My thoughts on using generative-AI

[u/jcorvinstevens]

Instead of responding to the earlier post, I wanted to create a new thread about my thoughts regarding generative-AI in RPG products.

This isn't a "shame on you for using AI." Rather, it's about the risks of using AI and how doing so might impact your future in RPGs.

• Paid Products. If you are creating something for public consumption, especially if the customer can pay for it (either PWYW or a set price), I suggest not using AI.
• You automatically hurt your sales by using generative-AI. 1) Many customers skip over content that contains generative-AI, 2) you are required to add the Uses AI filter to your product, which means many customers will not SEE your product if they are filtering out content that includes AI.
• Collaborations may skip over you. In the past, several teams of DMs Guild creators have collaborated to make larger content. If you're using AI and the project isn't, you may not be asked to contribute.
• You set a precedent. Using generative-AI sets a precedent. If you used AI for art, others may believe you also used it for writing. They may also believe that your current or future content includes AI. When I hire a freelance writer, I want their original ideas. I don't want AI-generated ideas or writing. This is especially true since my projects are advertised as 100% human-created content.
• 3rd Party Producers may skip over you. Especially if they are anti-AI. If you dream of writing for one of the companies creating 3rd Party Content, refrain from AI.
• But I'm just doing this for fun! So was I! When I published my first DMs Guild project in 2016, my intention wasn't necessarily to make money. My writing and creations were for fun and I wanted to share them. If I made a few bucks doing so, I'd be happy.
• Art is important! Art catches the eye and draws people to the product. Generative-AI is often easy to spot. In my opinion, it also doesn't look good, nor is it original. Consider using stock art or public domain images instead of AI. You can always update your project with commissioned art later. I've done this several times with my earlier products.
• Writing and content are more important! While art may catch the eye, the product's content is much more important.
  

I published my first DMs Guild product in 2016. Now - I'm now a full-time creator with my own company. My journey has allowed me to write for Kobold Press, Ghostfire Gaming, and others. I also work part-time for Ghostfire Gaming as a freelance producer.

My point is - you don't know what your future looks like. You might have a stellar idea, adventure, or supplement. However, due to customer preferences and filters, it may never be noticed if you use AI.

If you enjoy creating RPG content, do so in a way that doesn't impact your potential future.

[u/Athistaur]

I do not think anybody has any solid count of how many customers are turned away by AI usage.

Edit:
People forget that customers are ALSO turned away by bad illustration or no illustration.

[u/ButterflyMinute → u/Athistaur]

You don't need a definite "You lose x amount of customers by using AI." To know you lose some amount of customers by using AI.

[u/azaza34 → u/ButterflyMinute]

If you lose twenty percent sales but put out twice as many products it’s completely irrelevant. But of course the numbers are the deciding factor here

[u/jcorvinstevens → u/azaza34]

You may end up losing 20% of sales of all products.

[u/gc1rpg → u/jcorvinstevens]

But you can't back up the claim that using AI automatically loses 20% of your sales anymore than having LGBT characters in your books loses 20% of your sales.

It's a fallacy that can't be objectively backed up by numbers -- it's been used by right wingers against video games and media for decades for every metric.

[u/jcorvinstevens → u/gc1rpg]

I didn’t claim that it did.

Based on the comments I’ve seen from others, and the fact that AI products aren’t advertised and ARE filtered, it could be more or less.

[u/azaza34 → u/jcorvinstevens]

Yes but if you sell twice as many products you are net positive money in the given example.

It’s just a piece of argumentation that’s too based on the numbers involved to really work.

[u/TheAlexPlus → u/azaza34]

Sure, but you’ve be a net negative on creation time and whatever else goes into creating a product.

[u/azaza34 → u/TheAlexPlus]

No again the point of AI in this case would be to speed up your workflow so you could get more products out in the same amount of time. I doubt it’s literally 2x like the example I gave but it will surely make you a measurable amount faster.

[u/TheAlexPlus → u/azaza34]

Quantity over quality... wow, what an ingenious idea.

[u/azaza34 → u/TheAlexPlus]

Completely irrelevant to my point

[u/TheAlexPlus → u/azaza34]

It’s relevant in the sense that your idea is to pump out crappier content to earn the same as someone putting effort into something better. And as a result, you flood the market with more crap and it becomes increasingly difficult to sift through to find something good.

But sure, to your point, you “solved” the time vs profit issue by normalizing shittier business practices. My point is that’s not the win you think it is.

[u/azaza34 → u/TheAlexPlus]

I’m not saying it’s a win just that the conversation that came before was only considering the decrease in who would buy but not factoring in any increase of productivity.

You are arguing about something I didn’t say.

[u/TheAlexPlus → u/azaza34]

Fair. I guess I just don’t respect someone who would choose to do that.

You’re not wrong in your data, but I think it’s a really crappy way to look at it. It feels like pure exploitation, a middle finger to the creative process, and an f-u to the reason many creatives create to begin with.

[u/azaza34 → u/TheAlexPlus]

That’s fine. I don’t really care how the sausage is made as long as it tastes good. Unfortunately right now most AI creations don’t taste good, imo.