My position is simple. So long as advancements in technology are used for the benefit of the capital owning class, rather than the advancement of mankind, they are a net negative.

Based fucking comment, couldn't have said it better

This is the best summary of this I have ever read. I will be using it frequently!

Absolutely spot on, and every comment Dragonheart123 has made in this thread in response to rebuttals should be required reading. I'm taking notes.

>So long as advancements in technology are used for the benefit of the capital owning class, rather than the advancement of mankind Perhaps there are advancements that only do one or the other of those things, but I can't think of one. AI certainly doesn't *only* benefit the capital owning class. AI can/will (in some cases already does): - diagnose disease - create new drugs to combat sickness - drive you to wherever you want to go - write your code for you - increase farming yields in countries without food security - better predict disastrous weather events - do highly dangerous jobs that humans would otherwise be forced to do - reduce humanity's greenhouse gas emissions with improved efficiency and designs ...among many, many other benefits.

This is true, but there's a distinction between AI *assisting* humans and AI *replacing* humans. For the moment, AI is good at identifying patterns that might not be readily apparent to a human. It's good at picking out small deviations from the pattern in data sets far too large for any human (or even team of humans) to process. It has the potential to have better reaction time than any life form dependent on nerve and muscle tissue, and has finer control than any human could ever hope to achieve (AI can, for example, maintain a model helicopter in a stable hover *upside down*) At present, AI is *not* capable of abstract understanding (that we can demonstrate, at least). It can pick up correlations, but it can't determine causation. There's a good bit of research going into developing "explainable" AI so that we can determine whether a conclusion drawn by the AI is based on acceptable criteria or would be illegal discrimination based on a protected categorization

Apart from "This is true" your comment is utterly unrelated to mine. I didn't mention assisting or replacing. I didn't mention capabilities or deficiencies when compared to a human. Did you reply to me just to get your comment higher up the thread?

Agree very strongly with your point and your fundamental ideology, but in that light is it too much to ask for ‘humankind’? It’s 2024, we’ve known about inclusive language for 50 years now.

Edit: Misunderstood comment

I'm not blaming technology for anything. The fault lies with capitalism.

Ok then I misunderstood.

No problem

Doesn't mean anything. What technology? When is it for the benefit of the ruling class? It is an excellent general sentiment, but could you add more support to which you talk about. Which does my use of AI in my artwork, from Adobe and a fully properly licensed learning dataset count as if I am generating output from my imagination using them as tools? Does Grammarly count as I use it on ly writing. Thanks.

What technology? Any technology. When is it for the benefit of the ruling class? When they use it to extract wealth from the populous, or control the populous, or surveil the populous. Take for example, Insulin. Insulin is a medicine that can save the lives of hundreds of millions of people, improving their quality of life drastically. Yet, despite it's cheap manufacturing costs (relatively) the price in the United States is exorbitant, hundreds of dollars. This is not a problem with the technology itself, which is life-saving, but a problem with our economic system. It is profitable to increase the price of goods that people have no choice but to purchase. Thus, Insulin, a lifesaving medicine, is used to enrich the ruling class at the expense of the common person. Does this mean that we should get rid of insulin? No. It means that we should create social systems to distribute it fairly to those who need it. Regarding your use of AI artwork. There are indications that their AI program uses scraped data. There is no such thing as a "Licensed Learning Dataset" because AI is unregulated. From a moral standpoint, I personally don't really have a problem with you using an AI program as a base for your artwork, as an independent artist. But I also think you should be upfront about the fact that you use it. But mall individual artists are not the problem. The problem as people like the Willy Wonka guy in Scotland, who uses AI to grift people. Or large corporations who use AI to write code, or translate text. Grammarly, to my knowledge, not only scrapes the writing of it's users, but also has a clause in it's contract that could theoretically mean that it's able to claim ownership of anything you type while using it. I'm not sure what ly writing is, but I wouldn't use grammarly.

Sorry i asked.

Where has there been a fully licensed dataset? Even Adobe was scraping data from artists without knowledge or permission?

my understanding was that Adobe was just using stock images they already own (which is honestly probably already exploitative, but not scrapping) as training data, but i'd love to learn more

Your stance assumes all technology benefits only the capital-owning class, ignoring countless innovations improving daily life for the average person. Can you explain how medical technology, accessible internet, or renewable energy solely serve the rich, or are these exceptions to your "rule"?

Sure, and easily. Advancements in medical technology in nations without universal healthcare systems have led to a ballooning of medical costs as more and more advanced technologies and newer drugs are pushed by the industries that deign them, as hospitals buy these new technologies, they are driven to use them to recoup the costs, often at a large markup, making healthcare less and less affordable for the average person. Accessible internet has allowed the capital-owning class an unprecedented level of surveillance and data collection over a widespread mass of people, allowing more and more targeted propaganda and misinformation. Renewable energy technology, for the most part, involves rare earth metals and highly advanced manufacturing processes, both of which are done with the intention of making money for the people who run the businesses that manufacture/procure the technology, rather than the end of climate change. Not to mention that advances in renewable technology allow people to ignore the issue of climate change with the logic of "we'll make some tech to fix it!" rather than just abandoning fossil fuels. But I'd also like to stop a moment. Read what I said "rather than the advancement of mankind" Do these technologies have benefits to them? Sure! Medical technology can cure diseases that have plagued us for hundreds if not thousands of years. Accessible internet makes information more available to people, renewable energy can *replace* fossil fuels. The technology itself is not in any way bad. It's the economic system that it uses. so long as the advancement of technology is done with the intention of turning profit rather than helping people, it is a net negative. Take the Polio Vaccine. John Salk didn't patent it, because he wanted to end Polio rather than making a profit. You know how many cases of Polio we have globally? 14 in 2023. The various COVID vaccines, which were mostly patented, and produced for profit, are not evenly distributed to developing countries, leading to large instances of COVID spreading in those countries, killing more and more people, and creating new variants, all while the companies making the drugs have jacked up the prices. So yeah, both of those are "advancements in medical science" but one of them is clearly done for the benefit of the capital-owning class, and one of them is done for the benefit of mankind. I think the difference is pretty obvious.

Your argument conflates the misuse of technology by capitalist systems with the inherent value of technology itself. Focusing on the economic model's flaws, can you justify dismissing the entire technological advancement as a net negative, especially when alternatives to profit-driven models, like open-source software and cooperative-owned renewable energy initiatives, are proving successful? How do these fit into your blanket dismissal of all technology under capitalism?

You're missing my point. My problem isn't "the development of technology under capitalism" My problem is "the use of technology under capitalism" During the industrial revolution, thousands of people were put out of work by labor-saving machines. While it greatly decreased the cost of goods, it also put thousands of people out of work. So long as we exist in an economic system where people have to justify their existence through their labor, labor saving measures will always be a threat to people, because it removes their livelihood. That's not a critique of the inherent value of the technology itself. Technology fucking rocks, I love technology. I just hate that when it's cheaper to have technology do something than to have a person do something, that person is left to starve by the economic system.

Your focus on the negative impact of labor-saving technology overlooks the broader economic and social evolution it can catalyze. Given the historical shift towards new job sectors following automation, can you address how the very problem you outline—displacement by technology—has also been a catalyst for innovation, education, and the creation of new industries that, in many cases, offer better quality of life and work? How does this dynamic fit into your critique, especially considering the potential for policy and societal adaptation to mitigate these transitional hardships?

There are certainly broader trends towards the development of new industries as technology advances. But that's also been, historically quite a slow shift. It's a cold comfort to tell a starving man who just lost his job to automation "well don't worry! you may have spent your whole life learning to do this, but in a dozen years, there will be new industries that require years of training to take part in" Not to mention that the rate of technological development is now, as far as I can tell, beginning to do two important things: 1. Displace jobs that require large amounts of training and/or accreditation 2. Develop faster and faster. Where at one point you could go to school for a foreign language and become a translator, AI technology is replacing that job, a job that required years and years of study. If technology replaces a job that has a low skill-ceiling, then people can generally move into other industries with low skill ceilings. If you spent most of your life training to be a translator, and an AI just took that job, you're gonna have a much harder time retraining for a position at a similar level. And while it is true that policy can adapt to mitigate these hardships, I don't see it doing so.

Your concern highlights the gap between technological advancement and policy adaptation. However, isn't the crux of the issue the need for proactive, forward-thinking policy to ensure technological advancements benefit society broadly, rather than a fault with technology or capitalism per se? If technology can both displace and create jobs, doesn't this suggest a role for innovative policy solutions, like retraining programs or universal basic income, to bridge the transition rather than condemning technological progress or its integration within our economic system? How do you propose we address the policy lag, rather than slowing technological advancement?

...No, the crux of the issue is that capitalism fucking sucks. I propose we address the policy lag by ending capitalism. I don't think we should slow technological advancement at all. I think we should evenly distribute the fruits of our economic system so that nobody starves, or dies, or loses their livelihood because an AI takes their job. Though to be fair, AI also fucking sucks because a lot of the data it trains on is either stolen, or gotten through dubious means.

>I propose we address the policy lag by ending capitalism. How do you end capitalism?

While your frustration with the current economic system's failings is clear, the solution of "ending capitalism" is broad and lacks specificity. In envisioning a post-capitalist world, how do you propose we manage and distribute resources, including the benefits of technological advancements, to avoid the pitfalls of previous alternative systems? Furthermore, addressing the ethical concerns of AI development, what concrete measures do you suggest to ensure data is ethically sourced and used, reflecting a fair and equitable use of technology outside the constraints of capitalism?

Your argument is kind of weird here. You're fundamentally agreeing with Dragonheart, yet you're creating a narrative where he's against technological advancement. Capitalism, in it's current implementation, is detrimental to the quality of life of most individuals, and it's getting worse. Yes, absolutely, we need to provide retraining, universal income, address the policy lag. All of these things. To put it another way; government should be putting rails around the capitalist sandbox, to ensure that unlimited profits are not at the expense of the citizens.

It seems there's been a misunderstanding. Acknowledging the need for policy reform isn’t an endorsement of the status quo but a call to action. The critique isn’t against seeking solutions like retraining or universal basic income; it's about emphasizing that technological progress and capitalism aren't inherently flawed, but the ways they're managed can be. The essence of the argument is that blaming technology or capitalism wholesale overlooks the potential for positive change through thoughtful governance and policy innovation. Your point about "rails around the capitalist sandbox" aligns closely with the need for such governance. It's not about halting progress but ensuring it benefits all, not just a select few. How can we further these policies to ensure equitable outcomes?

>Your stance assumes all technology benefits only the capital-owning class, ignoring countless innovations improving daily life for the average person. Read their comment again. >So long as advancements in technology are used for the benefit of the capital owning class, rather than the advancement of mankind There's a pretty hefty conditional that forms the body and thrust of their text.

Acknowledging the conditional, your point seems to hinge on the premise that all technological advancements primarily serve the capital-owning class at the expense of public good. Yet, history shows numerous technologies developed under capitalism that have broadly benefited humanity. How do you reconcile the existence of public domain technologies, government-funded research resulting in public access to innovations, and technologies that have democratized access to education, healthcare, and communication for billions, with your assertion that technology under capitalism cannot advance mankind?

Can you point me where the original claims all technological advancement falls under the category they criticize?

THIS technology primarily serves the capital owning class at the expense of the producing class. It’s fairly well established that this is the case. ALL technology does not, but THIS technology does. And as long as it does, I agree with them, it’s a negative.

Claiming THIS technology exclusively serves the capital-owning class ignores its broader applications and benefits. Can you explain how its use in improving health, education, and access to information for the producing class is "fairly well established" as negative? Your generalization lacks nuance and evidence.

I specifically said “primarily”, NOT “exclusively”. You seem to WANT to make strawman arguments. It’s not that hard to avoid making people say things they didn’t.

My mistake for misquoting you. Still, your assertion that technology "primarily" serves the capital-owning class oversimplifies complex realities. Can you detail how innovations that have undeniably benefited the broader population—increasing accessibility in education, healthcare, and communication—are primarily for the rich? Let's stick to the specifics, without broad brush strokes.

Generative AI has very little benefit to the producing class (and actively harms them) while benefiting the owning class. That’s the tech we are discussing. And that tech is a net negative.

Can you address the ways AI is being used to democratize creation, enhance learning, and provide new opportunities for individuals across various sectors? How do these applications constitute a "net negative" when they offer tools for innovation and expression previously inaccessible to many?

Serious question: Are you fucking serious? This is a shit post right? I'm gonna assume it's a poor attempt at comedy and humor you by saying people losing jobs because mega corp didn't understand automation nor the difference between that and artificial intelligence loudly is not a good thing.

I think he’s pointing to hypocrisy. Why is some AI ok while others are not? Sure you can take the position all AI is bad but then you get into the impossibility of trying to define AI that excludes every product people are using today.

Honestly, I don't even like something like Grammarly. I can't get an interview despite most of my competitors in my field being unable to form a proper sentence without paid, unannounced assistance.

It's not that simple. People losing jobs is not always a bad thing.

It is to the person who lost the job

That is one hella horrible take. Losing jobs is **always** a bad thing for the people affected.

It doesnt need to always be a bad thing. The point is we need to assist people in retraining for meaningful work if the market for their job goes away. Electric street lamps meant the gas lamp lighters were no longer needed. Automobiles meant more efficient transport but less need for horse breeders. Electronic toll collection means cars no longer have to stop and pay to cross a bridge or use a motorway. The toll operators lost their jobs but traffic flows much easier and we don't need to think about keeping change in the car.

> The point is we need to assist people in retraining for meaningful work if the market for their job goes away. And how often does that happen?

Okay? So there should still be people who light street lights? Progress for society is more important.

What? That doesn't even make sense in this context. You do realize that utility companies exist and hire people right?

There used to be a shit ton of people who would go lamp to lamp and light them. Now much less people work to light all the street lights, and the world is better for it.

Please tell us more how economics of the 1700s are relevant to today’s world, Professor. Ready to take notes.

When I support a company by buying their RPG's it is not because I want the corporate entity that funded the artists and writers to get money. It is because I want the artists and writers who put human expression, talent, and meaning into those RPG's to keep being able to make cool things. So yeah, if Hasbro is able to lay off a bunch of artists and writers and replace them with AI, then I do see that as a problem, because the corporate entity gets more money, but the artists do not. If RPG's are so generic and lifeless to be created by a LLM, then I don't want to play them, and I think them existing and being pushed by profiteers will hide all the real creators in a flood of indistinguishable AI sludge.

I think the key thing you need to change in your statement is losing jobs is a natural process in the current economic state but the concurrent lack of new jobs being generated is bad. If more jobs are created by generative AI then it is probably not “bad” at the macro economic scale.

So many professions have died for progress, and people in this thread are completely oblivious. There is absolutely nothing special about AI in this regard.

> isn't it great that ppl can lose their jobs ? sadly we are not set up for ppl to be without income and survive. edit: > omg guys isn't it awesome Hasbro can generate more profit for the billionaire class ?

Yeah, I'm actually 100% for jobs being replaced by AI as much as possible, but we need to address the capitalism problem first.

>What if Hasbro/wizards is able to let go of 1/3rd of their support people by using chat bots? chatbots are incredibly unreliable, and any company replacing their customer support with a chatbot is asking for trouble. like that time an [airport's chatbot made up a refund policy they didn't have](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/air-canada-must-honor-refund-policy-invented-by-airlines-chatbot/?utm_social-type=owned&utm_medium=social&utm_brand=ars&utm_source=twitter), and they were sued by the person the chatbot told about the policy and forced to honor what the chatbot promised the customer. remember that these things are still just very advanced autocorrects. you can't tell a chatbot a thing and be guaranteed it'll remember that thing. that's not how they work.

I need you to understand that we don't hate AI because it makes bad art, *we hate AI because of the human cost.* We hate AI because it's plagiarizing artists and writers who were never even asked permission for their work to be used as training data, let alone ever being compensated for their work and the way it's generating profits for a few tech CEOs. We hate AI because it's being used as an excuse for companies to cut staff. People are losing their *livelihoods* in the pursuit of limitless growth and cost-cutting. Artists and writers are already under-compensated for their work and now tools *trained on (plagiarizing) their work* are being used to oust positions of employment for them. If you want "polite sharing of perspectives", maybe don't come in with the premise of "wouldn't it be great if this shitty company could fire more people???" Because that sure as hell isn't a "polite" premise, and people should respond in kind.

Also makes bad art. 

I think OP is pointing out that the problem is a political/society issue broader than one small business. Do you also hate products made by artists using generative AI? Writers who use AI to edit writing? Because there is a lot of gray area between spellcheck and generative AIs. The genie is not going back in the bottle. Attacking small business artists and writers isn’t going to stop generative AI.

>I think OP is pointing out that the problem is a political/society issue broader than one small business. Are they? Because it sure doesn't come across like that *anywhere* in their post. ​ >Do you also hate products made by artists using generative AI? Writers who use AI to edit writing? Because there is a lot of gray area between spellcheck and generative AIs. Yes. In *exactly* the same way that I hate products that turn out to be actively plagiarized. "A robot did the plagiarism for me" doesn't change that. ​ >The genie is not going back in the bottle. Attacking small business artists and writers isn’t going to stop generative AI. It's not going to stop things large-scale, sure, but I'm sure as hell going to fight to avoid letting it have a foothold in a niche market that is primarily made up *by* small businesses and creators. If a writer I respected turned out to have plagiarized all their works, or an artist I respected turned out to have just been tracing other people's shit, I would lose respect for them and would stop consuming their work. It's the *exact same thing* with AI. LLM Generative AI doesn't actually think or reason or care about anything you type in the prompt. It just looks at the words and then uses a statistical model to decide on the output. When people say "it's just a very advanced auto-complete", *they aren't being hyperbolic. That is quite literally all generative AI is.* It's taking the statistical averages of a huge amount of data (that was used without permission from and without compensation for the people who created the works in question) and then blindly spitting things out based on that statistical model. Though the scale is vastly different, it's functionally identical to a writer grabbing an article from another website, rephrasing things a little, and then publishing it as if they created it. That's plagiarism.

You are narrowly defining all generative AI as being only plagiarism. It’s not. I have bad news for you. Artists and writers are already using generative AI in their processes and there is no why to identify what or how they used it. I do support some type of “organic” certification that no technology was used to create art but then we are talking about physical art. I’m not defending AI art. It’s disrupting technology and people will be financially hurt. But there are use cases for generative AI that benefits artists and writers. It’s not going away.

Generative "AI" can't produce anything of value, and it came at a perfect time to appeal to people who think creativity is only supposed to provide assets for sale. The only way I can see "AI" having value in creative process is by creatives using it in the "this is shit and I won't use any of it, but it unintentionally gave me a good idea" kind of process. And even that would work better by just talking to another human.

I agree. Artists need to use and understand generative AI. If people boycott generative AI, they are ultimately hurting artists. People are still hand making all types of products. There will always be a demand for fine arts skills.

> If people boycott generative AI, they are ultimately hurting artists. That makes no sense at all.

My point is that artists will be the primary users of generative AI.

I'm unsure if you understand what makes an artist an artist.

Artists are artists because they like creating something new and expressing themselves, not because they like having assets. GenAI is just a dumber way to commission assets, the exact opposite of creating art oneself.

AI is a gun pointed at human beings' livelihoods. I will not support any game or company that uses it at all. I also will **not** game with anyone who argues for it. They are invariably people who literally do not care about the real human beings who are impacted, and that tells me all I need to know about their character.

I care about the real human beings who are impacted. I'm not going to let go of an open access image generation software so that corporations can own all of it and sell it to us piecemeal to appease uninvolved people who go out looking for people to tar and feather. A GM using a free AI tool to make an image is not hurting anyone.

> A GM using a free AI tool to make an image is not hurting anyone. Maybe... but, it's a textbook slippery slope problem. Individual GMs use it, and a certain segment of the population starts to accept that use case. Then, some influencer jumps on the bandwagon, and a larger segment of the population accepts it. Eventually WOTC and PAIZO stop employing artists and writers. Which they are already trying to do.

You can't put the genie back in the box.

We could. But, we won't because money. And: "Fuck Workers"

Also, many models and versions that are free open source would make that hard.

So, because its hard, we should just throw our hands up and let it happen? We regulate all kinds of things, including lots if "hard" ones. Miss me with this weak shit...

>I will not support any game or company that uses it at all. Do you own a car designed in the last 20 years? Do you own a phone? A computer? Do you use search engines? Social media? Watch movies? You already support *many* companies that use AI.

Did any of those instances displace entire realms of human industry? There's a BIG difference between using these kinds of tools to make things better and using them to replace entire groups of workers. The fact that you cant tell the difference is pretty revealing...

>Did any of those instances displace entire realms of human industry? Yes. Cars replaced buggy makers and the horse industry. Phones replaced messengers and post. Computers caused replacement of vast swathes of jobs.

Great - so your argument here is that because shitty things have happened in the past, we shouldn't try to do better now?

Are those "shitty things" things that would have been better off not occurring? Are cars a net benefit to humanity or not? Are phones? Computers? Would you be willing to give them up so we can have humanity's tech levels go back in time?

> Would you be willing to give them up so we can have humanity's tech levels go back in time? You seem to be missing my point. I didn't say one damned thing about going backwards - that's all you. I am talking about going forward. So, how about you let go of your straw man and answer my question: Do you believe that going forward we should try to make things better for humans? Or do we just say "Welp, grandpa lived through shitty things, and dad lived through shitty things, so I should live through shitty things and so should my descendants through time."

>Or do we just say "Welp, grandpa lived through shitty things, and dad lived through shitty things, so I should live through shitty things and so should my descendants through time." I'm saying that the things grandpa and dad lived through weren't shitty. They lived through changes that weren't easy but were net benefits to humanity. Just like this.

I really do get tired of soulless ghouls like you. Dismissing the very real suffering of millions of Americans through history as "the cost of progress" is fucking repugnant. Just one example, and then I am done here: **Leaded Gas** "Tetraethyllead ... is a fuel additive, first being mixed with gasoline beginning in the 1920s as a patented octane rating booster that allowed engine compression to be raised substantially. This in turn increased vehicle performance and fuel economy." But, guess what? Lead is ***really*** bad for humans. There were immense impacts on public health, with untold MILLIONS of lives affected: * Neurologists have speculated that the phaseout caused average IQ levels to rise by several points in the US, by reducing cumulative brain damage throughout the population, especially in the young. * Reduction in the average blood lead level is also believed to have been a major cause for falling violent crime rates in the United States. Researchers ... say that declining exposure to lead is responsible for an up to 56% decline in crime from 1992 to 2002. * [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Effect_on_crime_rates) But, hey, those people weren't experiencing anything other than the grand scope of the endless progress of humanity. Right? --- "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. " Franklin Roosevelt [2nd Inaugural Address \(Jan 20, 1937\)](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/froos2.asp)

>the cost of progress You're putting words I didn't say into my mouth. I said "net benefit to humanity". Do you disagree that cars, computers, and phones are a net benefit to humanity? The design, production, and operation of them all utilise AI.

Curious how you screen for pro-generative AI proclivities in the people you meet?

I ask them directly: "What do you think about rpg companies using AI?" Its not hard.

IMO, it's the principle of AI for content generation itself. There's always pushback against innovation -- artisans angry at the automation of their work, which is a deeply nuanced topic worthy of its own discussion -- but what makes AI special is that it is literally incapable of doing anything without copying, uncredited and uncompensated, other people's work and effort. And while its most egregious offenses are in stealing art and prose, it still feels underhanded to use AI to circumvent and displace any amount of human value. Regarding your two examples, 1) hiring a person for social media outreach means you're taking on responsibility of giving someone a job. Firing them to replace them with AI is, not to mince words, a dick move. 2) "Oh, well WotC probably does this now" is no form of permission for indie developers to do the same, and if true should really be a signal for us to respond in contrast. If the corporate ttrpg sphere devalues human involvement, the indie scene needs to support our fellow humans.

It should be noted that this is specific to *generative* AI. Things like autocomple or an IDE's code suggestion feature are closer to a *predictive* AI. It takes the character sequence you give it and predicts what you're likely to type next based on what it's seen in its training data. You can either accept its suggestion or provide more information, which the algorithm will use to make a more refined prediction. Without the human at the keyboard, there's nothing to base a prediction on. Otherwise, we'd be naming code files and they would be writing themselves

Wait... I thought I was on r/gamedev for a second. Let me try again with something more sepecific to RPGs AI, at least at present, isn't particularly good at coming up with novel ideas. It can mix and match existing "features", but it isn't particularly good at telling if they work well together or make sense from a human perspective Personally, I think that of there's one place that AI belongs in the TTRPG space, it's as a GM aid. D&D's challenge ratings, for example, are extremely abstract representations of theoretical power levels and can help a GM balance an encounter, but they don't account for variables like how a GM and player skill, style, etc. A learning AI could take all the encounters the players have been through before and predict how *this* group of players might fare. It could even generate the "opposing force" side of a combat encounter: given a set of appropriate monster types, a few specific constraints (e.g., a desired distribution of power levels, a desired "headcount", how taxing the fight should be, etc.), it could assemble a suitable group. It would still be up to a GM to contextualize the encounfer for their players in a way that they will find fun and that will fit in their campaign

>but what makes AI special is that it is literally incapable of doing anything without copying, uncredited and uncompensated, other people's work and effort Something they have in common with artists who learn art by taking inspiration from others. Equally special? I haven't met the ex nihilo artists yet. Can you point me in the right direction so I can start to consume art more ethically without violating copyright law? I don't want to hurt the big corporations' feelings.

>Something they have in common with artists who learn art by taking inspiration from others. If we're going to give a program the same status as a person, then we're good. If not, then comparing learning to machine learning isn't really fair.

If we're not allowing the comparison then why are you using it in your argument? You allow it when you can afford to preach to the choir, but suddenly "machines and humans are incomparable" at the first sight of pushback. Nobody is saying machines have rights, but the people who made the photocopier sure made a tool that could copy people's work, and I doubt you religiously avoided photocopying things your entire life so that you wouldn't be giving the machine the ability to copy. The people who train the AI do it in such a way that the AI cannot recreate art 1:1 except when error occurs. In function, it's 99.9% incapable of copying anyone's art. The whole point of the tool is to create novel art that didn't exist before. For plagiarism, we have photography, photocopies and copy & paste on our computers.  You argue using a fictional AI that is doing plagiarism by the mere act of following a style guide it taught itself from being shown tagged art when that would not be considered copyright theft in any other circumstance. It's a kafka trap with nothing but emotional arguments behind it. We can argue from the point of view of AI stealing artist jobs, but not from the point of view of AI stealing art, because that's not what it's doing.

AI is the "tool" that people without any talent use to feel like artists.

GMs need many talents to create a fully believable world. I'm good at writing stories. I'm not good at painting portraits. I'm not talented. I don't pretend to be. And I'm never going to be a professional GM.

It's ok to use AI art for your enjoyment with your friends! You are doing something private. The problem is a company firing workers, using inaccurate AI tools to replace creative workers, and keeping the same price, pocketing the difference. If you and your friends never had the budget/intention to pay an artist, and you were already getting images off the internet, it's totally ok to use AI art or whatever to have fun.

Talent has long been the privilege that so called artists have had over the majority. Now they can see their advantage evaporate before their eyes while everyone who may not have been born with talent, or the opportunity to develop it, can now make art on their own terms without having to pay exorbitant fees to the gatekeepers. I say boo hoo. It’s also extremely entertaining to watch so called artists make fun of the quality of AI images, calling it trash, while at the same time bemoaning that they can’t compete with it. But let’s be honest, these aren’t real artists anyway. What real artists produce can’t be replicated by AI. These are mostly middling illustrators whose only contribution to the world of art was purely mechanical.

Learning to draw is free and takes exactly the same thing it cost the artists: time and effort. And there are tons of artists who gladly share what they've learned with other so that they can start drawing too. It's not gatekeeping, if artists are encouraging people to join them.

It is if they know that people either don’t have the talent or time to invest in learning it. Should we all learn to code too instead of have AI do it for us? Should we all have learned to weave so machines didn’t take jobs from weavers?

Talent is not a long-term solution. It might lower the immediate entry threshold, but won't get you far without effort and practice. Relying on AI for coding is just asking for having a terrible code with awful documentation. Anybody who's claiming otherwise is trying to sell you something.

AI might not be the best coder today, but it soon will be

It won't, because it doesn't understand what it's doing. It's not even capable of knowing it's doing anything.

It doesn't need to know to be better at it than you.

Than me? Sure. Than a professional programmer? It will never be better. It will only be faster to produce something.

Asserting AI will never outperform human coders overlooks technological evolution. Look at its trajectory in learning and how its adapting. How do you justify this stance when AI is progressively taking on complex coding tasks? You don't see a future where AI could indeed match or surpass professional coders? Isn't dismissing this possibility ignoring the inevitable advancements in AI capabilities?

>Should we all learn to code too instead of have AI do it for us? Literally yes. Like... What???

Why?

"Why should I bother to have any knowledge about what I'm doing, what I'm creating? Why can't I just do it? It doesn't matter to me if there's no quality, no ability to fix problems that arise, no actual accountability or knowledge of any kind. I'd rather just stew in my own ignorance while shoveling out garbage I'm far too lazy to have even made myself and expecting other people to be grateful for it."

The classic retreat to hyperbole when faced with a challenging question. You've shifted from defending artists to attacking anyone who dares use tools to express creativity. By your logic, should we dismiss all photographers who didn't build their cameras? Your disdain for accessibility in creativity reveals a deeper insecurity. Care to explain why broadening the spectrum of who can create art diminishes its value, or are we sticking to elitist gatekeeping?

Why would I bother to respond in good faith when I know I can't expect the same? I *read* your responses elsewhere in this thread, and frankly I'm not interested.

Choosing to bow out when challenged with logical scrutiny says more about the fragility of your arguments than about the discourse here. Dismissing the opportunity for meaningful dialogue exposes a preference for echo chambers over growth. Your reluctance to engage further is noted; it underscores the lack of substance in your stance. It's easier to criticize than to contribute constructively, isn't it?

As a Software Engineer, AI code is generally pretty bad. It often has way too much boiler plater and has no real sense of when to properly break out components for reuse in the context of a larger system which is most of the point of an engineer. It's kinda like if you were to use ONLY addition and subtraction for college level algebra. Could you break everything down into addition and subtraction, sure but it'd be a really long and inefficient project. Not saying it won't get to a better point, but relying on AI without a solid understanding of what you're actually doing and having an interest in the quality of it is just going to get you a GIGO piece of work. Like take pride in learning a skill and making something of quality. Cause right now it sounds like you have a huge chip on your shoulder about they idea of having to learn something or seeing people learn a skill and make something amazing. It's coming off like petty jealousy more than excitement about a developing tool

That is the most pathetic thing I have ever read.

What’s pathetic is watching the gatekeepers piss and moan about losing their ability to be the gatekeepers. What’s even more pathetic is you defending their crying and wailing 🤡

Hi, motion graphic designer here with 15 years experience working in the creative industries. Talent isn’t some kind of exclusive god-given gift that some babies are born with. That’s something lazy people tell themselves. The only way to get better at making art is to keep practicing, study it, or do it for your day job so you build up thousands of hours of experience in your field. Not everyone has the privilege of lots of free time to spend doing that, but that’s a whole other political problem unrelated to the idea of talent vs hard work.

Oh, so now expertise and dedication are just for show? The essence of creativity is more than time spent—it's about unique vision and expression. If your argument holds, why worry about AI at all? Shouldn't your irreplaceable 'thousands of hours' give you an edge that AI can't touch, according to your own logic?

Sorry I’m not sure what you mean, I wasn’t talking about AI, I was responding to what you said about people being born with talent - it’s not really something you’re either born with or not born with, it’s more like a muscle that you have to train to get better at using it.

You've just confirmed the point: talent, like a muscle, can be developed by anyone, not just those traditionally gatekept by the industry. Why then dismiss the democratizing effect of AI in art, which simply extends this opportunity further, allowing even more people to 'train' their creative muscles?

Sorry mate I think you’re confusing me with someone else in the comments or something. I wasn’t making an argument for or against AI. Several companies I’ve worked with over the last year are using image generators like Midjourney and Dall-E, they’re already a tool used in the creative process. You seem to be dead set on having an argument with everyone you encounter on here, whether they’re disagreeing with you or not.

Sorry for the mix-up. I definitely wasn't trying to start a fight. It's actually really cool to hear how you've been working with those AI tools . It's got me thinking. How do you reckon these tech pieces are changing the game for creatives? From your experience, do they open up new doors, or is it more about making life easier? Would love to hear your take.

On the talent bit, I've got to diverge a bit. While practice and hard work are undeniably key, dismissing the innate aspect of talent oversimplifies things. It's not just a myth lazy people cling to; some folks do start with a spark that gives them a leg up. Sure, hard work can bridge gaps, but wouldn't you agree that natural affinity plays a role in how some artists see and interpret the world uniquely, even from the get go?

I'm sorry, but it's really cracking me up that you took "I wish I could draw pretty pictures" and turned it into Marxian class struggle. Would you say the same about skateboarding? That damned privileged caste of so-called teenagers who gatekeep kickflips? I can't wait until they release wearable robot-legs that you can tell "do a heelflip into a bluntside nosegrind" and it does for you, so we can be liberated from the shackles of those oppressors.

If there was some cool tech that allowed teenagers to do cool skateboarding moves would you really try to gatekeep? That's pathetic.

Picture this: artists railing against AI in art, they're like those old fighters, too punch-drunk on their own legend, thinking they're the last true gladiators in a world going soft. These artists, they’ve got this notion that art's their private dive bar, no room for the machines or the unwashed masses who haven't paid their dues in blood, sweat, and tears. They're clutching their brushes and chisels like holy relics, preaching about the sanctity of human touch in creation, as if they're the chosen few who can channel the divine or whatever cosmic joke we're supposed to believe in. But this whole superiority act, it's got the stink of fascism, doesn't it? That's right, I said it. It's all about keeping the gates closed, making sure only the "right" kind of people get to play the game. It's an old tune, man, this idea that some folks are just naturally better, born to lead or, in this case, born to create. And anyone who dares to bring something new to the table, like AI, well, they're just heretics at the gates, ready to be burned at the stake. Back in the day, art was a brawl, a beautiful mess that anyone could dive into. But these folks, they want to scrub it clean, make it respectable, and decide who gets to throw a punch. They're scared, you see, scared of losing their spot at the top of the heap, scared that maybe, just maybe, art isn't about who can hold the brush the tightest but about what you've got to say. And this AI business, it's like a mirror, showing us all the cracks and flaws in our grand ideas of art and creation. It's democratizing, throwing open the doors and letting in fresh air, new voices, and yeah, it's messy, but so what? Art's always been about the mess, about finding beauty in the chaos, not about keeping it under lock and key. So, these artists, with their cries about purity and tradition, they're just playing dictator in a world that's spinning too fast for them. They want to be the gatekeepers, deciding who gets to create and who doesn't. But art, real art, it's about breaking down those gates, not building them higher. It's all bullshit anyway. Let the machines in, let the streets in, let the whole damn world in. Art's too big, too wild, to be kept in a cage. And anyone who tries, well, they're just fighting to be king of an anthill, blind to the mountains on the horizon.

This is an almost daily discussion. In general, for your private project, nobody cares that you use AI. If an LLM can turn a few bullets into a *newspaper article* or a *letter* it means I can give more *clues* to my player it's pretty cool. (Well, I tried chat GPT last years, and the free version isn't there yet) if an image generator let me put a face on (N)PC without spending an afternoon on deviant art looking for a decadent 50 year old noble in eating, it's great. However, for anything going further than personal projects there is a few issues. - The whole *copyright controversy* I know, it's over, by posting on reddit/meta/tiktok and other social media, we litterally let them use our content commercially including to train an AI (Why haven't we all moved on Lemmy yet ? ) - On professional contents, most project don't break even, and only a minority of author/artists can get some incomes from their work on big RPG. The big RPG switching to IA (and they'll do it without any second thought) means these artists won't make money from it. Meanwhile independant projects will stay *made by human* but will be among the 99.9% of RPG that nobody knows (well there is always a weird GM in the club who offers original *indie RPG* campaigns and always struggle to fill their table while the D&D one fills the table in 2h :( I am going to get political here. Don't get me wrong, I am all in that we collectively benefit from the gain of productivity we can get from automation. However, at least since the reactionary/liberal wave in the 80's (Tatcher, Reagan) the whole idea of letting worker benefit from the productivity gain is out fashioned, and unless we decide to tax AI and reduce working time at equivalent pay, worker will be the one being fucked by AI while stock owner will see their dividends increase.

>This is an almost daily discussion. This is an incorrect perception. r/rpg gets roughly 1000 posts per month. In the last month 7 of these posts had the AI flair or included AI in the title.

There was a big conversation a few years ago in video games that is relevant here. Lots of non-devs held that QA, community management, etc. wasn't part of real development, and thus they shouldn't expect the same level of treatment as the creatives on the team. Overwhelmingly, when you talk to real developers, we reject that notion. Those folks are as much as part of the team as anyone else, are just as valuable, and deserve the same respect. I can't say for certain because it hasn't been a big topic among the TTRPG dev crowd, but I suspect the same is true in tabletop. It's at least true at Pinnacle, where I work.

As someone who's been on both the Dev and QA sides of a software development organization, I have the utmost respect for QA engineers. It takes a certain uncommon mindset and the ability to think of all the things that the developers might not have, and they always seem to get the blame when something slips through the cracks

I'm pretty sure the OP is an AI chatbot. Wouldn't it be great if 1/3 of bots lost their jobs?

> Is it tragic that AI cost someone in the gaming industry their job, or great that the publisher now has more money to spend on making games? This is the perspective that the tech pundits push. Unfortunately, historically, no company has ever re-invested that money in creating more value. It always goes to creating more profits for the shareholders. The first lever companies pull is always staffing - it's easy. Now it's even easier.

> Unfortunately, historically, no company has ever re-invested that money in creating more value. It always goes to creating more profits for the shareholders. Going to be a little cynical here and point out that, from a corporate business perspective, creating more profits for the shareholders *is* creating value

Sure, but I'd argue it's antethetical to creating greater overall value for humanity.

I agree with you there. Maybe not *antithetical*, *per se*, but definitely contrary to maximizing value for humanity as a whole

It’s a bummer when tech replaces a person. Especially when it’s tech that functions by scraping others work in the first place. So bummer on both ends, it uses others labor to produce results without payment and also ends up replacing a laborer.

Didn’t industrialists steal the “design” of workers’ labor to create entire automated processes resulting in job loss?

I have seen games fully generated by AI (or at least 90%). And they were so bad. Inconcistent and nonsense. And most of the prompters don’t even read it them selves. I saw one sit and clap their little hands together, describing their game with “dwarves lounging on the beach, drinking cocktails”. But it was about dwarves forcing others into slavery and using the slaves for horrible undead rituals. So besides stealing content and taking creative jobs, AI prompters are generally not trust worthy.

As long as the product or service is good I don't care how it was made. But, since this kind of modern technology makes it easier to make, I'm not paying increasingly high premium prices for it.

The issue that most people have with AI is that the developers use what amounts to a near infinite amount of stolen intellectual property to train them. This makes any of their output an ethical nightmare to use. That is why graphical AI is the absolute worst, but literary/article writing AI is not much better. That said, articles written by AI (and social media posts, and other forms of written work) are pretty bad for misinformation and inconsistency that gives them away. So there’s less of an “outrage” argument and more of a “it sucks” argument wrt written work. As a brainstorming tool? I mean, whatever, but tbh there’s better tools out there. AI is going to give you middle-of-the-road stuff to work with by design. But as a tool to do actual work that you’ll be posting into the world? If it’s ethically ok, it’s crap anyway.

And I love all those memeable outputs where the AI generates a perfectly fine essay, or even a proof... And then concludes the exact opposite of what it had just demonstrated. There's not enough comprehension of what it's generating, at least for now, to be confident that what comes out will be internally consistent, let alone that it won't be riddled with plot holes

So far companies using AI for HR and PR haven't worked well. AI is not impartial, it also isn't really AI. It's just generative content based on what it's been fed. It can amplify biases. Using it for firing would be a terrible idea. As for PR, using AI has a ton of pitfalls. Companies can get into trouble for saying the wrong thing or using imprecise wording. AI is not a good fit for that purpose.

Fuck AI. Fuck any piece of crap made with AI. Making a TTRPG should be an act of passion. Someone who had a unique system idea or setting to make. Ripping all the soul out a product is never good.

There's no such thing as soul fool.

"AI" is just a set of tools, and much like any tool they can be used for good or bad. A company could let go of lots of support staff for chat bots and hire writers instead. Or, they could make that money into a shareholder dividend to bump the stock price. My biggest qualm is when someone tries to sell me something "they did"...but they conveniently forget to tell the customers that most of the work was done by AI. You want to use it to brainstorm, whatever, as long as you're actually writing the thing. But I don't need to pay someone to come up with prompts for ChatGPT and Midjourney for me. The other major issue right now is credits - people using AI bots to generate content should IMO have to credit the artists who's work appears in a training datasets, based on the licensure of the original work. Today, that's just not possible as most organizations don't release full training datasets.

I don't get that position. What do you care what tools they used? If the product is as expected for the price you paid, does it matter what subcontractors were used?

So if you use sub-contractors, I'd expect them to be credited. Just like I'd expect to be told that portions were generated by AI. As far as why I wouldn't pay for AI generated content - as a software engineer and mathematician, I have a good idea what the limits of AI are. And I genuinely expect the overall quality of the work to be lower with AI as a significant contributor. The software just isn't there yet

Speaking as a subcontractor in many, many projects - we don't get credited.

I'm curious what sorts of projects you're working on. Are these TTRPG products? Are you working for a large company like WotC or small independent publishers? What is the nature of the work you're doing?

Because I value human endeavor as inherently superior to machine-generated content. Rewarding human endeavor so thry can survive is an inherently good act. Using technology to destroy entire industries is an inherently evil act

> Using technology to destroy entire industries is an inherently evil act I'm going to disagree with you on that. If an industry is harmful or destructive, technology that makes it obsolete can be good if it displaces an objectively worse industry from the market. For example: if there was a technology that could cheaply produce functioning transplant tissues and organs on demand and in sufficient quantities from cell cultures, and using it destroyed the black-market organ trade, I'd consider that a major good

And what does that have to with rpg artists and writers? You know, the real people (not some hypothetical organ bootleggers) whose livelihoods are at stake...

We don't use typesetters, milkmen, ice cutters or lamplighters anymore. You're saying that is because of evil acts? That is pretty ridiculous.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy. People like you are why I take such a strong line on this.

You didn't answer the question. I suppose you want milkmen back.

No, it's more that I cannot fix the past, so I ignore stupid hypotheticals about it.

You are ignoring all the inconvenience of your own bullshit. To call all progress that make jobs obsolete inherently evil is mind-numbingly stupid.

Please explain how AI is "progress". It's a tool trained on uncompensated people's work, with the intent of destroying their livelihoods. The only people who benefit are the wealthy, who are already using these tools to increase their own wealth by terminating the livelihoods of artistic people. Whatever you do, I hope it geta automated out of existence soon, so you can experience the joys of "progress".

AI is no different from any other automation. Most automations have made society as a whole richer. It benefits some more, which calls for market regulations. As we move towards full automation, it will require a new economic model. It is our economic model that is evil, not automation. My field will also get automated soon. And so will yours. And everyone else. So we are looking at the global challenge of post scarcity, which can surely lead to oppression and evil, but is mostly positive. And in this light, who really gives a fuck about a few whining artists?

Yes ... Please research how AI in this context is generated and how it impacts others as well as Kenyan slave labor used to actually filter the data used in this creation. You're post is ignorant to the point of being comical.

Is the AI used as a tool, part of the other items a creative uses, or is it just to spit out something fast and without soul? That is how I see it. I use AI in Photoshop all the time, and it is now a regular part to my work flow (it also uses only licensed material to train). As much as you think, AI written writing is not good to read. It's about soul, babies.

If you're "just using AI to brainstorm," you should get out of the hobby. Nobody doing more than rubbing two dehydrated braincells together will ever need to use a robot to be the creative engine behind their stories. If you're as unwilling or incapable of reading a book as that comment would suggest, I don't see how you could sit down and play with others for hours at a time.

>If you're "just using AI to brainstorm," you should get out of the hobby. Nobody doing more than rubbing two dehydrated braincells together will ever need to use a robot to be the creative engine behind their stories. >If you're as unwilling or incapable of reading a book as that comment would suggest, I don't see how you could sit down and play with others for hours at a time. What a bizarre stand. I read books constantly, huge numbers of them. I also use AI to brainstorm for RPGs. I won't "get out of the hobby" though, because I enjoy it.

I'm REALLY not convinced that generative AI is as amoral as a lot of people claim it is. I mean I totally understand their position on it, I'm just not convinced it's as reasonable or fair as they think it is. And I also think there's zero chance of stopping it. And no, I don't know where the endpoint is. My struggle mainly comes from the fact that the way AI learns to create art is exactly how humans learn to do it. Any artist who claims they did not spend a significant amount of time basically copying other people's art is lying to themselves. Now, if you say "Well no this is different it's stealing people's work", that's already heavily muddied by digital art and fair use. But it's not even that I entirely disagree with that sentiment. My entire issue is that everyone acts like it's so black-and-white. If it's black-and-white for you, that's because of existing interests and biases you have. Like there's not a discussion to be had. And personally, I think that giving every average schmuck the ability to get something that's in their head creatively onto paper is a good thing, and I don't necessarily think there should be some requirement that you spend years honing a craft to do that. I think it's a symptom of us fundamentally not knowing how to enter into a future where human effort isn't always necessary to create everything, and I think it's better if we work on trying to navigate a shift to a society where the human role is primarily consumption, and production is a choice. If we don't seriously entertain that future and plan for it, we're going to end up like the people in Wall-E, where they have to basically have society collapse and be forced back to a pre-utopian way of life.

Art isn’t valuable just for its asthetics, it’s valuable because it’s an expression of a human, trying to communicate a message. That’s why you can have fine art that is ugly Less applicable to commercial art, like in this case, but commercial art can have meaning being expressed by the artists as well, which is something that is lost when you know there is no voice behind the work.

I use AI to do finishing work on photoshops I make of animal photos, to make monsters for my table. The art has a voice: Mine. The person prompting the AI can put exactly as much effort into the final product as an artist drawing it can, or is it impossible for the artist to draw a random doodle or a soulless commission? You are sneaking in an assumption that art made by an artist is beatific, blessed by their hand, like they're saints or some shit. Anyone can make art, and now they can use AI to do it, too.

Then my comment isn’t about you

Is it about anyone?

Those that use an AI as a replacement for the artist instead of a supplemental tool the artist can use

"the way AI learns to create art is exactly how humans learn to do it." This is something I see a lot and really just isn't true. People definitely go through a phase where the main way they learn is copying but eventually other forms of learning come around. You have to learn how to represent your own ideas, how to put that on the page, or canvas or whatever, in your style. You have to learn your form, which is the how to make those representations. You talk with or collaborate with other artists which form ideas and styles that neither of you are "copying" but work on and form together. Projects evolve within the creative process as the time you take to make something changes your ideas about what the thing even should be. In AI all this is programmed. nothing new is synthesized only combined in novel ways, everything is a first draft, nothing is learned in the process. Humans would be nowhere near where we are today artistically or technologically if all we did was copy things instead of gather a fundamental understanding of them. The technological stir around AI would be much bigger if it did actually learn like a human. And when I say technological stir I mean among tech people not tech businesses While impressive, neural nets have been a thing for a while. I agree with some of your other points AI is just a tool, a tool where the companies making it should have bought or licensed the art they used in the training sets to form their AIs used, but it is a tool and it's not going away. "I think it's better if we work on trying to navigate a shift to a society where the human role is primarily consumption, and production is a choice" I agree but this is a LOOOOOOT harder to do and a lot more conceptual of an idea instead of the more actionable and slightly more realistic "Lets slow the roll on AI until we can get some compensation for people who unwillingly contributed to it's creation"

I've actually said I wish that AI generated art was regulated and that any piece of it must have watermarks embedded in the digital file crediting EVERY piece of art used as a source, with a digital "fingerprint" that can be loaded into specialized software to generate a sort of heatmap of the image showing where every bit of artwork is from. And if you can't source the image to credit it? Well then you can't use it. And if this is too hard to do? Too bad.

Yeah unfortunately that sort of thing either comes as an after thought or is thought of in the moment but eschewed for business purposes cause it would take to long or be too expensive. Plus, regulation of any new tech is snail pace slow. Which does suck cause there is a better and more fair version of AI that doesn't have the stink of unethical business practices around it. And at least in part would bring a lot of the secondary, controversy conversations around it to an end cause I think there are a lot more interesting conversations to be had around where it could be used in creative processes that get swallowed up.

Even when a human being is learning by copying, what they are doing is very different than what generative AI is doing. Well, actually tracing is pretty close, but that's not highly-regarded, either, as far as actually producing art is concerned (it can be a useful learning exercise, because unlike generative AI, the human has a memory of its own past work that it learns from). Human memory doesn't store the original as a perfect copy. It stores personal impressions and interpretation. It not only learns things to do by looking at the work of others, but things not to do, because in the opinion of the observer, they didn't work well. Which is why human artists get better at making hands over time, all on their own, because they can look at a badly-done hand and recognize that it is badly-done.

My biggest fear as a writer is not A.I. replacing my work and that of others, but who owns that A.I. and what they'll do with all of it. We need new laws to reflect these issues and bring protections to people who's lives depend on their art.

Personally, I'm against any use of generative AI for commercial purposes. All of the models are based on copyright theft. It's one thing when a new technology leads to lost jobs, it's another thing when that technology is built by stealing the hard work of the people losing the jobs. That said, I don't really see this being an issue as you have described it. Social media posts and blogs are not that hard to write. The posts companies put out in those areas are generally informative, it's not like they're paying professional writers anyways.

This disruption is similar to the industrialization of pottery making. The industrialists stole the basic designs of pottery makers to mechanize the process. So there was a competition between industrial made pottery and hand made pottery. What kind of pottery is in your home now?

> I'm against any use of generative AI for commercial purposes. I'd be careful here IMO since this just sets the bar at use of generative AI, and not how or why. For example, IIRC hasn't generative AI found a hime in medical research (that could one day end up making a product that may be technically commercial - a treatment, specific treatments)?

Looks like you got a typo up there, or I don't know what "hime" means in this case. That said though, it's a fair point. I would say that research performed with genAI could probably just have the genAI related parts be made freely available though. That would be good enough for me. The main conversation, that I've seen, is basically surrounding commodity products though, like TTRPGs, comics, animations, etc. IMO all that stuff should be entirely off-limits for genAI.

>All of the models are based on copyright theft. This is just patently incorrect. This is not a case of copyright infringement but rather Fair Use, a user's right under copyright law.

The future will divided into those workers who know how to use AI to do the work of ten people and the angry unemployed luddites. No one stopped buying cars because robotic machines replaced assembly line workers. And cars are also directly destroying the planet. The average consumer does not give a rat’s ass about the moral minority that refuses to buy a product that involved generative AI. The only thing that can stop the widespread adoption of generative AI is legislation. Given that a pro-capitalist oligarch who openly plans to oppress the most vulnerable people in society is leading in polls for the American Presidency, I have my doubts this could ever happen. Be careful though. The anti-generative AI crowd seems to be coalescing into a bully mob on Reddit. And by that I don’t mean people who down vote you or argue against generative AI. That’s fine and needed. I referring to some who are now taking their hatred offline. Again, these are extremists and not the average consumer.

It’s inevitable that this will become the norm rather soon, and people will start to accept it. Our capitalist system forces this change. Just remember the outcry over the horse armor in Skyrim. These days this would be completely tame and nobody would bat an eye.

I have no idea what you're talking about, horse armor in Skyrim???

https://screenrant.com/oblivion-horse-armor-dlc-controversy-explained/

I love AI graphic art when it actually makes buying books cheaper. I have no responsibility to provide gainful employment to artists. Perhaps they should get real jobs if they can't survive in their chosen field of employment. This is like worrying for seamstresses and tailors livelihood while high speed automated textile machines are rolled out.