Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Obviously, AI writing has come a long way in the past few years. Still, mostly a fancy auto-complete task with a bigger database to scrape, but that database allows it to put more and more things together in a more complete way than ever.

With that said, we have seen a rise in AI written books and scripts on various platforms. Wargame Vault and similar places have very strict rules about declaring when AI has been used for writing, editing and artwork purposes. That way, you can screen AI generated content out of your searches.

However, as a rules writer; I am curious how many of you are ready to spend $$$ on AI written rules for games?

It's depends on rules itself and not who/what writes it. Like It doesn't matter who get money game designer or data scientist who train AI model.

No.

Word count requirement.

Also?

No.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No.

Word count requirement.

Also?

No.

Same, I don't need computer generated slop in my hobbies.

Current LLM's would probably be terribly bad at generating actually working rulesets. LLM's are concerned about putting words after one another, not whether rules outlined by such word salads would actually work. You'd need some specific machine learning model that was built from the ground up to come up with game rules. They'd probably do an OK job writing narrative events for RPGs, and character dialogue though, if prompted adequately..

Absolutely not. Never. Even if it weren’t guaranteed to be soulless trash.

I also avoid self checkout as much as possible, too. I do not want to make myself complicit in my own obsolescence.

It's obvious that no current LLMs could make proper rules, but designer for this task AI make them better. Also it's can play test own rules if designed so. But it's required insane amount of work

Why would I pay for something if nobody had to labour to produce it? It's like asking if I'm okay with being charged for sunshine.

 kabaakaba wrote:
It's depends on rules itself and not who/what writes it. Like It doesn't matter who get money game designer or data scientist who train AI model.

Writers (usually) get paid a tiny pittance of the worth of what they create. The data scientist will earn less.

Data scientist got solid salary for what he do. And creating, training and supporting AI model is a long term task.

I wouldn't even take the rules if they were free.

Just say no to the Abominable Intelligence.

I'd rather eat bricks.

In fact you never know if they written by AI or 'Umies. For example core rules made by humans but all digits are adjusted by AI

Fun real world fact?

AI gibberish is already impacting my work.

Apologies for keeping things vague? But stock BS wording, citation of foreign laws or (more amusing) non-existent laws. And when actual uk laws and regulations are cited, absolutely no contextual understanding is demonstrated.

Sound likes a laugh? It’s not. Not when I have to sift through page after page after page of AI Drivel to find out what the complaint is actually about.

Upside? I know the person submitting that nonsense hasn’t read or understood a lick of what their preferred AI platform threw up. And so a wee phone call and I start to get to the heart of the matter.

Also, coming up 14 years into my career, I’m not in the least bit hesitant to call out AI scruff for what it is, and point out when it’s cited irrelevant, foreign or entirely fictional legal things.

Right now? AI is ‘Man In The Pub’. I can only hope we can nip it’s reckless and bollocks use in the bud.

 Easy E wrote:
Obviously, AI writing has come a long way in the past few years. Still, mostly a fancy auto-complete task with a bigger database to scrape, but that database allows it to put more and more things together in a more complete way than ever.

With that said, we have seen a rise in AI written books and scripts on various platforms. Wargame Vault and similar places have very strict rules about declaring when AI has been used for writing, editing and artwork purposes. That way, you can screen AI generated content out of your searches.

However, as a rules writer; I am curious how many of you are ready to spend $$$ on AI written rules for games?

A few responses come to mind:

1) No thanks, I'll just pirate it.

2) WHY would I do that? I can get the same slop by entering the prompts myself.... "Siri: Write me a new 40k ruleset in the style of GW....

3) no.

Great! Looks like I am not out of a job yet!

I fed my RPG into two different LLMs...

and they had serious issues with rules that occurred earlier on the page.

Every paragraph was a new world... and they ignored the previous rulesets, and would comment on how I was missing rules, even though they were literally 2 paragraphs earlier!

Argh!

It was an exercise in frustration.

Anyone who completes an entire manuscript with the help of AI, deserves to be sainted.

Heck, I couldn't stick it out for one section... and I'm a certified Jedi Knight.

Absolutely not. I try to avoid the slop machines as much as I can.

No, never.

Yeah, even ignoring the ethical issues around AI use and the fact that current LLMs are patently unsuited to creating a functional ruleset... if an AI could generate rules, why would I pay for them when I could just get the AI to generate them myself?

AI-generated anything is not a marketable product. When you remove the need to invest anything in creating the product, you remove the need to pay for that investment.

No.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, even ignoring the ethical issues around AI use and the fact that current LLMs are patently unsuited to creating a functional ruleset... if an AI could generate rules, why would I pay for them when I could just get the AI to generate them myself?

AI-generated anything is not a marketable product. When you remove the need to invest anything in creating the product, you remove the need to pay for that investment.

Echoing the chorus of "Hell no," with emphasis on Insaniak's points.

Not a chance

I’m going to go with No.

No.

I'm a programmer by trade and I already have to deal with LLM slop making software worse. I don't need a glorified random text generator wrecking this hobby as well! :-)

 Easy E wrote:


However, as a rules writer; I am curious how many of you are ready to spend $$$ on AI written rules for games?

I'm not entirely sure the 3rd edition Horus Heresy ruleset wasn't passed through an AI generator. It reads like unnecessarily complicated stereo instructions.

I do enjoy how clumsy and verbose AI writing is.

If I can say it in three words, AI will say it in 10 words to 3 paragraphs.

Absolutely not. I also won't buy products with AI art in them if I know about it.

The whole thing makes me sick.

 kabaakaba wrote:
It's obvious that no current LLMs could make proper rules, but designer for this task AI make them better. Also it's can play test own rules if designed so. But it's required insane amount of work

Ai might actually be useful for playtesting. In theory you could give AI the rules and tell it to playtest and balance points values according to its testing. IT's the kind of thing AI should be very good at as it's basically how chess engines teach themselves to play. Wargames are obviously much more complex, but the principle is the same, I suspect the problem would be with creating useable outputs but if you gave the AI the structure you wanted the points to be in (integer values only, no conditional costs based on previous selections, etc) it could work.

As far as generating the rules from scratch? Absolutely not. Aside from the problems of Ai created anything, good rules are as much about creativity as they are mechanics.

Heresy does read as though it was passed through an AI filter as the final edit, as others have pointed out here. I've rarely seen such an impenetrable ruleset in my life. I'm sure it all makes perfect sense, but it does an awful job of communicating that.