"AI rule covers" Topic

Many rule sets and their covers are now using AI.
It is fairly easy to see which ones do.
They look nice and require minimal effort.

Don't forget that the picture can be made lighter. Gloomy pictures are often the AI initial offering.

The thoughts of others?

martin

Well, if the AI writes the rules, only fair that it gets a chance to submit a cover.

AI just sort of confuses me. It just seems like a computer doing what computers do; information is put in by people and then it comes out when people put in a request.

AI is being heavily used in the board game industry and there have been some pretty heated discussions about it over at BGG. I can see why board game manufacturers and some designers are using it, such as when you need to produce several hundred cards, tokens, etc., for some of the larger games and paying artists for that could make the game pretty expensive. There are, however, a lot of gamers who now refuse to buy a game if it has AI artwork in it.

Luddites are still with us.

AI has its place, but people are tending to rely too heavily, IMO, on it to do their work for them. AI art can be useful -- I've used it to create Dwarven banners for my miniature armies to carry. I will not use it for writing my game rules nor will I use AI art in rules I publish. It has great potential, but it needs to be managed very carefully. Cheers!

"Luddites are still with us"

So are thieves and plagiarists – mostly working in, so called, artificial intelligence.

Using AI to 'create an original' is an excuse for not being able to do it in the first place and covering that up by copying other's ideas. Having software do the legwork doesn't make it any less immoral.

AI has its uses though not to the much exaggerated degree that some claim. In creative terms it will rapidly degrade creativity and cease to generate anything to replace it.

AI is improving at an incredible rate. It would be foolish not to take advantage of what it can provide.

AI is improving at an incredible rate.

No it isn't. I recently (last week) asked it to produce an HTML email template for a work project. It was rubbish.

This guy knows what he is talking about:
link

Using AI to 'create an original' is an excuse for not being able to do it in the first place and covering that up by copying other's ideas. Having software do the legwork doesn't make it any less immoral.

+1

GildasFacit- I like your succinct take on the subject of AI.

A second for GildasFacit! I confess to being a non-recovering Luddite.

Personally, I'm not put off by AI art as long as it looks good. Makes me wonder, though. If we could insert a mini into a machine, enter the colors we want, then press PAINT, would we do it?

Makes me wonder, though. If we could insert a mini into a machine, enter the colors we want, then press PAINT, would we do it?

Apparently you can do that now with colour 3D printing.

I confess cover images are very far down on the list of things I consider when buying a rulebook. Be it done by AI or the neighbour's nephew with delusions of artistry, I'm not likely to spend much time looking at it.

No it isn't. I recently (last week) asked it to produce an HTML email template for a work project. It was rubbish.

Which one did you use? For things technical, Claude seems best.

Anyway, generative AI doesn't seem any more like copying than human intelligence despite the haranguing of the Arteests. Learn things, chop up the concepts and put them back together as "inspiration"

Yes Louis but if a human did it they could be sued.

Many rule books and scenerio books are a labor of love and don't make much profit. Why not AI to help out?

It's a tool.

Heard someone the other day say,"The older generation predominantly uses AI to help with their work. The younger generation tends to have it do their work."

Then one of my grandsons informed me kids in his math class take a phone photo of their homework right before class, upload it an AI, and get the answers.

They don't know if it's correct – but at least their homework is done.

In the US at least, because of the Supreme Court's decision not to rule on the matter, AI-created work cannot be copyrighted because it's not created by a person ( link ). So in the US you could use AI art for rules covers but not have any copyright over it. Which is a problem for a commercial product. :-)

Then one of my grandsons informed me kids in his math class take a phone photo of their homework right before class, upload it an AI, and get the answers.

They don't know if it's correct – but at least their homework is done.

And then they fail the exam because they know nothing – and that's fair because their study approach clearly indicates that they are as thick as a plank.