I've been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don't really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I'm soliciting feedback from y'all on this, please let me know what you prefer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 1 year ago (22 children)

I, for one, am not interested in "creators" who see generating fake art for their TTRPGs as some "necessary evil" on their way to making a quick buck. These people deserve to fail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    Wouldn't that mean that only those who are big enough to afford commissioning art (or not be afraid to lie about generating it) will pass?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Believe it or not, you can release written content without professional art. Used to be done all the time. Deciding you want to skip ahead in your progress as a publisher and use tools that have been built off the back of unconsenting contributors doesn't entitle you to someone's platform.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, one can do that. But, probably because of how content ( in broad meaning) works, it's not being done. That's why I'm afraid such rule would mostly cut out the small-fries

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What makes you say it's not being done? Where are you somehow finding a lack of content?

    There's free tools, maps, oneshots, entire games with 1-2 page rulesets being posted online all the time that aren't utilizing AI. All for free. The TTRPG community is bursting with content.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    Mostly stuff that is not fantasy and not a spaceship

    I don't suppose I see all that is happening in modern+ RPG branch (niche?). But I do support a few creators on Patreon, I follow a few creators on DTRPG, I follow a bunch of blogs. And I see all walks of AIGen

    • things without AIGen that look well good for the creators that they are able to do the content AND a cover image/presentation
    • things without AIGen that look poor but the content is good I would not hold it against the creators to try improve the looks with AIGen. I know that this is the point we don't agree on, I just wanted to point this out
    • things with AIGen that have good contents clearly the creators like from the previous point but after taking that decision
    • things with AIGen that IMO are crap yeah, this is a waste of everything

    That's why I'm more in "let downvotes tell the story" camp. Because in the end it's not the use of AIGen that makes a thing bad. It's the decision of the creator that "this is good enough". And without covering the bad stuff too, we are just sweeping it under the rug

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Or willing to, y'know, use stock art or not include art, and damn the people who think TTRPG books only have value insofar as they have lots of new pictures.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    I share the view that rpg content mostly does not need images. But I can bet it sells better and gets better reach when it does

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So... you have no concrete support except a gut feeling?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    I have an example where I'm sure the dry presentation does a disservice to the content. For someone who does not care about AI vs no-AI, it will look less professional than the titles next to it. But I don't want to turn this into a vivisection of a particular example

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Hence my calling out the "necessary evil" excuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I'm afraid it's not an excuse but the reality. Whatever the reason one does content for, whether it's additional income, trying to change career or just clout, without reach you don't have an audience. In order to have reach, someone has to choose to click on that link in the feed. I am sure that an image does help with that And stock art places often either have non-stock art pirated anyway, or there's nothing in there

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Just because you generally need a cover image doesn't mean that it's good to support systems whose primary use case is to drive real artists into hiding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Sure. But wouldn't such rule mean we dismiss also those who do bring something to the table but just try to get anyone's attention?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Not if they don't scam people to get that attention.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm afraid that's a very high bar ATM

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments