Would you Pay Money for AI Generated Rules?

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.

**Pariah Press**

Tyran wrote:
I do want to make one thing clear. It is extremely likely GW is already using AI for its writing. GW already owns a massive amount of text on its own lore, rules and art, so scrapping the internet for content isn't needed.

You mean in its published writing? That’s a pretty serious accusation for you to toss around without presenting any evidence.

**Pacific**

Platuan4th wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I'm absolutely not okay with them not crediting writers.

When you look back at some of the bile and vitriol directed at certain rules writers? It becomes more reasonable.

This. When you know why they stopped attributing, it makes more sense.

Do we think that GW writers, even Matt Ward at his most ridiculed, get even 10% of the excrement thrown their way compared to the likes of the Star Wars or Marvel writers? And a lot of those guys are based in countries where it goes beyond to death threats, and the people making those threats have easily obtainable means to back them up - and unfortunately every now and again a lunatic goes through with it. And yet we still see names and script-writing and production credits.

GW have said that is the reason, I think its for the far more prosaic reason that it stops developers making a name for themselves and then moving on, as has happened many times previously. The culture in the company is such that you are absorbed, hive mind-like, and your creative output is wholly owned by GW. So for this reason I can see why they would have absolutely no compunction at all about using AI to write the rules, background text etc, even if they are not doing so already.

**Da Boss**

If an individual writer judges that they would prefer not to be credited because of despicable losers giving them abuse, then that's fine and good. But they don't give writers or artists the choice to be credited. So I think the Matt Ward excuse is just that, and extra disgraceful for using what happened as cover to treat others poorly.

**Pariah Press**

Wow, this theory really makes sense if you start with the premise that GW is full of lying, unethical morons.

**insaniak**

To be fair, it doesn't need to be a lot of them, just the guy in charge.

**KingmanHighborn**

Pariah Press wrote:
Wow, this theory really makes sense if you start with the premise that GW is full of lying, unethical morons.

Not the furthest stretch though

**Pariah Press**

Well, you know what they say, it takes one to know one. Bye!

**lord_blackfang**

Lathe Biosas wrote:
Right now I'm playing with AI to make my photos I took look like grainy "1970's black and white spy photos."

Surely that technology predates the AI buzzword bubble? I've done it in, like, 2012, for my Necromunda gameplay shots, with a mobile filter app.

**Da Boss**

Pariah Press wrote:
Wow, this theory really makes sense if you start with the premise that GW is full of lying, unethical morons.

Have you never worked in a large organisation before? Lying unethical morons are usually pretty good at weaseling into positions of power. I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't leave it up to the artists to be credited or not that is actually about protecting and valuing the artists, and I also find it extremely unlikely that all of the artists and writers and GW unanimously decided that they don't want to be credited for their work any more.

So what's your explanation? Do you have a better one than me?

**Cyel**

To be honest most of GW fluff pieces nowadays feel like AI writing.

**BobtheInquisitor**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Lathe Biosas wrote:
Right now I'm playing with AI to make my photos I took look like grainy "1970's black and white spy photos."

Surely that technology predates the AI buzzword bubble? I've done it in, like, 2012, for my Necromunda gameplay shots, with a mobile filter app.

Yeah, my previous, dumber phone had editing software that could do that.

**Lathe Biosas**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
Lathe Biosas wrote:
Right now I'm playing with AI to make my photos I took look like grainy "1970's black and white spy photos."

Surely that technology predates the AI buzzword bubble? I've done it in, like, 2012, for my Necromunda gameplay shots, with a mobile filter app.

Yeah, my previous, dumber phone had editing software that could do that.

Everything I read nowadays says that all photo Manipulation that I don't do personally, but use a computer program to make the adjustments at my command is labeled AI.

Am I wrong?

**Tyran**

AI is a massive term that refers to any decision making algorithm.

AI has been a thing for over a century.

The current "AI buzzword bubble" are Large Language Models, which are a specific type of AI.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Lathe Biosas wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
Lathe Biosas wrote:
Right now I'm playing with AI to make my photos I took look like grainy "1970's black and white spy photos."

Surely that technology predates the AI buzzword bubble? I've done it in, like, 2012, for my Necromunda gameplay shots, with a mobile filter app.

Yeah, my previous, dumber phone had editing software that could do that.

Everything I read nowadays says that all photo Manipulation that I don't do personally, but use a computer program to make the adjustments at my command is labeled AI.

Am I wrong?

Yes. There used to be preset filters (I don’t know the actual name) that changed a cluster of settings. I’m pretty sure the software that comes on an iPhone direct from the manufacturer has at least an “automatic” setting to get a basic job done.

Am I understanding you saying anything that takes “adjust three slider bars” and turns it into a single click is AI?

**Lathe Biosas**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Lathe Biosas wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
Lathe Biosas wrote:
Right now I'm playing with AI to make my photos I took look like grainy "1970's black and white spy photos."

Surely that technology predates the AI buzzword bubble? I've done it in, like, 2012, for my Necromunda gameplay shots, with a mobile filter app.

Yeah, my previous, dumber phone had editing software that could do that.

Everything I read nowadays says that all photo Manipulation that I don't do personally, but use a computer program to make the adjustments at my command is labeled AI.

Am I wrong?

Yes. There used to be preset filters (I don’t know the actual name) that changed a cluster of settings. I’m pretty sure the software that comes on an iPhone direct from the manufacturer has at least an “automatic” setting to get a basic job done.

Am I understanding you saying anything that takes “adjust three slider bars” and turns it into a single click is AI?

When I asked around about using Photoshop, the consensus I get is that it uses AI.

Is Adobe Photoshop considered AI?

Yes, Photoshop has built-in AI features, including powerful generative AI tools like Generative Fill and Generative Expand, which use the Adobe Firefly engine for tasks like adding, removing, or expanding content in images. It also includes other AI-powered tools such as the Remove Tool, Sky Replacement, and Neural Filters to streamline workflows and enhance images.
Key AI features
Generative AI:
Generative Fill: Add, remove, or replace objects and elements in an image using text prompts.
Generative Expand: Expand an image beyond its original boundaries, with the AI generating new content that blends seamlessly.
Remove Tool: Easily erase unwanted objects like wires or distractions by simply brushing over them.
Neural Filters:
Skin Smoothing: Automatically and realistically smooth skin with adjustable intensity settings.
A variety of other filters powered by machine learning to speed up complex editing tasks.
Image Enhancement and Upscaling:
Sky Replacement: Quickly and automatically change the sky in an image, with Photoshop handling the masking and blending.
AI-powered upscaling: Increase the resolution of images while preserving details, using tools like Generative Upscale and Preserve Details 2.0.
Other AI-powered tools:
Object Selection tool: Create precise selections of objects with ease.
Match Font: Find and match fonts from an image.