They are already aware that one of the biggest constraint to further expansion is the # of people who want to DM (leaving aside the economic constraints fr a minute). It's logical to extrapolate that the easiest solution to that is the mechanize as many aspects of DM work as possible. This could very well be sold using a "We're doing this for our customers" angle, since there will always be a much larger percentage of people who want to "just play the game already" than people who want to DM.
Alternatively, they'd create a set of tools that make it easier for DMs to do the fun creative work that the AI can't replicate. That's the worker-augmenting change I'd like to see.
Why not both? Isn't that the most profitable?
Note that I'm not against automation per se. I just want to point out that there is a slippery slope here. The more DM functions are effectively replicated by A.I., the more superfluous human DMs become. They don't need to entirely replace human DMs either, just make it so that they can "Mechanical Turk" the system so that a human makes micro-decisions here and there for multiple live games at a time.
With respect, it is a bit silly to talk about slippery slopes… while presently engaging in one. You took their silence on AI DMs as cause to be concerned about their recent statement about AI (which focused on things that are real and not speculative).
AI is likely never going to be able to sit at the top of the table and express human emotions with its own mannerisms. It can’t look at or listen to their players and make decisions based on their emotional state, can change the game to avoid problems that seem to be brewing, and can react and adjust to their individual players’ specific interests and desires. It can’t make goofy faces at the players. It will never be able to laugh with the players when something funny happens. It will never be able to react with a joke that doesn’t feel artificial—since everyone will know any joke did not come from the heart.It will never make those human errors which make the game fun—the accidentally slipping into the wrong accent, the “Vex” “No, I’m Vax” mistakes that make people enjoy D&D. It will never be fully human—at least, not in anything close to the foreseeable future.
I expects one day, we will have an AI DM that can provide a better Mansions of Madness experience—something fun, but ultimately a bit soulless. Something that can help scratch the D&D itch, but never fully cures it.
But the idea that an AI DM might render human DMs superfluous? Even the most bullish AI advocates do not think we are anywhere close to replicating the true human element—and many experts think we never will.
But the idea that an AI DM might render human DMs superfluous? Even the most bullish AI advocates do not think we are anywhere close to replicating the true human element—and many experts think we never will.
You're only wrong here because "the most bullish AI advocates" are seriously off the rails.
But the idea that an AI DM might render human DMs superfluous? Even the most bullish AI advocates do not think we are anywhere close to replicating the true human element—and many experts think we never will.
You're only wrong here because "the most bullish AI advocates" are seriously off the rails.
The problem isn't whether or not "AI" is capable or when it will be, but rather when will it be good enough for people not to care. There are plenty of post on this site where people have used it as a DM or in character creation, it is interesting to see the number that think it does a fine job or better.
"AI" isn't gonna be the problem human laziness and "not perfect but good enough" mentality will.
I put "AI" in quotes because what people call "AI" is not even close to AI, and that is alarming in itself.
It's like chat gpt is the result of a drunken night between Google and Miss Cleo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
It's not something that can be done with the current generation of "AI" tech. Large language models are fundamentally incapable of doing it. (Also, they're hideously expensive to train, expensive to run, and the huge datasets that they need make them easy to poke into spitting out some pretty hideous stuff, which is the sort of PR nightmare that WotC has the sense to avoid.)
Much more limited stuff like running monsters in combat could be done with machine learning, but you'd need a full rule model first, which is difficult, and it will only work if groups are playing fully by the rules in expected conditions. And sometimes you don't want the monsters to be doing the optimal thing.
Ah of course, naturally the risk of having it run unregulated is scary. Enemy-AI could be interesting, especially if it can be tuned to the liking of the DM and homebrew-able. As others have pointed out, I don't see having it ease or aid the job of the DM as a bad thing. If it increases the number of players willing to DM their own campaigns and thus more people able to play, more power to it.
But the idea that an AI DM might render human DMs superfluous? Even the most bullish AI advocates do not think we are anywhere close to replicating the true human element—and many experts think we never will.
You're only wrong here because "the most bullish AI advocates" are seriously off the rails.
The problem isn't whether or not "AI" is capable or when it will be, but rather when will it be good enough for people not to care. There are plenty of post on this site where people have used it as a DM or in character creation, it is interesting to see the number that think it does a fine job or better.
"AI" isn't gonna be the problem human laziness and "not perfect but good enough" mentality will.
I put "AI" in quotes because what people call "AI" is not even close to AI, and that is alarming in itself.
It's like chat gpt is the result of a drunken night between Google and Miss Cleo.
Actually, the issue is if WotC thinks they’ll get a return to justify the cost. As been pointed out, training and running an AI is expensive, so they’d need a large buy-in to make it viable. There’s a lot of automatic pushback against AI in the creative community right now thanks to the issue of data scraping, and the fact that existing programs already seem to be accounting for the novelty factor makes it hard for them to draw interest to a more commercialized model. Not exactly auspicious conditions.
The problem isn't whether or not "AI" is capable or when it will be, but rather when will it be good enough for people not to care. There are plenty of post on this site where people have used it as a DM or in character creation, it is interesting to see the number that think it does a fine job or better.
Honestly, that's a wider conversation over how much the bar has been lowered on what's considered acceptable in pretty much every avenue of life
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Actually, the issue is if WotC thinks they’ll get a return to justify the cost. As been pointed out, training and running an AI is expensive, so they’d need a large buy-in to make it viable. There’s a lot of automatic pushback against AI in the creative community right now thanks to the issue of data scraping, and the fact that existing programs already seem to be accounting for the novelty factor makes it hard for them to draw interest to a more commercialized model. Not exactly auspicious conditions.
That push back is a good thing as far as I am concerned. This "AI" reminds me of a joke.
Cliff notes for the joke are: people challenged their god to a contest to build a human as they knew the ingredients and could do a better job. After hearing their list of ingredients and the improvements they would make the god accepted the challenge with one caveat, the humans had to make their own ingredients.
This is the issue with "AI" it makes nothing just stands on those that have made something and takes all of the credit. Which sadly is ok with many.
Not sure how the AI policy is related to Hasbro's layoffs. If you guys wanna discuss hat, I'd advice starting another thread.
”They fired a lot of people in creative, they must be replacing them with AI” is a pretty common refrain in the layoff conversation, including being made a number of times on this thread. I think the conversation here has gone a bit far beyond that—but showing one of the areas of concern regarding the layoffs is no longer much of a concern is of value.
Hard to say. DMs are the ones who buy the lion's share of D&D books and peripherals. Cut out the DM and you lose those sales.
They are - under the current paradigm. And yet, I doubt Baldur's Gate's meteoric success was built more on the backs of prospective DMs than prospective players. There is considerable demand for D&D experiences that don't need a dedicated human DM to function.
But I'm just as much in favor of augmenting human DMs with AI too.
Sure, but in the long run we're all dead, yeah? The current iteration of Chat-GPT cost over $100 million to train and has a trillion parameters floating around, and it isn't even close to viable as a DM. The cost to train something that could be viable as a DM in terms of cash and computational power would be potentially orders of magnitude more.
Yeah, why should we bother planting trees or doing reseach? It's not like we'll live to see the results. And it's not like a hobby can last for decades or anything, let's all only care about the short term!
I expects one day, we will have an AI DM that can provide a better Mansions of Madness experience—something fun, but ultimately a bit soulless. Something that can help scratch the D&D itch, but never fully cures it.
D&D doesn't have to just be one thing. There's room for traditional sitting around the table in a basement or at a convention, there's room for VTTs, there's room for solo modules that don't need a DM at all - and yes, there's room to experiment with what AI can do for this hobby, up to and including functioning as the DM for a group that doesn't have one.
D&D doesn't have to just be one thing. There's room for traditional sitting around the table in a basement or at a convention, there's room for VTTs, there's room for solo modules that don't need a DM at all - and yes, there's room to experiment with what AI can do for this hobby, up to and including functioning as the DM for a group that doesn't have one.
Hey! Why do the table games have to be in basements and at conventions? I have yet to play in either.
**this is meant as a lighthearted jab in good fun**
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Since WotC has used "AI" in products, it is an easy argument that it could have played a role in the layoffs, but a new thread may be a good idea.
As I recall it, WotC was duped by an artist who used AI in their work. Not that WotC used it directly. Which is a huge distinction. Unless you’re talking about something other that that art in Bigby’s
Since WotC has used "AI" in products, it is an easy argument that it could have played a role in the layoffs, but a new thread may be a good idea.
As I recall it, WotC was duped by an artist who used AI in their work. Not that WotC used it directly. Which is a huge distinction. Unless you’re talking about something other that that art in Bigby’s
I understand many will not feel the way I do, but they published it so they own it. Even if you do give them a pass, how is reducing staff going to help with preventing this in new books? Did WotC only fire the people that allowed that to happen?
Since WotC has used "AI" in products, it is an easy argument that it could have played a role in the layoffs, but a new thread may be a good idea.
As I recall it, WotC was duped by an artist who used AI in their work. Not that WotC used it directly. Which is a huge distinction. Unless you’re talking about something other that that art in Bigby’s
I understand many will not feel the way I do, but they published it so they own it. Even if you do give them a pass, how is reducing staff going to help with preventing this in new books?
Makes communication with and oversight of artists easier. And the distinction between deliberately green-lighting AI art and inadvertently accepting a few pieces followed by a public statement of apology when they were made aware is very relevant to describing and analyzing their policies.
I understand many will not feel the way I do, but they published it so they own it. Even if you do give them a pass, how is reducing staff going to help with preventing this in new books? Did WotC only fire the people that allowed that to happen?
I doubt AI art (whether preventing it or otherwise) was a concern of theirs with these layoffs. It's a non sequitur at best.
Since WotC has used "AI" in products, it is an easy argument that it could have played a role in the layoffs, but a new thread may be a good idea.
As I recall it, WotC was duped by an artist who used AI in their work. Not that WotC used it directly. Which is a huge distinction. Unless you’re talking about something other that that art in Bigby’s
I understand many will not feel the way I do, but they published it so they own it. Even if you do give them a pass, how is reducing staff going to help with preventing this in new books?
Makes communication with and oversight of artists easier. And the distinction between deliberately green-lighting AI art and inadvertently accepting a few pieces followed by a public statement of apology when they were made aware is very relevant to describing and analyzing their policies.
We do not know how deliberate it was or wasn't (and likely never will), but we do know that it to happened on their watch. I see it as they(upper management) are the captain of the ship, and when that ship is runs aground they are still responsible even if they were asleep in their quarters. Regardless if 50 other people made mistakes that lead to the grounding while the captain was asleep. Couple that with all of the other "groundings" the SS WotC has had over the last 18 months, and I am not having the deck hand, that somehow made it to the bridge and spun the wheel, walk the plank. Their ship their crew, their responsibility, their court-martial.
Some see it as an honest mistake, others as a pattern of mistakes that continue.
Technically speaking, they don't own it. Since AI is currently still legally not something that can be copyrighted, since it has only happened a single time (once), and the most recent accusation of such came from youtube people who have a hate on for WotC and *were categorically wrong* (but the mill spread the fake news of the trased PHB cover being AI generated and so they had to release an update), since they replaced the image in published content with one from an artist that did not use AI in creating their work (and they use external artists, not in house), saying they own it is likely meant to mean that they did it, so tough.
One time, and they weren't aware of the outside artist who created the piece using AI to help their work speed.
Thankfully, the folks who started the most recent little flare up have apologized, and one of them even noted that it happened because he was biased about Wotc (negatively). I mean, yeah, I'd apologize too, given he could be sued over it, but the issue isn't that he apologized or that he's at risk.
But he did it with a goal of making WotC look bad. And succeeded -- and no apology is going to be enough to make that go away.
If only this were as simple as "you kill one goblin, and suddenly you are a goblin killer for life!"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
They own their actions, and this is hardly the first goblin they have killed. I agree if you look at any of the fumbles of the last 18 months individually an argument could be made that it isn't anything huge, but taken together it points to poor management.
D&D doesn't have to just be one thing. There's room for traditional sitting around the table in a basement or at a convention, there's room for VTTs, there's room for solo modules that don't need a DM at all - and yes, there's room to experiment with what AI can do for this hobby, up to and including functioning as the DM for a group that doesn't have one.
Hey! Why do the table games have to be in basements and at conventions? I have yet to play in either.
**this is meant as a lighthearted jab in good fun**
Because that is where my ideal game room is set up :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With respect, it is a bit silly to talk about slippery slopes… while presently engaging in one. You took their silence on AI DMs as cause to be concerned about their recent statement about AI (which focused on things that are real and not speculative).
AI is likely never going to be able to sit at the top of the table and express human emotions with its own mannerisms. It can’t look at or listen to their players and make decisions based on their emotional state, can change the game to avoid problems that seem to be brewing, and can react and adjust to their individual players’ specific interests and desires. It can’t make goofy faces at the players. It will never be able to laugh with the players when something funny happens. It will never be able to react with a joke that doesn’t feel artificial—since everyone will know any joke did not come from the heart.It will never make those human errors which make the game fun—the accidentally slipping into the wrong accent, the “Vex” “No, I’m Vax” mistakes that make people enjoy D&D. It will never be fully human—at least, not in anything close to the foreseeable future.
I expects one day, we will have an AI DM that can provide a better Mansions of Madness experience—something fun, but ultimately a bit soulless. Something that can help scratch the D&D itch, but never fully cures it.
But the idea that an AI DM might render human DMs superfluous? Even the most bullish AI advocates do not think we are anywhere close to replicating the true human element—and many experts think we never will.
You're only wrong here because "the most bullish AI advocates" are seriously off the rails.
The problem isn't whether or not "AI" is capable or when it will be, but rather when will it be good enough for people not to care. There are plenty of post on this site where people have used it as a DM or in character creation, it is interesting to see the number that think it does a fine job or better.
"AI" isn't gonna be the problem human laziness and "not perfect but good enough" mentality will.
I put "AI" in quotes because what people call "AI" is not even close to AI, and that is alarming in itself.
It's like chat gpt is the result of a drunken night between Google and Miss Cleo.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Ah of course, naturally the risk of having it run unregulated is scary. Enemy-AI could be interesting, especially if it can be tuned to the liking of the DM and homebrew-able. As others have pointed out, I don't see having it ease or aid the job of the DM as a bad thing. If it increases the number of players willing to DM their own campaigns and thus more people able to play, more power to it.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].Actually, the issue is if WotC thinks they’ll get a return to justify the cost. As been pointed out, training and running an AI is expensive, so they’d need a large buy-in to make it viable. There’s a lot of automatic pushback against AI in the creative community right now thanks to the issue of data scraping, and the fact that existing programs already seem to be accounting for the novelty factor makes it hard for them to draw interest to a more commercialized model. Not exactly auspicious conditions.
Honestly, that's a wider conversation over how much the bar has been lowered on what's considered acceptable in pretty much every avenue of life
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That push back is a good thing as far as I am concerned. This "AI" reminds me of a joke.
Cliff notes for the joke are: people challenged their god to a contest to build a human as they knew the ingredients and could do a better job. After hearing their list of ingredients and the improvements they would make the god accepted the challenge with one caveat, the humans had to make their own ingredients.
This is the issue with "AI" it makes nothing just stands on those that have made something and takes all of the credit. Which sadly is ok with many.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Not sure how the AI policy is related to Hasbro's layoffs. If you guys wanna discuss hat, I'd advice starting another thread.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.”They fired a lot of people in creative, they must be replacing them with AI” is a pretty common refrain in the layoff conversation, including being made a number of times on this thread. I think the conversation here has gone a bit far beyond that—but showing one of the areas of concern regarding the layoffs is no longer much of a concern is of value.
Since WotC has used "AI" in products, it is an easy argument that it could have played a role in the layoffs, but a new thread may be a good idea.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
They are - under the current paradigm. And yet, I doubt Baldur's Gate's meteoric success was built more on the backs of prospective DMs than prospective players. There is considerable demand for D&D experiences that don't need a dedicated human DM to function.
But I'm just as much in favor of augmenting human DMs with AI too.
Yeah, why should we bother planting trees or doing reseach? It's not like we'll live to see the results. And it's not like a hobby can last for decades or anything, let's all only care about the short term!
D&D doesn't have to just be one thing. There's room for traditional sitting around the table in a basement or at a convention, there's room for VTTs, there's room for solo modules that don't need a DM at all - and yes, there's room to experiment with what AI can do for this hobby, up to and including functioning as the DM for a group that doesn't have one.
Hey! Why do the table games have to be in basements and at conventions? I have yet to play in either.
**this is meant as a lighthearted jab in good fun**
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
As I recall it, WotC was duped by an artist who used AI in their work. Not that WotC used it directly. Which is a huge distinction. Unless you’re talking about something other that that art in Bigby’s
I understand many will not feel the way I do, but they published it so they own it. Even if you do give them a pass, how is reducing staff going to help with preventing this in new books? Did WotC only fire the people that allowed that to happen?
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Makes communication with and oversight of artists easier. And the distinction between deliberately green-lighting AI art and inadvertently accepting a few pieces followed by a public statement of apology when they were made aware is very relevant to describing and analyzing their policies.
I doubt AI art (whether preventing it or otherwise) was a concern of theirs with these layoffs. It's a non sequitur at best.
We do not know how deliberate it was or wasn't (and likely never will), but we do know that it to happened on their watch. I see it as they(upper management) are the captain of the ship, and when that ship is runs aground they are still responsible even if they were asleep in their quarters. Regardless if 50 other people made mistakes that lead to the grounding while the captain was asleep. Couple that with all of the other "groundings" the SS WotC has had over the last 18 months, and I am not having the deck hand, that somehow made it to the bridge and spun the wheel, walk the plank. Their ship their crew, their responsibility, their court-martial.
Some see it as an honest mistake, others as a pattern of mistakes that continue.
Accountability is part of being in charge.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Technically speaking, they don't own it. Since AI is currently still legally not something that can be copyrighted, since it has only happened a single time (once), and the most recent accusation of such came from youtube people who have a hate on for WotC and *were categorically wrong* (but the mill spread the fake news of the trased PHB cover being AI generated and so they had to release an update), since they replaced the image in published content with one from an artist that did not use AI in creating their work (and they use external artists, not in house), saying they own it is likely meant to mean that they did it, so tough.
One time, and they weren't aware of the outside artist who created the piece using AI to help their work speed.
Thankfully, the folks who started the most recent little flare up have apologized, and one of them even noted that it happened because he was biased about Wotc (negatively). I mean, yeah, I'd apologize too, given he could be sued over it, but the issue isn't that he apologized or that he's at risk.
But he did it with a goal of making WotC look bad. And succeeded -- and no apology is going to be enough to make that go away.
If only this were as simple as "you kill one goblin, and suddenly you are a goblin killer for life!"
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
They own their actions, and this is hardly the first goblin they have killed. I agree if you look at any of the fumbles of the last 18 months individually an argument could be made that it isn't anything huge, but taken together it points to poor management.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Because that is where my ideal game room is set up :P