Who's gonna switch to 5.5, and why?

[Psyren]

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



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.

I agree they should do something about it, since their policy says they will. But they can't go back in time and stop an artist from lying to them when they submit art they've made with the help of AI.

[Atranen]

I agree they should do something about it, since their policy says they will. But they can't go back in time and stop an artist from lying to them when they submit art they've made with the help of AI.

This is, once again, a misstatement of my point. I am not asking them to go back and time and stop them. I am saying that the responsibility, the fault, ultimately lies with the people who commissioned the work. No more, no less.

Edit: Following up on the AI claim, Wizards has now confirmed that they both 1) used a marketing image that was constructed via AI and 2) incorrectly denied that any AI was used.

Perhaps we can be sympathetic that these things are hard to vet, or that it isn't such a bad thing for them to do. But they have done it on several occasions while assuring the fans that they are not doing it. That's sufficient to be upset with them, imo.

[Psyren]

This is, once again, a misstatement of my point. I am not asking them to go back and time and stop them. I am saying that the responsibility, the fault, ultimately lies with the people who commissioned the work. No more, no less.

Edit: Following up on the AI claim, Wizards has now confirmed that they both 1) used a marketing image that was constructed via AI and 2) incorrectly denied that any AI was used.

Perhaps we can be sympathetic that these things are hard to vet, or that it isn't such a bad thing for them to do. But they have done it on several occasions while assuring the fans that they are not doing it. That's sufficient to be upset with them, imo.

So what are you asking them to do then, when a contracted artist lies to them? Clearly the policy, apologies, and retractions aren't enough. Self-flagellation maybe? Immolation? Seppuku?

Furthermore, (a) this was for a marketing image, not card or book art, so different review channels, and (b) per your own link, the AI elements came from the tools the artist was using (like Adobe Photoshop). Which raises another fun question for those who revile AI, what happens when every digital art creation tool starts slipping it in? Do we go back to pigments and charcoal? Crayons maybe?

[Atranen]

So what are you asking them to do then, when a contracted artist lies to them? Clearly the policy, apologies, and retractions aren't enough. Self-flagellation maybe? Immolation? Seppuku?

Furthermore, (a) this was for a marketing image, not card or book art, so different review channels, and (b) per your own link, the AI elements came from the tools the artist was using (like Adobe Photoshop). Which raises another fun question for those who revile AI, what happens when every digital art creation tool starts slipping it in? Do we go back to pigments and charcoal? Crayons maybe?

I think people should say it is their fault, rather than that it is not their fault.

[Psyren]

I think people should say it is their fault, rather than that it is not their fault.

It's their fault for being lied to by their vendors, and/or for not having control over the tools their vendors use? You might get some people to say that, but I won't be one of them.

[Amnestic]

It's their fault for being lied to by their vendors, and/or for not having control over the tools their vendors use? You might get some people to say that, but I won't be one of them.

And for not having adequate quality control before publication. People - artists especially - can spot this stuff pretty swiftly. People did, and then they denied it, only backing down days later.

There's not a whole lot of reason, given the repeated missteps, for this to keep happening if they're actually checking it. They clearly aren't, so their apologies and assurances ring a little hollow.

[Atranen]

It's their fault for being lied to by their vendors, and/or for not having control over the tools their vendors use? You might get some people to say that, but I won't be one of them.

Yeah, vetting the vendors they use and ensuring the content is produced ethically is the company's responsibility.

[Brookshw]

Yeah, vetting the vendors they use and ensuring the content is produced ethically is the company's responsibility.

"Ethically"? Now that's a hard pill to swallow, AI art isn't made by sweatshops or victims of human trafficking. There's a debate and a lot of misunderstanding about what it is, and a double standard for a person learning vs. a machine learning. Very, very, few artists have actually pointed to a piece of AI generated art and said 'hey, that's a copy of mine'. What's the ethical objection? Learning, copying or job displacement?

[Atranen]

"Ethically"? Now that's a hard pill to swallow, AI art isn't made by sweatshops or victims of human trafficking. There's a debate and a lot of misunderstanding about what it is, and a double standard for a person learning vs. a machine learning. Very, very, few artists have actually pointed to a piece of AI generated art and said 'hey, that's a copy of mine'. What's the ethical objection? Learning, copying or job displacement?

Yeah, I prefaced my point several posts ago (but no doubt it's buried now) with a caveat. That is, regardless of what we think of the ethics, WotC has expressed to its audience that it is not going to use AI in products. Failures to do so are unethical (misleading customers) even if the act of using AI art itself is ethical.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I prefaced my point several posts ago (but no doubt it's buried now) with a caveat. That is, regardless of what we think of the ethics, WotC has expressed to its audience that it is not going to use AI in products. Failures to do so are unethical (misleading customers) even if the act of using AI art itself is ethical.

Including unknowing or accidental failures?
Because if so, that brings me right back to "they might as go full blown" then.

[Atranen]

Including unknowing or accidental failures?
Because if so, that brings me right back to "they might as go full blown" then.

Yes. The company is ultimately responsible for what makes it into the product. If, say, an engineering firm has a product fail, and it is because they were supplied with a faulty part, they bear responsibility for not properly vetting suppliers. Or, if culturally insensitive text makes it into a book, then WotC is responsible for not vetting the text; they cannot simply offload blame to the writer. And if a writer plagiarizes from a third party and WotC publishes it, they again bear responsibility. That is their job as the organization overseeing the product.

[Psyren]

Yes. The company is ultimately responsible for what makes it into the product. If, say, an engineering firm has a product fail, and it is because they were supplied with a faulty part, they bear responsibility for not properly vetting suppliers. Or, if culturally insensitive text makes it into a book, then WotC is responsible for not vetting the text; they cannot simply offload blame to the writer. And if a writer plagiarizes from a third party and WotC publishes it, they again bear responsibility. That is their job as the organization overseeing the product.

Which circles us back around to:

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

Being responsible has limits.

[Brookshw]

Yes. The company is ultimately responsible for what makes it into the product. If, say, an engineering firm has a product fail, and it is because they were supplied with a faulty part, they bear responsibility for not properly vetting suppliers. Or, if culturally insensitive text makes it into a book, then WotC is responsible for not vetting the text; they cannot simply offload blame to the writer. And if a writer plagiarizes from a third party and WotC publishes it, they again bear responsibility. That is their job as the organization overseeing the product.

To a point, sure, but when they're vetting things to a reasonable level and are unable to detect someone playing a falsehood on them in turn, what's your standard here? I don't imagine you expect them to be omniscient so there has to be a line somewhere I would think, ultimate responsibility may be one thing in matters inherently dangerous, but for plagiarism (if, indeed, there's plagiarism actually occurring)?

[Amnestic]

To a point, sure, but when they're vetting things to a reasonable level

When they start doing that let me know, because it's not happened yet.

[Psyren]

When they start doing that let me know, because it's not happened yet.

Great, so all they need to do is hire the entirety of Twitter to vet their promotional materials. Whew, I thought this would be difficult.

[Amnestic]

Great, so all they need to do is hire the entirety of Twitter to vet their promotional materials. Whew, I thought this would be difficult.

I am not an artist, and I spotted the issues immediately. Actually trained artists, which I'm sure WotC has a few of on hand, are probably better at it than I am. In fact I know they are, because a bunch of WotC artists were in the comments pointing it out too.

They already have these people hired. Yet their quality control process didn't make use of, apparently, any of them. Hence, WotC are not vetting things "to a reasonable level" - if even a lay person like myself can see it, and especially not if any of the artists they already have can see it too.

[Atranen]

To a point, sure, but when they're vetting things to a reasonable level and are unable to detect someone playing a falsehood on them in turn, what's your standard here? I don't imagine you expect them to be omniscient so there has to be a line somewhere I would think, ultimate responsibility may be one thing in matters inherently dangerous, but for plagiarism (if, indeed, there's plagiarism actually occurring)?

It all hinges on what is "reasonable". In my opinion, the initial finding in bigbys wasn't that unreasonable, and they took the correct action in response. At the same time, I think it is too far to say "it wasn't their fault", which is the claim I was responding to initially.

This more recent thing, with magic, is pretty bad imo. It sounds like they vetted it internally and got the wrong answer, in a case where even I could see the sheen of AI.

I would mind less if they committed to the "we are using AI art" bit. Some people, like the terra forming mars producers, have done this. In that case there are still the ethical questions, which I don't have an answer to, but they at least avoid misleading their audience.

[SouthpawSoldier]

I've already backed the Kobold Press alternative, and the completely different MCDM system. My plan is to switch to the former to wrap my current campaign, and then when we conclude, switch to MCDM system.

[Psyren]

It sounds like they vetted it internally and got the wrong answer, in a case where even I could see the sheen of AI.

From their response, it sounds like their promo materials went through a lesser vetting process than products (book and card art), and/or their vetting process didn't account for AI elements introduced by Adobe.

I would mind less if they committed to the "we are using AI art" bit. Some people, like the terra forming mars producers, have done this. In that case there are still the ethical questions, which I don't have an answer to, but they at least avoid misleading their audience.

For once we agree. I think they might as well just commit. They're already the bad guy, and nobody is going to believe they're trying anyway.

[Snowbluff]

From their response, it sounds like their promo materials went through a lesser vetting process than products (book and card art), and/or their vetting process didn't account for AI elements introduced by Adobe.



For once we agree. I think they might as well just commit. They're already the bad guy, and nobody is going to believe they're trying anyway.

It's understandable that their marketing department isn't as vetted as their actual art department. It's not like there's any concern if they can sell or claim ownership of the piece, given that it's a transient marketing work. There's probably a fine line between a tool and a system generating the piece for someone.

I am against AI generated imagery passing as art in general though. It's the shovelware, asset flip, and e waste of the industry. Even if it wasn't fundamentally unethical by being modeled using people's works without their consent, it has no artistic integrity or value. WotC is an art company, and they make a large portion of their value on their art. I don't really believe their intention is to replace their artists, and as a move that would be far more harmful to them than just about anything else if only because the quality would drop and they potentially wouldn't have control over their pieces anymore.

[Theodoxus]

I so can't wait until human artists start 'training' on the works of AI, and we get this wicked awesome circle jerk going.

"The sheen of AI?" what does that even actually mean... and *I'm* being called out for corporate speak.

[Snowbluff]

I so can't wait until human artists start 'training' on the works of AI, and we get this wicked awesome circle jerk going.

Given the next logical step, the next set of artists that will be replaced after the visual ones will be the design and writing teams. We will have an all AI generated game that people will be using to generate their own 3PP material from.

"The sheen of AI?" what does that even actually mean... and *I'm* being called out for corporate speak.

There is a common, distinctive use of shading and lighting that is commonly seen in generated imagery. I'm not sure why the models picked up this quirk, maybe because it is simulated someone in particular's intellectual property. I'm not going to post any examples here, of course, since I don't want to post legally dubious works.

[Theodoxus]

Given the next logical step, the next set of artists that will be replaced after the visual ones will be the design and writing teams. We will have an all AI generated game that people will be using to generate their own 3PP material from.

WALL-E here we come! As an aside, I tried using AI to help refine a new 5E class... the results were... not good. I don't doubt this 'prose and poetry' generation is coming. It's just not close to there yet.

As a further aside, I asked Bing's CHAT GPT4 if it knew any other TTRPG rules, seeing as I love to review and tinker with other rule sets. It specifically said it had been trained on D&D 5E, but not on any other edition, or other rule set. Either someone at Bing really likes WotC, or other production companies (Paizo et al) haven't paid to get their works incorporated (for whatever reason). Kinda sad, I would have loved to get creative feedback from a grumpy AI.

There is a common, distinctive use of shading and lighting that is commonly seen in generated imagery. I'm not sure why the models picked up this quirk, maybe because it is simulated someone in particular's intellectual property. I'm not going to post any examples here, of course, since I don't want to post legally dubious works.

And when humans start using that distinctive use of shading and lighting, to foil whatever sniffers companies might employ as 'gotcha!' or even 'captcha' algorithms? That was the point of my sarcastic comment... If you (general) can spot it, others can recreate it.

[Snowbluff]

And when humans start using that distinctive use of shading and lighting, to foil whatever sniffers companies might employ as 'gotcha!' or even 'captcha' algorithms? That was the point of my sarcastic comment... If you (general) can spot it, others can recreate it.

You both have it backwards while also being entirely on the money. The model has this quirk because it uses someone's works to generate that lightning. A human could generate it because at least one already has. Indeed, AI sniffers are often incorrect and non-artists often attributed tricks and mistakes as a piece being generated by an algorithm. If people remember the dwarf being accused of being computer generated for being shiny and focusing only on the subject of the work, people were also claiming the finger lining as being a sure sign of it as well. Meanwhile, as an artist I was like "well, he obviously made 1 good finger and copy-pasted it over 2 bad ones. Hands are hard."

[Atranen]

"The sheen of AI?" what does that even actually mean... and *I'm* being called out for corporate speak.

The kind of lighting, glossy finish, that's commonly seen in AI but not human authored works.

[MonochromeTiger]

As a further aside, I asked Bing's CHAT GPT4 if it knew any other TTRPG rules, seeing as I love to review and tinker with other rule sets. It specifically said it had been trained on D&D 5E, but not on any other edition, or other rule set. Either someone at Bing really likes WotC, or other production companies (Paizo et al) haven't paid to get their works incorporated (for whatever reason). Kinda sad, I would have loved to get creative feedback from a grumpy AI.

What do you mean "for whatever reason"? Why would a company pay to have their rules chewed up and spit out by an AI beyond their control in a way that drives down engagement with their curated social platforms (their forums, social media presence, and organized games) and potentially lowers the number of purchases because people would rather just sit with a phone constantly sending questions to chatGPT than buy a book?

There's plenty of reasons why not to, and the few reasons why they'd consider it are usually already filled in a more manageable way by SRD websites which, and I need to emphasize this point, they don't have to hand off all control of and hope the algorithm never spits out something they didn't intend and cause problems for them.

[Theodoxus]

What do you mean "for whatever reason"? Why would a company pay to have their rules chewed up and spit out by an AI beyond their control in a way that drives down engagement with their curated social platforms (their forums, social media presence, and organized games) and potentially lowers the number of purchases because people would rather just sit with a phone constantly sending questions to chatGPT than buy a book?

There's plenty of reasons why not to, and the few reasons why they'd consider it are usually already filled in a more manageable way by SRD websites which, and I need to emphasize this point, they don't have to hand off all control of and hope the algorithm never spits out something they didn't intend and cause problems for them.

Yet, arguably THE largest of the TTRPG giants did? Your point would make sense if no TTRPG IP was accessible to AI. Or if it was a small company that was hoping to use a monopoly on AI to get name recognition. But when only the largest game is available, your point makes no sense.

[MonochromeTiger]

Yet, arguably THE largest of the TTRPG giants did? Your point would make sense if no TTRPG IP was accessible to AI. Or if it was a small company that was hoping to use a monopoly on AI to get name recognition. But when only the largest game is available, your point makes no sense.

The size of the company doing it doesn't make it more logical. It just means a large company bought into the common tech bro refrain of "it's the future." In a similar vein plenty of companies buy into NFTs even now after many downturns that should have proven how flawed an idea they were, it doesn't mean NFTs suddenly make sense it just means a heavily detached higher up in those companies listened to an advisor trying to get them to buy into a modern day scam.

WotC, and Hasbro as a whole, aren't immune to jumping on things without thinking them through. The entire OGL fiasco is proof of that. They also aren't immune to higher ups completely disregarding the welfare or input of the people doing actual work for their company, the many recent layoffs so people could get bonuses are proof of that. If I heard that some exec got told "we can get infinite free content generation with AI" and went all in without bothering to ask any actual experts how it worked or if it was even viable I'd believe it. Even more so if it's the common reasoning companies are jumping on AI for recently which is their hope they can cut writers and artists out of things entirely so they don't have to pay them.

Meanwhile the many counterpoints to it still exist and "the biggest name bought in" doesn't suddenly invalidate them. Having clout doesn't automatically translate to being right, nor does it mean everyone else has to follow along or be left behind. The RPG market is a great example of that because if everyone followed WotC's lead we wouldn't even have many of the RPGs we do. All of that is just on the big decisions, small ones like this that are very clearly WotC execs throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks so they can wring more money out definitely aren't the kind of thing you want affecting policy for all their competitors.

[Psyren]

Comparing AI and NFTs makes no sense to me. AI needs to be regulated, but it at least has a very clear value proposition for end users. NFT "value" meanwhile is/was purely speculative, constituting nothing more than a series of bigger-fool-scams like pump and dumps, ponzi schemes, wash trading etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

A lack of a strong anti-AI position prior to it being caught

And this is why I tend to stand with you on this issue, as regards the WotC. It's the sloppiness (to be charitable) or the wilfull misleading (to not be charitable).

"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.

which is similar to their lack of energy in QA/QC function for their published books.

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.

And being skeptical.

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

Their QA/QC function for the 5e edition leaves a bit to be desired, all art issues aside.

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.

Which kind of behavior led to the President of Harvard to resign, lately, when she was finally caught at it.

there's no law against plagiarism.

News to me, and I guess that is a separate topic.

I am saying that the responsibility, the fault, ultimately lies with the people who commissioned the work. No more, no less.

And who publish it under their corporate name.

I am not an artist, and I spotted the issues immediately.

That the untrained eye can spot it leaves no excuse for WotC to be so sloppy/careless/negligent ... or worse.