Who's gonna switch to 5.5, and why?

[KorvinStarmast]

As for fly in wine - I'm sure the alcohol killed whatever ick the fly was carrying anyway...

Thank goodness my wife was looking after her mother's cat last night over there. If she'd seen that fly in my wine I'd have been told, rather vigorously, to throw it out.

[goodpeople25]

Teleportation doesn't predate Tolkien?

The concept of instantaneously moving from place to place and the etymology of the term did exist but even a decade after the books were published, terms like teleportation hadn't been fully codified yet.

For instance the first Issue of X-Men has newcomer Jean Gray showing off her amazing ability of teleportation and it's not a matter of early issue weirdness.

[JackPhoenix]

Also, I really don't like the cover art for the players handbook they showed. Hopefully there are going to be alternatives. That Dwarf looks off to me.

I've seen some suggestions it may be touched-up AI art.

[Amnestic]

I've seen some suggestions it may be touched-up AI art.

This was confirmed false. The artist - Nestor Ossandón (a long time MtG artist) - confirmed with WIPs that it wasn't. No generative image tools were used.
https://twitter.com/CHofferCBus/stat...07876294062518

Evidence here.

Credit goes to Christian Hoffer who did the digging and contacted the artist to verify.

[Psyren]

I've seen some suggestions it may be touched-up AI art.

This was confirmed false. The artist - Nestor Ossandón (a long time MtG artist) - confirmed with WIPs that it wasn't. No generative image tools were used.
https://twitter.com/CHofferCBus/stat...07876294062518

Evidence here.

Credit goes to Christian Hoffer who did the digging and contacted the artist to verify.

And the poor artist felt compelled to share their WIP painting images to prove their innocence. And there are still people in that thread who are skeptical and scrutinizing every pixel.

At this point they might as well go full blown into AI if nobody is going to believe them when they don't anyway.

[Amnestic]

At this point they might as well go full blown into AI if nobody is going to believe them when they don't anyway.

No, no they shouldn't.

Yeah, it sucks they had to provide WiPs to prove it wasn't generative machine learning stuff, but the answer to skepticism at WotC using it when they objectively did so in the very recent past with Bigby's isn't "they should just use it whole hog to spite people online who ask about it".

Between the OGL debacle and the generative art used recently - which was only removed after a very public callout - WotC's credibility isn't great, and they should probably bear that in mind with upcoming releases. Their PR and marketing teams should probably be on the ball with countering such concerns, instead of it being left up to a third party journalist to dig into.

[Psyren]

No, no they shouldn't.

Yeah, it sucks they had to provide WiPs to prove it wasn't generative machine learning stuff, but the answer to skepticism at WotC using it when they objectively did so in the very recent past with Bigby's isn't "they should just use it whole hog to spite people online who ask about it".

Between the OGL debacle and the generative art used recently - which was only removed after a very public callout - WotC's credibility isn't great, and they should probably bear that in mind with upcoming releases. Their PR and marketing teams should probably be on the ball with countering such concerns, instead of it being left up to a third party journalist to dig into.

They've said they're not. They've also said they're not. And did I mention, they've said they're not? And they're still not "on the ball," apparently.

I give it a few more years before the floodgates open.

[Theodoxus]

I kinda side with Psyren on AI... Some (most? all?) people aren't going to believe WotC's PR claims of legitimate meatspace art production. It's going to end up costing WotC/Hasbro more to prove.

And really, it's no one's business beside the artist and the company as to how the art was generated and who was paid, and how much.

If an artist is too busy / swamped in commission hell and decides to utilize AI in whatever capacity, and then sells that art to a business - it shouldn't be the publics' place to try to determine - at least at a legal/punitive level. Make it a drinking game, or a subreddit... Caveat Emptor for the corporation though. If WotC is ok with using AI art - knowingly or not - who are any of us to poopoo the idea?

[Amnestic]

They've said they're not. They've also said they're not. And did I mention, they've said they're not? And they're still not "on the ball," apparently.

I give it a few more years before the floodgates open.

Yes, they said they're not, after being caught on the Bigby's things - notably without a policy prior to being caught and called out on it.

Also two of those links are literally the same announcement on December 19th, just one for D&D and one for MtG with the names of the game and the length of time swapped. That's not really that important, but yes, they're not on the ball about AI if there's public questions about the piece of promo artwork for their new PHB and it's a journo who gets the WiPs and artist statement instead of WotC themselves.

If WotC is ok with using AI art - knowingly or not - who are any of us to poopoo the idea?

I dunno probably the some of the 16000+ artists whose work was stolen to train the models could poopoo the idea.

You know, same as any profitable plagiarism should get poopoo'd?

[Psyren]

Yes, they said they're not, after being caught on the Bigby's things - notably without a policy prior to being caught and called out on it.

Which wasn't their fault. But they're still the ones being raked over the coals for it, so why bother? Clearly they're damned either way.

If "stopping public questions" is the goal, it's one they'll never reach no matter what they do.

I dunno probably the some of the 16000+ artists whose work was stolen to train the models could poopoo the idea.

You know, same as any profitable plagiarism should get poopoo'd?

By all means, poopoo away. A few more years.

[Amnestic]

Which wasn't their fault.

Counterpoint: Yes it was. A lack of a strong anti-AI position prior to it being caught (which they admit to) and not adequately checking the work before publication contributed to the situation occuring. The 'artist' caused it, but WotC's failures to catch it and take a stance prior deserve being raked over the coal for. Midjourney was initially released in mid-2022. They had over a year to take a stand. Paizo put out a public statement in March 2023. What's WotC's excuse for not following suit to one of their biggest competitors?

Clearly they're damned either way.

Yes, when a corporation fails in multiple ways, especially in a short period of time, people are going to be actively skeptical and it is up to the corporation to then earn back the lost goodwill if they want to enjoy the benefit of the doubt again. That's how it is with any business. A statement of apology has to be backed up by actual, tangible change. So far they're on the right path, but people being skeptical of them is like...yeah, no duh??

"I did a bad thing, and now people suspect I might do a bad thing again" yeah, you have to prove you won't do a bad thing and that you've changed, and that takes time. In the meantime, people will still suspect it. If your response is to go right back to doing the bad thing, then you didn't change, you were just upset you got caught.

If "stopping public questions" is the goal, it's one they'll never reach no matter what they do.

They didn't even try, so this comes across as "we did nothing and we're all out of ideas". I dunno, making a policy where WiPs need to be proactively available would be a good start.

By all means, poopoo away. A few more years.

I don't know what "a few more years" means.

[Psyren]

If goodwill among the wounded fans can be earned back, sure. If it can't, then trying is wasted effort.

I don't know what "a few more years" means.

My previous post:

I give it a few more years before the floodgates open.

[Amnestic]

If goodwill among the wounded fans can be earned back, sure. If it can't, then trying is wasted effort.

Goodwill can always be earned by corpos, even if it shouldn't be. People love brand loyalty as a general rule. You just have to make sure they don't have a reason to lose it.

My previous post:

Right, but I don't know what "Until the floodgates open" means. Is that a good thing? A bad thing?

[Psyren]

I mean that AI fantasy art isn't going anywhere. WotC is gunshy now and won't be the first to move on it (intentionally), but somebody will.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with the 2024 release. To put this subtopic to bed. I agree with you, the books coming out this year don't and won't use any.

[Amnestic]

I was gonna let this lie, I promise, but then I saw this

https://x.com/wizards_magic/status/1...820476536?s=20

A piece of promotional work for MtG's Ravnica, from the official MtG twitter account, using generative art. From two days ago. There's other examples in the comments. They say it's not using it, but an inspection of the piece shows it clearly is.

So yeah, when they say "we stand against it"...what, two weeks ago? And then keep using it? No wonder people are asking questions.

The PHB art wasn't, but clearly their apology and process doesn't mean much if it's still being used in their marketing.

[Atranen]

Which wasn't their fault. But they're still the ones being raked over the coals for it, so why bother? Clearly they're damned either way.

I think companies are responsible for the content in the books they produce.

I was gonna let this lie, I promise, but then I saw this

https://x.com/wizards_magic/status/1...820476536?s=20

A piece of promotional work for MtG's Ravnica, from the official MtG twitter account, using generative art. From two days ago. There's other examples in the comments. They say it's not using it, but an inspection of the piece shows it clearly is.

So yeah, when they say "we stand against it"...what, two weeks ago? And then keep using it? No wonder people are asking questions.

The PHB art wasn't, but clearly their apology and process doesn't mean much if it's still being used in their marketing.

I came here and thought of this as well. They've broken good faith time and time again in the past year; there is no reason to trust them.

Note that "is it ethical for a company to use AI" is an entirely separate question from "is Wizard's acting appropriately with respect to possible use of AI art". Clearly, a lot of their customer base believes it is unethical, and Wizards are not effectively addressing those concerns. That's a failure, even if we think AI art is fine.

[Kane0]

If we are talking about promises, didnt WotC say they were going to release 3rd ed SRD to creative commons too? One year after the OGL and that hasnt happened yet.

[Theodoxus]

I dunno probably the some of the 16000+ artists whose work was stolen to train the models could poopoo the idea.

You know, same as any profitable plagiarism should get poopoo'd?

Allegedly. And yes you're making my point. Are you an artist on that alleged list? If so, great, have a nut with the lawsuit. I hope you win. If you're not? well, you don't really have standing. Neither do I. Hence my entire point. This is about a corporation who needs to decide for itself. Me? I look at the art in D&D books not caring if it's a no-body, a so called famous artist who I wouldn't be able to name anyway, or AI. I care more if the halfling being represented looks halfway decent and not like it crawled out of some Stephen King novel. YMOV, but I suspect there are far more consumers of TTRPGs who don't care than there are that do.

You obviously think that's bad. In this particular instance, I'm a lot more libertarian in my outlook.

[Amnestic]

Allegedly. And yes you're making my point. Are you an artist on that alleged list? If so, great, have a nut with the lawsuit. I hope you win. If you're not? well, you don't really have standing.

I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.

[Brookshw]

I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.

/Shrug, musicians weren't replaced by the piano roll despite their outcries. AI is here to stay, if you're work was copied you have recourse, if not then you're trying to assert a non-existing right. Like every other time I'm history there has been a technology shift it's either adapt or be left behind, economical evolution so to speak. I'm pretty tired of hearing that we can't move forward because someone doesn't want deal with a more competitive market.

[Amnestic]

/Shrug, musicians weren't replaced by the piano roll despite their outcries. AI is here to stay, if you're work was copied you have recourse, if not then you're trying to assert a non-existing right. Like every other time I'm history there has been a technology shift it's either adapt or be left behind, economical evolution so to speak. I'm pretty tired of hearing that we can't move forward because someone doesn't want deal with a more competitive market.

No one is complaining about an artist who trains a model on all of their own works. But those models don't exist. All the models that exist are made off of the back of theft, from artists who gave no consent for their works to be plagiarised.

And I am astounded that people in a supposedly creative hobby like this would so eagerly cheer it on.

[Psyren]

/Shrug, musicians weren't replaced by the piano roll despite their outcries. AI is here to stay, if you're work was copied you have recourse, if not then you're trying to assert a non-existing right. Like every other time I'm history there has been a technology shift it's either adapt or be left behind, economical evolution so to speak. I'm pretty tired of hearing that we can't move forward because someone doesn't want deal with a more competitive market.

Pretty much.

I think companies are responsible for the content in the books they produce.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be held responsible. I'm saying sackcloth and ashes have a shelf life.

And I am astounded that people in a supposedly creative hobby like this would so eagerly cheer it on.

It's not "cheering" to recognize the world as it exists. Cheering and pitchforks are not the only possible reactions to any current event.

[Atranen]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be held responsible. I'm saying sackcloth and ashes have a shelf life.

Which wasn't their fault.

That's an odd way of interpreting "not their fault". Can you clarify?

[Psyren]

That's an odd way of interpreting "not their fault".

What's odd about it? I'm not seeing the inconsistency.

[Atranen]

What's odd about it? I'm not seeing the inconsistency.

Taken together, your statements say "it is not their fault, but they should be held responsible". Typically someone is not held responsible for things that aren't their fault.

How do you want to see them held responsible?

[Psyren]

Taken together, your statements say "it is not their fault, but they should be held responsible". Typically someone is not held responsible for things that aren't their fault.

How do you want to see them held responsible?

"It's not their fault" doesn't mean "they shouldn't do anything about it." Hence the AI policy and review mechanisms they established, which also serve as my answer to your question.

But "they should do something about it" also doesn't mean "their solution needs to be perfect," nor does it mean "they need to ignore this technology at all costs in perpetuity regardless of the business environment." Hence the shelf life comment.

[Brookshw]

No one is complaining about an artist who trains a model on all of their own works. But those models don't exist. All the models that exist are made off of the back of theft, from artists who gave no consent for their works to be plagiarised.

Two matters. (1) You're proposing non-existent rights, unless the AI is copying you within the scope of Copyright Laws concern, then its not stealing from you, learning from others is not the same thing as theft; (2) you're conflating a legal concept (theft, or, rather infringement) with a moral one, there's no law against plagiarism.

And I am astounded that people in a supposedly creative hobby like this would so eagerly cheer it on.

Leaving aside that recognizing AI is going to exist and be used in product development is facing reality, nothing more, but if you want to talk creativity, let's not forget this is a hobby where games are constantly made that are clones of one another and widely discussed as such, where people ran screaming for their pitchforks and torches when a company said 'ya know what, we don't really want you using our rules for free to make your own commercial products', and where major companies are just filing off the serial numbers of one another's products and marketing them as their own. "Creativity" in this hobby isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be.

[Atranen]

"It's not their fault" doesn't mean "they shouldn't do anything about it." Hence the AI policy and review mechanisms they established, which also serve as my answer to your question.

Well, there's the disconnect. When I say:

I think companies are responsible for the content in the books they produce.

I mean "it is their fault when things go wrong". If one of the authors they contracted plagiarized some text and it made it into the book, the fault is ultimately WotCs.

When I say "they should be held responsible" I don't just mean they should institute a policy--I mean that they, as the publisher who oversaw production of the book, is ultimately responsible for, and bears fault for, anything inappropriate in the book.

[Envyus]

Also, I really don't like the cover art for the players handbook they showed. Hopefully there are going to be alternatives. That Dwarf looks off to me.

It’s not the PHB cover art, it’s the cover of the Fighter section.

[2D8HP]

No one is complaining about an artist who trains a model on all of their own works. But those models don't exist. All the models that exist are made off of the back of theft, from artists who gave no consent for their works to be plagiarised.

And I am astounded that people in a supposedly creative hobby like this would so eagerly cheer it on.

Except for a very few payed DM’s, we hobbyists are amateur “creatives”, and our class interests aren’t necessarily aligned with paid professional artists.

(I’ll note now that it’s darkly humorous that the 21st century is now automating “creative” jobs away, while ditch-digging and other heavy lifting jobs remain, I wouldn’t have predicted essays and poems by robots, but those now exist).