A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Thoughts on preemptively banning Gen-AI?
-
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.
-
I share the view that rpg content mostly does not need images. But I can bet it sells better and gets better reachSo... you have no concrete support except a gut feeling?
-
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 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.
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
if it drowns out everything else, it means that it's being uploaded. if it's being uploaded, then it means the community likes it. I see no issue with a preponderance of content coming from a single tool when the community is ultimately capable of moderating it just like any other content. why should I not be allowed to upvote something that I like because it came from AI, just because other people have a moral objection to it? I respect their right to object, but I don't think they should be able to force those values onto me.'Upvotes mean it's fine' is how you get /r/Funny with different CSS.
-
"AI is just a tool" is not how anyone uses AI. They treat AI like a free employee who will do the work for them. Note how people don't say it replaces a paintbrush, but that it replaces a commissioned artist. "AI is not going away" is just a lie, making it seem inevitable so you stop fighting it. Just like how bitcoin is going to revolutionise currency, and now NFTs are the future. I see complete justification in banning the garbage output from the world-burning nazi-built plagiarism machine.'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.
-
'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.
-
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.
