevitable, and well known that some of that content has been reposted and copied in various places across the internet. The damages they suffer from user piracy wouldn’t be comparable to an ai running multiple games on an online platform owned by the ‘world’s most popular rpg’ not to mention that they would be charging for at least a onednd or dnd beyond or whatever they’re calling it this week, subscription.
It’s not as simple as “oh cool, more people could play”. It’s just their next attempt at eliminating the third party market.
Other people and organizations can also train up AIs to do this kind of thing.
But that’s not what the article or the discussion was about, is it?
It also doesn’t really matter who builds it, how it learns is still the primary concern.
I was responding to your statement that:
Since third parties can make AIs too I don’t see how this would do that. It’s just an innovative new product they might be first to market with, others can also join the market with their own versions of it.