Honestly I don’t understand how it can be unethical use if it’s referencing millions of different data points, anymore than an artist is unethical for studying famous works of a style they want to use or an author is unethical for looking at how other authors write certain scenes. The vast majority of art is built on what came before, this is just the next technological extension of that. Obviously if you exclusively train it on a single artist it’ll just imitate them, but once you’ve got several dozen in the mix can it really be said to be taking enough from any single one to be stealing?
Its not the fact of the AI sampling enough to qualify as a copy write infringement. Its from the other end. Did the AI creator have the copywrite to sample that content?
Just because something in in the library for you to read for free the library was given permission to loan out that material. You were not given permission to use it an AI program.
So asking the Ai to write you a short story in the style of lets say H.P.Lovecraft, would not be possible because the AI does not have permission to sample or read his stories.
Actually Hasbro would be the only legal entity that could use the official D&D material to create an AI using it.
I do not think AI is included in any open source agreements.
And if they do come to an agreement about some third party Ai program I bet they demand a payment every single time the Ai is used. Just think of all the times someone uses the free content of D&DB. Imagine if D&DB had to pay someone for every single use. Ever single page reference.
Honestly I don’t understand how it can be unethical use if it’s referencing millions of different data points, anymore than an artist is unethical for studying famous works of a style they want to use or an author is unethical for looking at how other authors write certain scenes. The vast majority of art is built on what came before, this is just the next technological extension of that. Obviously if you exclusively train it on a single artist it’ll just imitate them, but once you’ve got several dozen in the mix can it really be said to be taking enough from any single one to be stealing?
Its not the fact of the AI sampling enough to qualify as a copy write infringement. Its from the other end. Did the AI creator have the copywrite to sample that content?
Just because something in in the library for you to read for free the library was given permission to loan out that material. You were not given permission to use it an AI program.
So asking the Ai to write you a short story in the style of lets say H.P.Lovecraft, would not be possible because the AI does not have permission to sample or read his stories.
Well, in point of fact Lovecraft’s works are in the public domain. And I do take your underlying point, but as I previously pointed out the actual practical application of copyrights and fair use, even for transactional circumstances, has a distinct grey area if only by precedent. Again, it’s not that there’s no cause for regulation, but the reality is that sampling from someone else for your own work that you then make money off of is something that does happen on a relatively wide scale. Obviously there’s significant differences if this starts coming into play at the corporate level, but in important ways the difference between what happens with AI and what’s been happening on various art sites for years and years is just a compression of time.
How much sampling does it take to trigger a court settlement?
There is no defined threshold, it's just an element in the four factor test for fair use. Hashing out what all of that means for generative AI is pretty much guaranteed to produce some interesting lawsuits.
AI means different things to different people. That's a big problem when trying to discuss things that use that phrase.
Models. Algorithms. Deep learning. Neural network. Training data. Generative. Predictive. Etc.: There are specific technical definitions, and there are the definitions assumed by people who want to discuss a technology either they don't understand, they fear, or they hope to exploit without any care how accurate their assumptions are.
As for ethics, I have a rule-of-thumb:
If you think you can get the permission from artists, writers, or performers to have algorithms use their works to generate something they didn't create even for distributing freely, then get permission.
If you don't think you can get permission for it, then be respectful of the artists', writers', and performers' wishes don't use their works to generate something they didn't create even for distributing freely.
Just because someone thinks someone else should be okay with it doesn't immediately make it okay with that other person.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
How much sampling does it take to trigger a court settlement? Ai has to be held below that threshold other wise the programmers need permission.
Just like when a paper is written and published, all references must be listed and included, otherwise its called plagiarism.
So as long as a court won't hear the case it is ethical to steal?
No
A case is filled under specific clauses and reason. If the judge refuses to try the case it could and normally means that it was filed under the wrong reasons. Or just cited the wrong cases and legal rulings. It does not in any way mean something is legal to do.
How much sampling does it take to trigger a court settlement?
There is no defined threshold, it's just an element in the four factor test for fair use. Hashing out what all of that means for generative AI is pretty much guaranteed to produce some interesting lawsuits.
The first case will set the tone for the rest of the industry. And Hasbro has millions to defend its IP.
What if Ai was being used to create music? These cases would already be in court.
What if Ai was being used to create music? These cases would already be in court.
TRIVIA: It already has been done a few years ago, but it was done with Over the Bridge getting permission from estates and publisher rights of deceased performers. Google's Magenta was a major factor in generating the content... again, with permission.
Checking up on the info, I just discovered that, almost a decade ago, Benoit Carré and François Pachet used something called Flow Machines as part of a research project in generating music in the style of the Beatles. The result is something called Daddy's Car (can be found on SONY CSL Paris' YT channel). ...again, done with Sony's permission (as they own much of the Beatles' works).
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
A fair bit on AI but not really that much. If Cox really wants to make money he should look at ways where a DM can use AI to run a campaign. Imagine how much time you could save for the DM to handle the rolls, narration and adventure set up. I mean the DM could sit back and let the game go and not even have to be there the whole time. Even players could save time and have AI make their choices and not even be present. I mean we could unleash so much creativity and save so much time with AI. Dead Internet theory has nothing on this.
We’ve had well over 35+ years for someone somewhere to have developed an AI to run D&D as a GM/DM but I don’t see one anywhere near capable as a human.
And IMO it will be a long time till anything made can come close.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
We’ve had well over 35+ years for someone somewhere to have developed an AI to run D&D as a GM/DM but I don’t see one anywhere near capable as a human.
And IMO it will be a long time till anything made can come close.
An AI running a simple dungeon crawl is probably possible in the near future, if not already. That is just a matter of laying out rooms, populating it with traps, monsters, and puzzles, then being able to react to changing targeting parameters and such. We already have video games that do that - AI would just be able to expand on that with better reactions to player decisions.
I also expect we are pretty close to an AI which run fairly basic campaigns. There certainly is a market for that, both at the one-shot length (Mansions of Madness) and even the longer-form campaign length (Gloomhaven). While we are nowhere close to an AI which can replace a human DM entirely, an AI probably could create a Gloomhaven-like experience - something which is a pale facsimile of D&D, but still finds success.
So, Cocks claimed that they'd be able to do it with their own IP since they have so much of it and to be honest, they'd have to anyway - the point of the DM is to play D&D, they don't want you to start roaming around Mos Eisley.
Why is that unethical? That's without the debate of why me looking at a picture and copying the style is fine, but an AI doing similar (remember, WotC caught flak because an artist used AI to do touch ups, not to create the artwork in the first place), but why is it inherently unethical?
As for environmental concerns, it would be interesting to see actual numbers involved, specifically how much it would increase things like water consumption compared to what we're using now by using DDB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I believe the thinking goes any AI toolkits WotC would have access to are considered unethical because all existing AI tools were trained unethically. Not what the AI "knows" or can search out in terms of content but what it "knows" about in terms of how to search out a response, the to be really rough with analogies, the AI's operating system is derived through unethical development. To use another discipline's analogy, the ability for an AI to process even WotC's "pure" data is itself the fruit of a poisonous tree and is thus unethical.
To get out of this conundrum WotC would have to basically develop its own AI tools from scratch before it even teaches the AI WotC content, and Hasbro does not have that sort of cash laying round (which is why it's leaning into AI for content in the first place, no executive gives a flying fig about liberating creativity or whatever blather you see on Twitter, this "revolution" is about the elimination of the cost of labor, but that goes into broader systems of ethics outside the scope of your inquiry).
The environmental concerns are the same as any large scale data center/"bitcoin" mining operation. Which are substantial to say the least.
Unlike bitcoin however, AI has worthwhile applications beyond being a vehicle for speculation or money laundering; its environmental footprint isn't the result of banks of processors competing to solve redundant math problems purely to generate more of itself. That includes its use to support fields where leisure and artistic pursuits (yes, artistic) intersect, such as D&D.
AI has no creativity. Sorry if I’m insulting anyone here, but I’m a fledgling writer and DM. AI covers both of those, and I feel a bit threatened. If we have AI make all our entertainment for us, it’ll be a very bleak future. And DnD and reading affect who we become in our later years. If that’s affected by machines… I can’t imagine what might happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I’m being annoying, tell me to shut up. Seriously. Just say “Bananer shut up.” And I will. For a few seconds!
Don’t listen to the folks down at Adohands. It’s good for me to overwork myself.
Professional idiot! Trans! Pansexual pancake! I am a minor so you will do none of that (GP) with me! I use He/They pronouns :3
I can see an AI DM down the line. Unless a lot more human DMs arrive on the scene suddenly, and I don't see that happening any time soon. They have made playing more fun than DMing, or it always was. It might take some work and trail runs to get all the bugs out but it could be a thing one day.
Honestly, I don’t see AI DMs really being a thing until we get a massive paradigm shift in how AI function. An AI cannot actually think critically and consider “does this make sense” or “how do I adapt to this unforeseen situation or interaction”? It just stitches together a response that an algorithm determines to be most likely to be positively received. If you look over some examples of AI generated character backstories, you can typically pick out numerous inconsistencies or contradictions. It’s a useful tool, but it’s about as ready to stand in for a DM as cruise control is to stand in for a driver.
Beyond that, the AI can't
Consider what is best for the campaign
Consider and respond to the different playstyles, needs or goals of players
Work with a player on a good side plot
Like... The whole point of D&D in the modern age is collective storytelling and human interaction. An AI simply can't do that.
If you actually read the interview, at no point does Cocks say that he expects AI DMs to be a thing. There are only two real statements about likely use of AI, and they both are around tools.
In talking about what Wizards can do
We can build tools that aid in content creation for users or create really interesting gamified scenarios around them.
The first is obviously things like AI image generators. The second is unclear, but "gamified scenarios" probably means things that work conveniently as games, which I suspect means map/scenario generation (produce a map, throw some monsters on the map, maybe also traps, etc) as combat is the most gamist component of D&D.
The other is talking about personal experience using AI
That’s going to be the mindset that you have to remember as you evolve for the brave new world of tools that we have coming out. I use AI in building out my D&D campaigns. I play D&D three or four times a month with my friends. I’m horrible at art. I don’t commercialize anything I do. It doesn’t have anything to do with work. But what I’m able to accomplish with the Bing image creator, or talking to ChatGPT, it really delights my middle-aged friends when I do a Roll20 campaign or a D&D Beyond campaign and I put some PowerPoints together on a TV and call it an interactive map.
which is, again, using AI to fill in gaps, not be the DM.
Now, this doesn't mean that there isn't potential for problems there, but its valuable to try to criticize what people are actually saying, not what you imagine them saying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Its not the fact of the AI sampling enough to qualify as a copy write infringement. Its from the other end. Did the AI creator have the copywrite to sample that content?
Just because something in in the library for you to read for free the library was given permission to loan out that material. You were not given permission to use it an AI program.
So asking the Ai to write you a short story in the style of lets say H.P.Lovecraft, would not be possible because the AI does not have permission to sample or read his stories.
Actually Hasbro would be the only legal entity that could use the official D&D material to create an AI using it.
I do not think AI is included in any open source agreements.
And if they do come to an agreement about some third party Ai program I bet they demand a payment every single time the Ai is used. Just think of all the times someone uses the free content of D&DB. Imagine if D&DB had to pay someone for every single use. Ever single page reference.
Well, in point of fact Lovecraft’s works are in the public domain. And I do take your underlying point, but as I previously pointed out the actual practical application of copyrights and fair use, even for transactional circumstances, has a distinct grey area if only by precedent. Again, it’s not that there’s no cause for regulation, but the reality is that sampling from someone else for your own work that you then make money off of is something that does happen on a relatively wide scale. Obviously there’s significant differences if this starts coming into play at the corporate level, but in important ways the difference between what happens with AI and what’s been happening on various art sites for years and years is just a compression of time.
Think of it like music copy writing.
How much sampling does it take to trigger a court settlement?
Ai has to be held below that threshold other wise the programmers need permission.
Just like when a paper is written and published, all references must be listed and included, otherwise its called plagiarism.
There is no defined threshold, it's just an element in the four factor test for fair use. Hashing out what all of that means for generative AI is pretty much guaranteed to produce some interesting lawsuits.
AI means different things to different people. That's a big problem when trying to discuss things that use that phrase.
Models. Algorithms. Deep learning. Neural network. Training data. Generative. Predictive. Etc.: There are specific technical definitions, and there are the definitions assumed by people who want to discuss a technology either they don't understand, they fear, or they hope to exploit without any care how accurate their assumptions are.
As for ethics, I have a rule-of-thumb:
Just because someone thinks someone else should be okay with it doesn't immediately make it okay with that other person.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
No
A case is filled under specific clauses and reason. If the judge refuses to try the case it could and normally means that it was filed under the wrong reasons. Or just cited the wrong cases and legal rulings.
It does not in any way mean something is legal to do.
The first case will set the tone for the rest of the industry. And Hasbro has millions to defend its IP.
What if Ai was being used to create music? These cases would already be in court.
Hasbro (and RPGs in general) are a bit player in this whole dispute; it's going to be artists and publishers against big tech.
Universal Music Group sued Anthropic last October. Case is ongoing.
TRIVIA: It already has been done a few years ago, but it was done with Over the Bridge getting permission from estates and publisher rights of deceased performers. Google's Magenta was a major factor in generating the content... again, with permission.
Checking up on the info, I just discovered that, almost a decade ago, Benoit Carré and François Pachet used something called Flow Machines as part of a research project in generating music in the style of the Beatles. The result is something called Daddy's Car (can be found on SONY CSL Paris' YT channel). ...again, done with Sony's permission (as they own much of the Beatles' works).
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
https://venturebeat.com/games/how-hasbro-is-jumping-on-the-game-opportunity-chris-cocks-interview/
A fair bit on AI but not really that much. If Cox really wants to make money he should look at ways where a DM can use AI to run a campaign. Imagine how much time you could save for the DM to handle the rolls, narration and adventure set up. I mean the DM could sit back and let the game go and not even have to be there the whole time. Even players could save time and have AI make their choices and not even be present. I mean we could unleash so much creativity and save so much time with AI. Dead Internet theory has nothing on this.
We’ve had well over 35+ years for someone somewhere to have developed an AI to run D&D as a GM/DM but I don’t see one anywhere near capable as a human.
And IMO it will be a long time till anything made can come close.
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
An AI running a simple dungeon crawl is probably possible in the near future, if not already. That is just a matter of laying out rooms, populating it with traps, monsters, and puzzles, then being able to react to changing targeting parameters and such. We already have video games that do that - AI would just be able to expand on that with better reactions to player decisions.
I also expect we are pretty close to an AI which run fairly basic campaigns. There certainly is a market for that, both at the one-shot length (Mansions of Madness) and even the longer-form campaign length (Gloomhaven). While we are nowhere close to an AI which can replace a human DM entirely, an AI probably could create a Gloomhaven-like experience - something which is a pale facsimile of D&D, but still finds success.
Rogue first came out in 1980.
So, Cocks claimed that they'd be able to do it with their own IP since they have so much of it and to be honest, they'd have to anyway - the point of the DM is to play D&D, they don't want you to start roaming around Mos Eisley.
Why is that unethical? That's without the debate of why me looking at a picture and copying the style is fine, but an AI doing similar (remember, WotC caught flak because an artist used AI to do touch ups, not to create the artwork in the first place), but why is it inherently unethical?
As for environmental concerns, it would be interesting to see actual numbers involved, specifically how much it would increase things like water consumption compared to what we're using now by using DDB.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I believe the thinking goes any AI toolkits WotC would have access to are considered unethical because all existing AI tools were trained unethically. Not what the AI "knows" or can search out in terms of content but what it "knows" about in terms of how to search out a response, the to be really rough with analogies, the AI's operating system is derived through unethical development. To use another discipline's analogy, the ability for an AI to process even WotC's "pure" data is itself the fruit of a poisonous tree and is thus unethical.
To get out of this conundrum WotC would have to basically develop its own AI tools from scratch before it even teaches the AI WotC content, and Hasbro does not have that sort of cash laying round (which is why it's leaning into AI for content in the first place, no executive gives a flying fig about liberating creativity or whatever blather you see on Twitter, this "revolution" is about the elimination of the cost of labor, but that goes into broader systems of ethics outside the scope of your inquiry).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Hasbro is very, very small potatoes in this particular conflict.
Unlike bitcoin however, AI has worthwhile applications beyond being a vehicle for speculation or money laundering; its environmental footprint isn't the result of banks of processors competing to solve redundant math problems purely to generate more of itself. That includes its use to support fields where leisure and artistic pursuits (yes, artistic) intersect, such as D&D.
AI has no creativity. Sorry if I’m insulting anyone here, but I’m a fledgling writer and DM. AI covers both of those, and I feel a bit threatened. If we have AI make all our entertainment for us, it’ll be a very bleak future. And DnD and reading affect who we become in our later years. If that’s affected by machines… I can’t imagine what might happen.
If I’m being annoying, tell me to shut up. Seriously. Just say “Bananer shut up.” And I will. For a few seconds!
Don’t listen to the folks down at Adohands. It’s good for me to overwork myself.
Professional idiot! Trans! Pansexual pancake! I am a minor so you will do none of that (GP) with me! I use He/They pronouns :3
Extended Signature!
Beyond that, the AI can't
Like... The whole point of D&D in the modern age is collective storytelling and human interaction. An AI simply can't do that.
If you actually read the interview, at no point does Cocks say that he expects AI DMs to be a thing. There are only two real statements about likely use of AI, and they both are around tools.
In talking about what Wizards can do
The first is obviously things like AI image generators. The second is unclear, but "gamified scenarios" probably means things that work conveniently as games, which I suspect means map/scenario generation (produce a map, throw some monsters on the map, maybe also traps, etc) as combat is the most gamist component of D&D.
The other is talking about personal experience using AI
which is, again, using AI to fill in gaps, not be the DM.
Now, this doesn't mean that there isn't potential for problems there, but its valuable to try to criticize what people are actually saying, not what you imagine them saying.