106
Thoughts on preemptively banning Gen-AI?
(ttrpg.network)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2025
106 points (100.0% liked)
rpg
4206 readers
4 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
- No AI-generated content. Discussion of AI generation pertaining to RPGs is explicitly allowed.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
'People say it's a tool, but they use it for the thing it does!' ... what?
How else could you use generative AI, except to generate a thing for you?
Most things that could be commissioned - aren't. The money is never spent. The money isn't real. No one is robbed when a robot does the thing instead, because what it's instead of, is the thing not happening.
You cannot kvetch about this replacing all artists forever and still insist it's a flash in the pan. The tech works. You can run it on your own computer, to-day. It plainly serves a desirable purpose. That alone makes comparisons to NFTs as spurious as those dolts insisting 'people doubted the internet.'
Any visions of this blowing over should've vanished when it became a porn faucet.
How is that confusing to you? A hammer is a tool, and a hammer does not replace a carpenter. Tools do not replace creatives. Logically following, since AI is used to replace creatives, AI is not used like a tool.
You seem to think this is a point in gen AI's favour.
You're right. Which is why I didn't say forever. People are using it to replace artists, and it's going to die off soon. Those are not contradictory.
False. Making art is desirable. Having art is only desirable if you like the art, and AI images make me nauseous (not hyperbole). Nausea is not desirable. If you think having is better than making, you aren't a creative.
People did doubt the internet. We have articles. But people also massively over-hyped the internet, leading to the dot com bubble. I think comparing a tech bubble to a tech bubble is a fair comparison, especially since it's the same people peddling a new brand of snake oil.
The kinds of people who find replacing artists a "desirable purpose" do not belong in a creative community.
Having art is desirable. Only self-professed haters think it's replacing much of anything, versus what I just fucking explained - it makes things that otherwise would not get made. No money is lost if there is no money.
Only self-professed haters? Tell that to the corporations firing people to replace them with "AI" that can't actually do their jobs correctly.