The use of AI generated content in TAS products

[Terry Mixon]

Says you, and I don't really care about your opinion.

You don’t care about a lot of things. Rock on.

 

[Terry Mixon]

@MongooseMatt, you and your folk can allow AI in these products if you like, but I think it’s a bad business decision. It’s an odious practice and doesn’t reflect well on your brand. To quote others in part, it might not have been successfully prosecuted but it is morally repugnant and not something to willingly associate with. I would hate to see your brand tainted and nipping this in the bud is better than a PR disaster later. Just one man’s opinion.

 

[Hermit King]

At the end of the day i think no one is gonna change their mind, and that is ok. i do feel that those who use ai art should be allowed to as long as it is stated clearly. i mark my stuff as ai art. i leave to you to decide if you want it or not. i do feel that traveller is made richer by us small publishers. Mongoose is an awesome company, but they cant think of everything. we small indie publisher fill a gap. i belive it should be about our writing not our art. you dont sit down to play and art is imprtant in the game. it is our words, our ideas that you bring to the table. my art is one of a kind it does not copy a known artist. my art does look at other artist and perhaps draws in that style but does not copy.

in the end all that is important is we be kind to each other and enjoy our favorite games. thats all that really matters. rpgs are about friendship

 

[Condottiere]

Odds are, that if I did publish anything, I'd use these tools, since I couldn't expect outside support, and I certainly wouldn't expect to make much, if any, financial gains.

 

[Sigtrygg]

That is a morally bankrupt position.

Only according to your view of morality, which is personal and subjective. I do not have to consider your morality or ethical view, only my own.
It's why we have religions and laws, but what is morally just and ethically correct to one is anathema to another.

 

[Sigtrygg]

@MongooseMatt, you and your folk can allow AI in these products if you like, but I think it’s a bad business decision. It’s an odious practice and doesn’t reflect well on your brand. To quote others in part, it might not have been successfully prosecuted but it is morally repugnant and not something to willingly associate with. I would hate to see your brand tainted and nipping this in the bud is better than a PR disaster later. Just one man’s opinion.

Who voted you the arbiter on this? Who appointed you to be the moral and ethical guardian? If people don't want to buy stuff with AI they won't. if they don't mind it they will. You do not get to decide for me.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Perhaps Mongoose could provide free art assets to TAS members etc or collect a list of artists willing to work for free so that small publishers can get their product out the door.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Who voted you the arbiter on this? Who appointed you to be the moral and ethical guardian? If people don't want to buy stuff with AI they won't. if they don't mind it they will. You do not get to decide for me.

You’ve said your piece and I’m saying mine. You don’t have to agree, as you’ve so stridently pointed out. I can call out what I see as wrong and so can others.

Stick to your “not successfully prosecuted” line and I’ll stick to it being ethically wrong. As for who appointed me, people of good character should speak up when they see something wrong. So, I am.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Only according to your view of morality, which is personal and subjective. I do not have to consider your morality or ethical view, only my own.
It's why we have religions and laws, but what is morally just and ethically correct to one is anathema to another.

And you prove my point. When one only considers what is moral or ethical only from their own personal position, they justify whatever wrongs they want to see committed irregardless of who is harmed. What is it called when someone only cares about themselves and everything is seen through the lens of only what they want? Whatever that is, this sounds a lot like that.

 

[Arkathan]

Perhaps Mongoose could provide free art assets to TAS members etc or collect a list of artists willing to work for free so that small publishers can get their product out the door.

They already do. I downloaded them a couple of years ago.

 

[Arkathan]

In the final analysis, and absent local rulings declaring the process illegal:
There are people who will buy a product without regard for the quality of art, taking in account the reduced cost compared to a big publisher;
There are people who don't care where the art comes from; and
There are people who will not buy a product because it uses generative AI.

In cases where you have no previews, the quality (or absence) of art, regardless of source, is not a factor in the choice of the buyer. That means that you alienate buyers simply by including AI.

Thus, if an author chooses to alienate buyers, that is the business model they have chosen.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You’ve said your piece and I’m saying mine. You don’t have to agree, as you’ve so stridently pointed out. I can call out what I see as wrong and so can others.

Stick to your “not successfully prosecuted” line and I’ll stick to it being ethically wrong. As for who appointed me, people of good character should speak up when they see something wrong. So, I am.

Careful, you are making veiled personal attacks again. You don't know me, and I completely disagree with your "people with good character" remark. You are effectively saying people who disagree with you are not of good character, and that in itself is evil personified.

 

[Sigtrygg]

And you prove my point. When one only considers what is moral or ethical only from their own personal position, they justify whatever wrongs they want to see committed irregardless of who is harmed. What is it called when someone only cares about themselves and everything is seen through the lens of only what they want? Whatever that is, this sounds a lot like that.

You can not see that your own position is exactly as you describe? "one only considers what is moral or ethical only from their own personal position" - this is what you are doing, only considering your personal morality. You are justifying your stance as an appeal to your "better" morality.
"What is it called when someone only cares about themselves and everything is seen through the lens of only what they want?" you mean like your own personal view on the morality and ethics of the use of AI art by small publishers?

 

[Terry Mixon]

You can not see that your own position is exactly as you describe? "one only considers what is moral or ethical only from their own personal position" - this is what you are doing, only considering your personal morality. You are justifying your stance as an appeal to your "better" morality.
"What is it called when someone only cares about themselves and everything is seen through the lens of only what they want?" you mean like your own personal view on the morality and ethics of the use of AI art by small publishers?

Of course people use their own morality in determining right from wrong. I feel completely justified in doing so, and believe more people would agree with my stance than yours. You do you, but I’m never going to be browbeaten into silence by someone who only uses legal as their guidepost.

Apartheid was “legal” in South Africa yet it was undoubtedly morally and ethically wrong. I will never use legality as justification for doing something ethically dubious. If you want to, that on you but your continued efforts to prove me wrong only prove my point.

 

[MasterGwydion]

And you prove my point. When one only considers what is moral or ethical only from their own personal position, they justify whatever wrongs they want to see committed irregardless of who is harmed. What is it called when someone only cares about themselves and everything is seen through the lens of only what they want? Whatever that is, this sounds a lot like that.

A lack of empathy for others is a sign of a morally bankrupt life view. You and I speak for the good of the group, the morally bankrupt can only focus on how it affects them. Welcome to the new normal, narcissism. You can not have a moral discussion with those who care nothing for others.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Of course people use their own morality in determining right from wrong. I feel completely justified in doing so, and believe more people would agree with my stance than yours. You do you, but I’m never going to be browbeaten into silence by someone who only uses legal as their guidepost.

Many people throughout history have used the superiority of their morality and ethics to justify atrocities, and they all thought they were doing good. Your belief in your own stance is commendable, but don't force it on others.

Apartheid was “legal” in South Africa yet it was undoubtedly morally and ethically wrong.

You just proved my point.

I will never use legality as justification for doing something ethically dubious. If you want to, that on you but your continued efforts to prove me wrong only prove my point.

Ethics and morals are subjective, as are laws. The difference is that laws can be enforced because they are backed by authority. Ethics and morals can't be without becoming oppression. You can no more force an ethical or moral code on someone than a religion, unless you are willing to punish people for refusing to bow down.
What you consider ethically dubious is not a universal truth, others have different opinions, morals., ethics. You claim a superiority that can not be justified.

Live and let live, buy it or don't buy it. But don't try to influence others or dictate policy or tell others what virtuous right think is.

Cards on the table, given the choice of buying something with art from a real artist who gets paid a proportion of the worth of the product vs buying something with AI art I will always buy the real artist's work. But if someone wishes to produce something with AI art in order to keep is affordable then I may buy their work too.

 

[Grognardia]

Personally, AI has thoroughly fucked me over. As a freelance translator, I'm basically out of a job.

I will use some of it for my own games (if my players consent), but I will never buy any AI-generated garbage.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Many people throughout history have used the superiority of their morality and ethics to justify atrocities, and they all thought they were doing good. Your belief in your own stance is commendable, but don't force it on others.

You just proved my point.

Ethics and morals are subjective, as are laws. The difference is that laws can be enforced because they are backed by authority. Ethics and morals can't be without becoming oppression. You can no more force an ethical or moral code on someone than a religion, unless you are willing to punish people for refusing to bow down.
What you consider ethically dubious is not a universal truth, others have different opinions, morals., ethics. You claim a superiority that can not be justified.

Live and let live, buy it or don't buy it. But don't try to influence others or dictate policy or tell others what virtuous right think is.

Cards on the table, given the choice of buying something with art from a real artist who gets paid a proportion of the worth of the product vs buying something with AI art I will always buy the real artist's work. But if someone wishes to produce something with AI art in order to keep is affordable then I may buy their work too.

I didn’t prove your point, and the fact you try to say I do is ridiculous. You spout nonsense about legality being the only yardstick to use and then try to move the goalposts when your argument is challenged.

You do this all the time, so I’m not shocked to see you suddenly try it again. That is the sign of someone who has seen their argument fail. If you’re going to stand for something, don’t belittle others by twisting both your stance and your argument when you come up short. It’s not a good look.

If you don’t want to feel like you’re being judged, don’t take stances that are so worthy of being judged. You’re going to do as you like, so I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong. My view is held not just by me but by very many creatives. I am not ashamed to hold it and to tell others that are aiding and abetting the theft of their hard work that they are wrong.

You made a big point of saying ethics and morality held no sway in this discussion, only the law. When a like use of law to do something wrong was brought up, you try to make it a judgement of morality. This is your modus operandi. Muddy the waters so that you are never wrong.

I’ll just put this out here: you’re wrong. Shout all you like. It changes nothing.

As for telling me not to try and influence policy, I will continue to do so in this matter. If I can help Mongoose see that this isn’t in their long term interests, I’ve done them a solid favor. Once again, I won’t allow others to dictate what I can and cannot do in influencing the policy in question. Advocate your position and I’ll advocate mine.

 

[Sigtrygg]

A lack of empathy for others is a sign of a morally bankrupt life view.

You mean like showing no empathy towards someone trying to make a living selling works that include AI art? Empathy but only when directed at those you agree with?

You and I speak for the good of the group,

No, you don't. You speak for "the group" that agrees with you. I am part of "the group". You don't speak for me, or are you denying my group membership?

the morally bankrupt can only focus on how it affects them.

The truly morally bankrupt focus on the superiority of their morality and can not accept another point of view or opinion.

Welcome to the new normal, narcissism. You can not have a moral discussion with those who care nothing for others.

"Narcissism is a personality trait marked by grandiosity, an inflated sense of self-importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, and a lack of empathy for others" such as the belief that your morality and ethics are superior, and that anyone that disagrees with you is in the wrong?
I am an individualist, I believe in the sovereignty of the person, I am not trying to force my ethics or morality on anyone, just highlighting the "narcissism" of those that claim moral superiority and seek to ruin the livelihood of others because of said "moral/ethical superior" stance.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I didn’t prove your point, and the fact you try to say I do is ridiculous.

And once again prove my point.

You spout nonsense about legality being the only yardstick to use and then try to move the goalposts when your argument is challenged.

Nope, I am not moving anything. Laws are enforceable, how I feel isn't.

You do this all the time, so I’m not shocked to see you suddenly try it again.

Here we go again. Ramping up to the personal because the argument doesn't suit.

That is the sign of someone who has seen their argument fail.

I have yet to see a counter argument of any worth. Veiled personal attacks, claims or moral superiority.

If you’re going to stand for something, don’t belittle others by twisting both your stance and your argument when you come up short. It’s not a good look.

how has my argument come up short? I am not the one trying to cost someone their livelihood.

If you don’t want to feel like you’re being judged, don’t take stances that are so worthy of being judged.

Who is going to judge me?

You’re going to do as you like, so I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong.

That's my view too, I'm not trying to upset, just discuss.

My view is held not just by me but by very many creatives. I am not ashamed to hold it and to tell others that are aiding and abetting the theft of their hard work that they are wrong.

I know, I have seen the opinion expressed many times and by many others, it is not a universal view, and I would never seek to cost someone a living over it by encouraging a boycott. I admire your principles.

You made a big point of saying ethics and morality held no sway in this discussion, only the law. When a like use of law to do something wrong was brought up, you try to make it a judgement of morality. This is your modus operandi. Muddy the waters so that you are never wrong.

If that is how it came across then I have been clumsy. Until the law comes down on one side of the other then it is a personal choice. Even when the law is settled an individual can still opt to buy or not buy.

I’ll just put this out here: you’re wrong. Shout all you like. It changes nothing.

No, I am wrong in your opinion, and likely the opinion of many others. It changes nothing as you say.

As for telling me not to try and influence policy, I will continue to do so in this matter.

And I will call you out for trying to cost one group of people's livelihoods over another group. You don't want to see artists out of work but you are happy to drive an independent producer out of work?

If I can help Mongoose see that this isn’t in their long term interests, I’ve done them a solid favor.

Your opinion, the facts remain to be seen.

Once again, I won’t allow others to dictate what I can and cannot do in influencing the policy in question.

And yet you will dictate to others?

Advocate your position and I’ll advocate mine.

I will do so.