The discussion concerning the 'new' OGL WotC is putting out is undoubtedly important. But we shouldn't let it blind us to a much more fundamental threat to the work of RPG creators - one that, I think, requires concerted resistance on the part of writers, game designers, illustrators and layout artists alike. I'm talking, of course, about the use of AI (though I would prefer the term 'Artificial Creativity') to produce text and, especially, art.
Kickstarter released a magnificently anodyne and mealy-mouthed statement concerning AI and art shortly before Christmas. Starting out with a balls-to-the-wall declaration that 'Kickstarter must, and will always be, on the side of creative work and the humans behind that work', it then goes on merely to say that, er, we can't make up our minds, but we're a bit concerned about the relationship between AI and copyright, and we also want to make sure KS doesn't inadvertently put out discriminatory content.
Fair enough, but readers may very reasonably ask in response, 'Where's the beef?' Being on the side of creative work and the humans behind that work surely has to mean more than that.
By coincidence, I was listening this morning to the latest Econtalk episode, featuring Ian Leslie on the subject of 'Being Human in an Age of AI'. It is a great discussion, and I agree with Russ's assessment that Leslie's perspective on the topic is by far the most interesting out there. His point, which I found intuitively correct, is that the real 'threat' posed by AI is not that it will replace us, but that we will come more closely to resemble robots in our thoughts, behaviours, and opinions - a path along which we are already fairly far advanced. If all human beings can do is fiddle around on our phones, stumble around shopping malls, jump through some very wide hoops in school and university, listen to formulaic music and watch formulaic movies, and perform 'bullshit jobs' with spreadsheets, then we surely will outmode ourselves. If, on the other hand, we rediscover what is significant and important about being human, then we will survive.
Counter-intuitively, though, this is most definitely not an argument for saying that we can be 'intensely relaxed ' about advances in computing and machine learning, as they will just spur us on and serve as a reason for us to produce ever better and more imaginative art. The whole point of AI is that it will ape and mimic whatever we produce, and dilute and diminish it accordingly. This is not a situation in which 'laissez-faire' is really appropriate.
It is an argument, in fact, for precisely the opposite conclusion: being absolutely robust in saying that, while there's no harm in playing around with AI art for shits and giggles, we can't and shouldn't countenance its deployment in serious creative endeavours. Art is our domain and needs to be defended as such. It's for humans. Not robots. If you want to use AI art rather than work produced by a human being, then I'm sorry, but you are letting the side down - it's as simple as that.
I am not in favour, though, of banning its use (either on the part of private actors like Kickstarter or governments), precisely because the line between 'playing around with AI art for shits and giggles' and 'serious creative endeavours' is porous and blurred. The better solution is to require people making use of AI art to declare it openly, so that those of us (and I think this is the great majority) who want to defend humanity can avoid touching that kind of stuff with a ten foot pole.
[I am currently running a Kickstarter for the 2nd edition of Yoon-Suin, the renowned campaign toolbox for fantasy games. You can back it here.]
I don't understand the reasoning. What is the difference between using an AI and any other tool? The art is not made by the AI, it is made by the human who gives instructions to the AI, and if the work is good, it has as much merit as the painter with his brush.
ReplyDelete"The art is not made by the AI, it is made by the human who gives instrutions to the AI." It isn't, though, is it? If I were to say to a competent painter, "Paint me a picture of Luke Skywalker dancing on a beach in the style of Jack Vettriano" he could do it. If I were to input the same instructions to an art AI it would do the same thing. Is the former *no different* to me painting the picture myself with a paint brush? If not, then nor is the latter.
DeleteMere technical execution is not art. Art implies intentionality. If the painter acts as a tool, it is not art. But that is not true, the painter is not an object, even when you have him at your service. The painter is not a machine like the AI. The painter can use both his brush and an AI to make art. AI can't make art, it's a tool. The painter is not a tool, he is an artist. In fact, the painter will be a much better artist giving instructions to the AI than me, because he knows his trade much better and therefore he will give better instructions and make better art.
DeleteI see it like synthesizers in the '80s. The great unstated (and unfulfilled) promise of electronic music was that it could level the playing field: you didn't need good finger genes (relevant, believe me) or a big drum set to create compelling music if your ideas were good. As it turned out most electronic music is formulaic garbage, but, what were we really expecting? It didn't have to be.
ReplyDeleteThis will work the same way. You'd better have good ideas because the floor of mass 'curb appeal' is getting raised. For people that don't have a big budget, this is a good thing.
Yes, this point is made in the podcast I linked to. Is it a good thing? I have my doubts.
DeleteTBH, most non-electronic music is also formulaic garbage.
DeleteWhatever one's position on the many philosophical AI-related debates, the reality is that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Digital artist wasn't exactly a lucrative career before AI art arrived. I honestly believe that giving digital artists hope that theirs is a viable primary career is, essentially, cruel. Pay your artists? Market says no. As a hobby, or side hustle, or vocation that isn't paying your mortgage, go for it. As a main job? Destitution beckons. Ditto for content writers.
ReplyDeleteIt may be that AI and automation give rise to productivity gains that make UBI etc really viable, such that one can "be" a digital artist (or clown, wandering DM or whatever) on a liveable state stipend, maybe? But that's not going to happen in 2023.
The idea that tech is and will make us think more like robots is an interesting one, but I think it presumes too much about how our minds work (that we don't yet know). If the human mind is such a blank slate that a very roboty environment would turn us into robo-thinkers, then that's a reason to worry, but I think our biology, our Id and lizard brain and hormones and mortality influence us far more than that model allows.
You are probably right about your first point.
DeleteThe point that Ian Leslie makes isn't that tech is making us think more like robots. It's really that we've become accustomed to thinking more like robots simply because of the way our societies have developed. He makes an excellent case, supported by evidence, that music, for example, has become over the past 10-20 years much more formulaic, simple, and emotionally inert. We have actually become used to interacting with art more 'functionally', in other words, independently of the evolution of AI/tech.
Fair enough. I'm reflexively sceptical, but I'll give the podcast a listen.
DeleteAI Art will end up lowering the bar for creative endaevours but the finest artists will be able to use it all the more effectively. It will have an effect analogous to special effects on cinema. For the OSR it will have a levelling effect. It will no longer be enough to have high production value to attract customers. In the end, it will go the way of special effects, opening up new possibilities, but after the initial craze has died down, men will adjust.
ReplyDeleteI played around with the possibilities here. For small publishers this is a gift.
https://princeofnothingblogs.wordpress.com/2022/12/06/an-experiment-in-ai-art-generation/
The phrase "it will have an effect analogous to special effects on cinema" chilled my bones more than anything in the original post. I struggle to watch anything made in s.he last 10 years because of this gloss. And I think you're right. Though I also think there'll be upsides.
DeleteIt is both blessing and curse. Ubiquitous special effects are meaningless special effects. It is no longer a draw by itself. Compelling stories, actors, human passion, this is the draw.
DeleteI would recommend Dune, Edge of Tomorrow, Alita Battle Angel and John Wick for the last 10 years. Alternatively, why not move to Indian cinema. They are in their 80s; charming, confident, charismatic, wholesome.
No, the real threat posed by AI *is* that it will replace us
ReplyDeleteI feel seen.
ReplyDeleteI also feel a blog post brewing, not contra this one - I agree with you about the effect this is likely to have on human norms and expectations (and I'm looking forward to checking out the podcast) - rather something orthogonal, based on having spent a fair bit of time tinkering with the currently available tools (and also on having spent at least 40 years trying to get computers to make things that surprise and delight me).
My take on this: https://blog.peakrill.com/2023/01/becoming-borg.html
ReplyDeleteFirst off, regardless of whatever your ethical or other philosophical thoughts are on the matter, AI-generated art is going to be a thing. Quaint protests like refusing to purchase or read material with AI-generated content will have about as much impact as the Luddites did trying to stave off the industrial revolution.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I'm surprised you think that a great majority of people feel the way you do. My experience as a high school teacher is the opposite; it's basically a natural technological evolution to them and they are embracing it (and they have little concern about the financial viability of being a professional artist).
Finally, if your concern is that human-kind will become more robot-like, then your proposed actions are backwards. We shouldn't care much about the "serious creative endeavours" (which I presume refers to the kinds of art that gets produced by an incredibly small and niche segment of the human population) and we absolutely should advocate against its use for "shits and giggles" which is what the majority would use it for instead of producing their own art. But again, I'm doubtful that this is a real danger (at least until we merge ourselves with AIs). People innately appreciate the process of creation over the product alone and will continue to do so. My 3-year old daughter has spent hundreds of hours of her life making drawings/paintings/play-doh sculptures that are objectively worse than pictures I could print for her or figurines I could buy for her (which she has zero interest in). I find that many adults are the same in the pursuits that interest them even when they could simply buy the end-product and save time and effort. Gardening for your own food and flowers, cooking for your friends and family, hunting for your own trophies, making your own adventures to run in RPGs, etc. People who are creatively inclined will continue to be passionate about making their own creations.
I think AI will eventually become just another tool in the box. The real ethical dilemma is that the current AI tools were apparently trained on human-created art, without the artists' permissions to do so.
ReplyDeleteI think there is an overlooked point with a lot of AI art that is much the same as when people get outraged about piracy: it's not a lost sale if the person wasn't going to buy it anyway, and equally it is not a lost commission if the person wasn't going to commission art for the project anyway. But it does mean that person has a thing they otherwise would not have had. Someone using AI art to make a whole bunch of character portraits for their home RPG is inarguably better off with AI art than if they are doing without.
ReplyDeleteThis obviously overlooks plenty of other moral complications, but democratization of information and art and other things is usually a good thing. Usually.
I agree with the second paragraph, but I don't agree that what we are seeing is the democratization of art. The democratization of art would be more widespread opportunities for people to make art. This isn't people making art, though.
DeleteThe first paragraph I disagree with very strongly, but that would take another blog post...
Was reminded of this post just now while listening to an interview with Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, author of Human: AI, Automation, and the Quest to Reclaim What Makes Us Unique. He talks about how, as you say, "we will come more closely to resemble robots" - there's a great quote in there, along the lines of "AI is a machine for making humans more standardised".
ReplyDeleteIt's a really interesting podcast for many other reasons, I think you'll appreciate it: https://www.nathalienahai.com/captivate-podcast/108-narcissism-automation-intoxication-navigating-the-perilous-age-of-ai-dr-chamorro-premuzic/