Traveller, TAS, and AI

That is literally what Mongoose are doing though by prohibiting TAS usage for people using any AI art in their work?

And again, you've gone to an entirely emotive response on whether or not it's worthy of peoples money.

Let the market decide. You do not have to buy it if you don't think it's worthwhile. We KNOW you don't like AI. That's entirely obvious.
False. The art is not theirs. No creativity or passion went into making it.
It is NOT worthy of other people's money, although a fool and his money ARE easily parted.
What I do not like is no-talent hacks trying to flood the market with fake product made by soulless non-entities and then claiming it as their own creativity, as though THEY did something, when they most definitely did not.
 
False. The art is not theirs. No creativity or passion went into making it.
It is NOT worthy of other people's money, although a fool and his money ARE easily parted.
What I do not like is no-talent hacks trying to flood the market with fake product made by soulless non-entities and then claiming it as their own creativity, as though THEY did something, when they most definitely did not.
And looking at how the AI tools were trained on what many people believe is stolen intellectual property, there are reasons companies might not want to be associated with that product.
 
False equivalency.

That is like saying that you should be allowed to compete as a chess Grandmaster because you can use a chess program to recommend moves to you.

No. Just, no.

You literally argued false equivalency by creating a false equivalency to a competitive sport that has nothing to do with business/creative, etc.

I mean, Deep Blue literally happened as well, so I'm not sure the point that you're getting at here (and that raised just as many heckles in its own day, and the chess community had to find its own solutions, and are still going through the pains now).

False. The art is not theirs. No creativity or passion went into making it.
It is NOT worthy of other people's money, although a fool and his money ARE easily parted.
What I do not like is no-talent hacks trying to flood the market with fake product made by soulless non-entities and then claiming it as their own creativity, as though THEY did something, when they most definitely did not.

I mean, as has been pointed out elsewhere, this simply isn't true:

What this new policy does, though, is make it tougher for the folks on the fringe—the one-person outfit trying to put out their first adventure, the gal with great ideas but no cash for an illustrator. You’re not just keeping out the spam bots. You’re locking out a whole lot of good intentions with nowhere else to go. Thing is, there’s a better way to handle it. Set some boundaries. Require disclosure. Say “no AI art unless you edited it, added to it, made it yours.” No scraping, no clickbait garbage. Just give folks a bar to clear, and let them prove their work’s got heart.

You’re trying to stop the future from running roughshod over the present. I respect that. But the future’s already here—it’s just a question of who gets to use it, and how.

Let’s not throw out the tools just because some folks use them wrong. Let’s raise the bar, not build a fence.
 
You literally argued false equivalency by creating a false equivalency to a competitive sport that has nothing to do with business/creative, etc.

I mean, Deep Blue literally happened as well, so I'm not sure the point that you're getting at here (and that raised just as many heckles in its own day, and the chess community had to find its own solutions, and are still going through the pains now).



I mean, as has been pointed out elsewhere, this simply isn't true:
If you cannot do or buy art, don't sell art.
If you cannot create plot, don't sell adventures.
If you cannot write, don't expect people to buy your book.
 
And looking at how the AI tools were trained on what many people believe is stolen intellectual property, there are reasons companies might not want to be associated with that product.

A federal judge has sided with Anthropic in an AI copyright case, ruling that training — and only training — its AI models on legally purchased books without authors’ permission is fair use. It’s a first-of-its-kind ruling in favor of the AI industry, but it’s importantly limited specifically to physical books Anthropic purchased and digitized.

Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California also says in his decision that the company must face a separate trial for pirating “millions” of books from the internet. The decision also does not address whether the outputs of an AI model infringe copyrights, which is at issue in other related cases.

The lawsuit was filed by writers Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson, who sued Anthropic last year over claims the company trained its family of Claude AI models on pirated material. It’s a pivotal decision that could affect how judges respond to AI copyright cases going forward.

The ruling also addresses Anthropic’s move to purchase print copies of books, rip off their bindings, cut the pages, and scan them into a centralized digital library used to train its AI models. The judge ruled that digitizing a legally purchased physical book was fair use, and that using those digital copies to train an LLM was sufficiently transformative to also be fair use.

“Authors’ complaint is no different than it would be if they complained that training schoolchildren to write well would result in an explosion of competing works,” Judge Alsup writes, adding that the Copyright Act “seeks to advance original works of authorship, not to protect authors against competition.”

Despite these wins for Anthropic, Judge Alsup writes that Anthropic’s decision to store millions of pirated book copies in the company’s central library — even if some weren’t used for training — isn’t considered fair use. “This order doubts that any accused infringer could ever meet its burden of explaining why downloading source copies from pirate sites that it could have purchased or otherwise accessed lawfully was itself reasonably necessary to any subsequent fair use,” Alsup writes (emphasis his).

Judge Alsup says the court will hold a separate trial on the pirated content used by Anthropic, which will determine the resulting damages.

“We are pleased that the Court recognized that using ‘works to train LLMs was transformative — spectacularly so,’ Anthropic spokesperson Jennifer Martinez said in an emailed statement to The Verge. “Consistent with copyright’s purpose in enabling creativity and fostering scientific progress, ‘Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different.’”
 
People are buying it though!
I refer back to a fool and his money.
In a previous AI thread, a creator of D66 charts tried to justify the use of AI art in his product.
The previews show no art. The description talks about the tables and their utility.
CLEARLY, people are not buying those products for the art, and yet the possibility of stealing from others is clear and present and completely unnecessary.
 
Does anyone remember the fuss over introducing calculators into exams?

Seems to me the introduction of AI is causing a similar issue but on steroids

I am skeptical of what AI can currently achieve. I work in IT and for those who may not know, have authored 3 technical books. I find AI is useful in tightly bounded situations where I can validate the outputs. AI can and does provide useful outlines and templates but not rigorously tested objective outputs.

IF I took an AI generated template, rewrote using my skill, knowledge and experience, then proceeded to sell, would it matter?

Note I am not referring to artwork here
 
Does anyone remember the fuss over introducing calculators into exams?

Seems to me the introduction of AI is causing a similar issue but on steroids

I am skeptical of what AI can currently achieve. I work in IT and for those who may not know, have authored 3 technical books. I find AI is useful in tightly bounded situations where I can validate the outputs. AI can and does provide useful outlines and templates but not rigorously tested objective outputs.

IF I took an AI generated template, rewrote using my skill, knowledge and experience, then proceeded to sell, would it matter?

Note I am not referring to artwork here
I remember never being allowed to take a calculator into exams at all (hell I remember not being allowed to take a calculator into Math class at all) The difference is, Calculators don't threaten the livelihood of Mathematicians by stealing their work
 
I remember never being allowed to take a calculator into exams at all (hell I remember not being allowed to take a calculator into Math class at all) The difference is, Calculators don't threaten the livelihood of Mathematicians by stealing their work
When I was in a calculus class, programmable calculators with attached printers were just starting to be a thing. One rich kid argued before our polar coordinates exam that he should be able to use his calculator and printer, because he has to know how to do it in detail. In order to program the calculator. The kid had good grades in the class, so the professor allowed it as an experiment. I showed up to class drunk and got 100%. The calculator/printer caused him to fail the exam. The professor held a vote in the class and we all voted to let him retake it sans calculator with a maximum score of a B.
 
I remember never being allowed to take a calculator into exams at all (hell I remember not being allowed to take a calculator into Math class at all) The difference is, Calculators don't threaten the livelihood of Mathematicians by stealing their work
Many jobs that used to require lots of people doing calculations - they were called calculators - have gone the way of the dodo with the advent of computers and desktop calculators that do the maths now. I fail to see why commercial artists are a protected species.

"Before electronic calculators and computers took over, "human computers" was a real job title. These people, often women, were employed to perform complex mathematical calculations by hand or with the help of mechanical tools.

In fields like engineering, astronomy, banking, and even military operations, these human computers were essential. For example, during World War II, women were hired to calculate artillery trajectories, a task requiring immense precision and stamina. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, institutions like the Harvard Observatory employed teams of women to analyze astronomical data—these were the famous Harvard Computers"
 
Does anyone remember the fuss over introducing calculators into exams?

IF I took an AI generated template, rewrote using my skill, knowledge and experience, then proceeded to sell, would it matter?

Note I am not referring to artwork here
False argument they are not talking about using AI for these things which has been stated repeatedly.

As for Calculators they still don’t allow them for basic math in good schools, it kind of defeats the purpose, and most colleges limit it use in higher math by requiring you to show your work. You haven’t learned anything about calculus if you just punch the formulas into your calculator and hit the button. The difference is letting the tool do your thinking for you or doing it yourself I for one support the latter because how can you truly claim it’s your if you don’t actually put in any of the work.
 
Many jobs that used to require lots of people doing calculations - they were called calculators - have gone the way of the dodo with the advent of computers and desktop calculators that do the maths now. I fail to see why commercial artists are a protected species.

"Before electronic calculators and computers took over, "human computers" was a real job title. These people, often women, were employed to perform complex mathematical calculations by hand or with the help of mechanical tools.

In fields like engineering, astronomy, banking, and even military operations, these human computers were essential. For example, during World War II, women were hired to calculate artillery trajectories, a task requiring immense precision and stamina. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, institutions like the Harvard Observatory employed teams of women to analyze astronomical data—these were the famous Harvard Computers"
Art is less likely to have a Mars Climate Orbiter moment.

There is no GOOD reason to replace artists with computers. Efforts that fulfill Maslow's Self Actualization level of satisfaction should not be denied. AI should be used for drudgery, dangerous endeavors and where absolute and instant precision is required. Not for creative pursuits.
When AI, or any nanny style overlord, runs everything, you wind up with a lot of useless, unmotivated and ignorant people, who are easy to control.
 
capitalism is the problem not AI.

that's why they don't have these arguments in Star Trek, where you can literally generate wine at will and still have vineyards.

Isn't this what the Measure of a Man was about in Star Trek?
 
capitalism is the problem not AI.

that's why they don't have these arguments in Star Trek, where you can literally generate wine at will and still have vineyards.

Isn't this what the Measure of a Man was about in Star Trek?
Creative Pursuits.
You advocate for taking that away from people by making it impossible to compete with push button "art."
The measure of someone who needs to cheat in order to feel important, while simultaneously stealing opportunities from people with REAL talent, however limited, is miniscule.

If capitalism is the problem, then an ignorant and therefore easily controlled proletariat is the remaining answer.
 
I can think of a good reason. I can make art myself rather than pay an artist to do it. Or products are now cheaper so I can buy more of them.

Many jobs that used to involve creativity are now done by machine; anyone bought curtains (drapes for our colonial cousins), carpets or rugs lately? Used to be hand crafted, now mass produced by computerised looms. What happened to all the craftsmen building cars, now they are assembled by robots and robot assistants. Will you insist your next car is assembled by hand so as not to make car workers redundant - oops too late.
 
Back
Top