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.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Photoshop was around decades before AI was a thing. My understanding is they always add more tools, iterative improvements and more automation to make the tools easier. They’ve added “AI” features, but a user still needs to use the old tools to finish the image and keep it from looking wonky.

I think we’re moving goalposts here as I was addressing your post about making photos look like old 70’s photos, something that doesn’t require AI at all.

**Lathe Biosas**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Photoshop was around decades before AI was a thing. My understanding is they always add more tools, iterative improvements and more automation to make the tools easier. They’ve added “AI” features, but a user still needs to use the old tools to finish the image and keep it from looking wonky.

I'm about as technically adept as Pembroke Corgi.

**lord_blackfang**

Filling in blank space behind an object you've cut out is obviously adjacent to what currently passes for "generative AI"

Adding preset filters and effects is not.

**Lathe Biosas**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Filling in blank space behind an object you've cut out is obviously adjacent to what currently passes for "generative AI"

Adding preset filters and effects is not.

Cool. Now I know.

**Laughing Man**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Filling in blank space behind an object you've cut out is obviously adjacent to what currently passes for "generative AI"

Adding preset filters and effects is not.

It's also been around far longer than what we consider generative AI. CS6 could do that back in 2012.

**BanjoJohn**

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?

Money is an exchange for the labor that was done to produce a product. If you are using AI to generate a product, your labor is greatly diminished. If the price of the product doesn't reflect the greatly diminished labor input, then I wouldn't pay for it. Frankly I'd expect the product to be free unless there was a good amount of human labor in it too.

**Herzlos**

On the crediting writers, they could always have allowed writers to use an alias to avoid criticism or make the nameless publication optional. I assume some of their writing staff must be proud of their work.

Having a name on the book makes it feel more handcrafted and personal.

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

I'm not convinced AI could ever manage to come up with Murder McMurderFang from the Planet Murder with his Murderlust and Murderclaws..

**techsoldaten**

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

LLMs probably are not capable of generating a complex core core rule system.

Neural networks are used for this purpose every day. Not so much for tabletop games, but to model markets, competition, expected outcomes over a series of trials.

They do so far better than humans could. Were it not for the cost involved in generating the models, I suspect we would be applications in the game space already.

What would make me consider playing an AI generated game is knowing it was engineered using probabilistic models, simulation-driven regression tests, and reinforcement learning. Like, I wouldn't want to play something just because someone slapped an AI label on the box. I would want to know it's engineered to generate certain payouts and how to optimize around them.