Bit of a side-route, but has anyone been using Procedural Generation?

I've put serious time into Dungeon Alchemist- which IS procedural Generation and works "nicely", I could produce a usable map in about 10 minutes BUT I want to put the details in - further to what SirWaltorMelon said, it's like one of those pre-mix cakes you can get, it's down to you to finish it off, but it can be a nice way to generate an easy bulk of usable work - then re-shape it in your own image.

We're nowhere near the stage of Dungons&Dragons: Honor Amongst Thieves - not yet - but one day, we'll get to "Make a Sequel to D&DHAT and do it in the style of Quentin Tarantino, with these people in the cast".

Quote from Jokei >>

Would I play an AI-written module?  In a hearbeat.  In a heartbeat over purchasing a WOTC one.  Playing through Rime...  which is...  so badly written... 

 

 Here's a challenge worthy of the GPT: Rewrite Rime of the Frost Maiden as Rhyme of the Frost Maiden, basically the same story, but with everything in verse. That I might play =D

Thing is, that's "the beauty" of AI - you want it that way?  Why not? 
On the plus side, that genie's already out the bottle and WOTC can't claim to own it.

Following up on last May’s post.

I’m now playing in a campaign where the DM is using CHATGPT as an aide in world and module building. Now he is already a very creative DM but this speeds up the process considerably. I’ve played in several of his preCHAT campaigns and there is no obvious drop off in quality or enjoyment. I haven’t used it and probably won’t as it’s running up against copyright infringement suits. If WOTC sues for removal of all copyrighted materials used for training - AND the removal of anything developed using that material (a not unreasonable copyright infringement request). We are already seeing similar law suits from the Washington Post and NY Times. When would I consider using it? When WOTC licenses the tech (or builds its own) and places its content in its own world/encounter builder AI. Keep in mind that essentially everything in D&D is copyrighted. While it is free to use under certain circumstances making money off it (as Chat GPT does) is not free, WOTC wants their slice of that pie - that is what the use agreements are all about. Especially for folks like me, running a modified FR world, the amount of copyrighted stuff I would have to Input ( or hope has been input already) could get me in trouble for copyright violation as well. 

Totally agree. ChatGPT and LLMs in general will never be as engaging or enjoyable as a human DM in the driver seat - at least on the creative side. They’re really effective at handling the mundane copy/paste and recall tasks, though. Tools like Archivist AI (https://rpgarchivist.io) I think are headed in the right direction. Help remove distractions from the DM so they can focus more on the human stuff and make that better.

In Frank Herbert's Dune technology is used for transportation and warfare. But the mere thought of it being used to do our thinking for us is taboo. Because of the possibilities of the human mind. And how it would only impede its training. Some food for thought.

Call me old and old-school but I find the idea of using generative AI to produce content for what was at least once upon a time ago a strictly analog hobby and one that is about making use of our imaginations and getting creative an odd choice and consider a DM's dependence on it when it isn't as if we can't draw (maps, etc.) or write (worldbuilding, interesting NPCs, encounters, adventures, campaigns, etc.) ourselves to be a bit sad more than anything.

It is rewarding to put in the time and effort to build a world wholly of one's own—inspired by others in movies and books for sure but not simply harvested by AI—and have players want to play in it. Players eager to return to it week after week. A world you created all by yourself. I would not give that up for the world. Any world.

I mean, given that the computer prohibition in Dune also means instead of using them to run the incredibly complex calculations for interstellar travel, people have to depend on the incredibly addictive substance only found on one planet, and as a result control of the industry is quite cutthroat and those at the top drive hard to squeeze out as much production as possible, I wouldn't say that analogy is particularly centered on a "thinking technology is bad" aesop- you could even argue that the aesop is the inverse and that it's meant to show off that a prohibition purely based on doctrine and self interest from those who benefit from the current status quo is ultimately to the detriment of humanity's capabilities at large.

At the end of the day it's a tool; what people get out of it depends on how they use it and what they're looking for. It's kicking off a fresh batch of copyright issues, but let's not pretend this is some new and unique aspect of generative AI; the internet and particularly file sharing ringing bells for anyone? And yet somehow I doubt anyone is going to argue that cloud storage or even the internet as a whole shouldn't exist. Some people will use it and enjoy; others will use it and find it lacking; and some will reject it out of hand. And all of these are valid positions.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

I mean, given that the computer prohibition in Dune also means instead of using them to run the incredibly complex calculations for interstellar travel, people have to depend on the incredibly addictive substance only found on one planet, and as a result control of the industry is quite cutthroat and those at the top drive hard to squeeze out as much production as possible, I wouldn't say that analogy is particularly centered on a "thinking technology is bad" aesop- you could even argue that the aesop is the inverse and that it's meant to show off that a prohibition purely based on doctrine and self interest from those who benefit from the current status quo is ultimately to the detriment of humanity's capabilities at large.

At the end of the day it's a tool; what people get out of it depends on how they use it and what they're looking for. It's kicking off a fresh batch of copyright issues, but let's not pretend this is some new and unique aspect of generative AI; the internet and particularly file sharing ringing bells for anyone? And yet somehow I doubt anyone is going to argue that cloud storage or even the internet as a whole shouldn't exist. Some people will use it and enjoy; others will use it and find it lacking; and some will reject it out of hand. And all of these are valid positions.

It is more than just one or the other. Herbert was a smart enough fellow to be above and beyond allowing himself to fall for what in themselves would be doctrinaire readings of our world. Dune is obviously providing a critique of dogmatism but also one of our dependence on technology. Even spice and how its industrialization is depicted and what it does to those who employ it for navigation can be read as a critique on our dependence on technology. The more "primitive" Fremen are more sympathetically depicted than are those belonging to the Houses. If anything all of this is a perfect metaphor for how people reduce the science versus religion debate to an inadequate dichotomy in which one deserves blind faith and the other animosity. Neither is infallible. Both enrich the lives of millions. Herbert had sense enough to see the beauty in both. But also the horror.

Being a DM is rewarding.

Sometimes being a player is nice too. I've never had the opportunity to play as a player in a real campaign. AI isn't at a level where I could use it to substitute for DM...but it would be nice to sit on the other side of the table for a while.

It doesn't matter how rewarding being a DM is, there's always going to be demand for the opportunity to be a player...and it's not like AI means you can't DM when you want to.

I would concur with Nick Cave when he says ChatGPT is "replication as travesty." I have graded essays generated using ChatGPT and they were drained of any sense of true authorship and were absolute garbage. I would also concur with him when he sums up the enthusiasm we now see for it as “becoming in awe of the banal.”

I don't expect particularly younger generation players to get this. And I really don't care if they choose to use generative AI if it is going to make lives easier. But I never will. I am a writer as well as a gamer. I don't require needless assistance to produce something creative.

That:

1. Assumes that the current state of the art will always be so.

2. Doesn't actually respond in any way to what I was saying.

You want to DM without it? Fantastic. Nobody is telling you to do otherwise. People are saying it's helpful to them.

I just spend an hour or so generating AI images for a character in an upcoming campaign. I am not artistic gifted and i will not fork over 50$ or more for some artists for a character i don't know will reach level 3.

AI for generating art is becoming better and better. 

Text based AI will in a similar vein become better and better. But it, compared to art AI, can not replace the fun you with the people at the table or online. It can help as a tool, like i used the art AI as a tool. If my character reaches a good enough level or finished the character arc, i might consider a real artwork b a real artist. But, with every tool, it helps us at a base level. 

Will it hurt some creative people? yes. But that is the run of technology. We lost countless jobs through technology already, mostly in non-creative fields. This time it is the creatives that will feel the pain of progress. Yet, in time, they will find new ways to be creative that AI can not simply copy, as people have found new jobs once machines took over a lot of their old work.

I don't use ChatGPT or any AI tools. Everything I make is 100% my own. I don't need no stinking AI.

But, hey, I'm glad it's helped a lot of other DM's. Rock on, guys. As long as everyone is having a good time at your table who cares where the ideas come from.

Quote from Linklite >>

That:

1. Assumes that the current state of the art will always be so.

2. Doesn't actually respond in any way to what I was saying.

You want to DM without it? Fantastic. Nobody is telling you to do otherwise. People are saying it's helpful to them.

It assumes nothing. AI could be developed to the point where writing and art produced by either a human or AI is indistinguishable from one another. That produced by the latter will never reach a point where it has been filtered through the transcending experiences of the former. You can dream that it will. But that's a dream about as likely to come true as whatever you're playing at your table right now becoming reality.

Ask those who must give some of their time to marking or editing "work" produced by "writers" who have put little to no time of their own into producing "their writing" because they have used generative AI to produce it for them how dehumanizing it is to be expected to do so.

Why should anyone give any of their precious time to someone who only sought to save themselves time by not even bothering to do it themselves?

I would never give a moment of my time to a campaign produced by a DM who couldn't even put in their own enough to produce it themselves.