Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
No, it's replacing the screenwriter. And the director. And the cinematographer. And the composer. And the actors. And all the other artists who collaboratively create a movie
Do the tools you use to write with do all the actual work for you? Does your pen come up with your dialogue? Does your keyboard do your world building?
This is 100 percent that. Where do you think AI is coming up with the footage that will make up this "movie"? It's ripping off the work of actual artists and creators
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
These stories were never going to get funding to get a movie created...so there were never any screenwriter's, directors, cinematographers, composers, or actors that were ever going to get paid for this. So only the rich that can afford millions in production costs deserve to see their work on screen?
Are you trying to say that not having the money to pay people to create art gives you the right to steal their art instead?
pronouns: he/she/they
Steal whose art?? What are you even talking about? The author's own the rights to their work...using AI to bring their own work to life is not stealing from anybody.
The AI did not learn screenwriting from the author.
I'm not arguing about where AI does or does not 'learn' things. My argument is simple. Me, for example. I am a published author. My book isn't good. It will never see 'the light of day' on a screen. It sounds like if I were to use AI to create my book visually that I am committing some moral sin against all these people that are never going to get work from me in anyway because I can't foot that bill...and yet i'm stealing from them somehow for work they didn't do and were never going to do? I feel like people are conflating my argument with a general pro-AI-in-art stance...which is not my argument at all.
I think, perhaps, you do not fully understand how LLM tools work.
We're not talking about the rights of the authors who use the tool. We're not talking about the rights of hypothetical people. We're talking about the rights of the people who created all the art that the LLM tool was trained on. These artists and writers have generally not consented to this or been compensated for their work when it's used in this manner; this is why we're referring to it as stealing.
pronouns: he/she/they
Just to make it very, very clear whose art is being stolen:
1. The directors of the films that the LLM was trained on. Direction is an artistic style, and all their choices--camera angles, transitions, lighting, how to frame a shot, all the countless elements that go into actually transitioning a vision to film is an artistic expression.
2. The actors. Even if the tool uses AI "actors" and not the actual images of real people, it still has to train on the voices, mannerisms, and delivery of other films. It steals those artistic expressions and synthesizes something "new" out of the stolen data.
3. The musicians. Presumably these products will add background music - likewise dredged from stolen data and recombined out of those stolen scraps.
4. The costume designers, same reason.
5. The special effects supervisors.
On can go on and on and list any given position that contributes to the end product of a film. Basically LLMs work by "watching" countless films, stealing the parts that are relevant to the AI prompt, and then regurgitate a Frankenstein of a creation from those stolen parts. Every single aspect of a film is an artistic style - and thus every synthesized part is tainted by the way AI's steal content to train.
As I already expressed in my first post on this thread, I am sympathetic to RA Salvatore and other authors. I can see why they would see such a tool might be a godsend for getting their vision out there into the real world. But the unfortunate reality is that, in trying to bring their vision to life, they are trampling on the rights of other artists. Particularly for older generations - or people not familiar with how AI actually works - it is very easy to only see the benefits and not see the corpses of other artists trampled upon to build the underlying models.