Overall, a good video. I’m definitely opinionated about rpgs and editions of DnD, and don’t share his blanket love for each edition, but he’s right that the vitriol over edition wars are silly.

I don’t really agree with his WoW take; of just, being able to hop from DnD to WoW for a few months to have fun. I hate WoW, from a personal enjoyment level. I don’t knock anyone for enjoying it, but I’d rather do just about anything else. My friends jumped onto it on launch in highschool, and I joined them for a week or so, and I genuinely do not see the appeal. I’m not trying to be bitter or anything, so much as saying I am not able to just, go and have fun with WoW, or frankly any MMO I’ve tried.

But, there’s no RPG I’ve ever touched that I feel that way about. I don’t really like 4e for several reasons, but overall, if my group otherwise really wanted to play more of it, I know I could have fun playing or running it. Outside of truly dogshit ‘games’ like FATAL, I’m sure I could have fun playing just about any RPG, and even a FATAL one-shot could be fun, despite the rules (though, it’d veer awfully close to just laughing at a live-reading of the rules than really ‘playing the game’)

Still, I have no real interest in 5.5. Frankly, I currently have no real interest in 5e at the moment, though that’s more from ‘edition fatigue’. Like, I have many complaints about 5e (I’m not sure if you could play a lot of 5e and not notice it’s mechanical flaws), but I played it enough to get tired of it, which is a compliment in a lot of ways.

But I love playing new games. I’ve fallen in love with PF2e recently (though with 2 campaigns hitting level 14-ish, some fatigue is creeping in), and we’ve giving ICON a run. I’m looking forward to trying Exalted Essence and the new WoD stuff when a rpg slot opens up (running 3 games right now as it is). And I’ll probably return to DnD at some point, but nothing from 5.5 feels like it really ‘fixes’ the issues I have with 5e, or otherwise ‘sparks excitement’ in me. But also, it looks fine.

Though, if the really do centralize it to an official platform, I definitely won’t be touching it; I hate DnD beyond as it is, and how there are no PDFs for the 5e books (officially), which is a bummer but able to be worked around. And, even if they try to centralize 5.5 digitally, there will definitely still be books, and probably still be PDFs able to be found, though I’ll probably want to avoid the edition on principle anyway if that is the case.

Consuming content illegally is by definition a crime, yes. It also has no effect on your output. A summary or review of that content will not be infringing, it will still be fair use.

That their use is infringing and a crime is your opinion.

“My opinion”? have you read the headline? Its not my opinion that matters, its that of the prosecution in this lawsuit. And this lawsuit indeed alleges that copyright infringement has occurred; it’ll be up to the courts to see if the claim holds water.

I’m definitely not sure that GPT4 or other AI models are copyright infringing or otherwise illegal. But, I think that there’s enough that seems questionable that a lawsuit is valid to do some fact-finding, and honestly, I feel like the law is a few years behind on AI anyway.

But it seem plausible that the AI could be found to be ‘illegally distributing works’, or otherwise have broken IP laws at some point during their training or operation. A lot depends on what kind of agreements were signed over the contents of the training packages, something I frankly know nothing about, and would like to see come to light.

I mean, you can do that, but that’s a crime.

Which is exactly what Sarah Silverman is claiming ChatGPT is doing.

And, beyond a individual crime of a person reading a pirated book, again, we’re talking about ChatGPT and other AI magnifying reach and speed, beyond what an individual person ever could do even if they did nothing but read pirated material all day, not unlike websites like The Pirate Bay. Y’know, how those website constantly get taken down and have to move around the globe to areas where they’re beyond the reach of the law, due to the crimes they’re doing.

I’m not like, anti-piracy or anything. But also, I don’t think companies should be using pirated software, and my big concern about LLMs aren’t really for private use, but for corporate use.

The issue isn’t that people are using others works for ‘derivative’ content.

The issue is that, for a person to ‘derive’ comedy from Sarah Silverman the ‘analogue’ way, you have to get her works legally, be that streaming her comedy specials, or watching movies/shows she’s written for.

With chat GPT and other AI, its been ‘trained’ on her work (and, presumably as many other’s works as possible) once, and now there’s no ‘views’, or even sources given, to those properties.

And like a lot of digital work, its reach and speed is unprecedented. Like, previously, yeah, of course you could still ‘derive’ from people’s works indirectly, like from a friend that watched it and recounted the ‘good bits’, or through general ‘cultural osmosis’. But that was still limited by the speed of humans, and of culture. With AI, it can happen a functionally infinite number of times, nearly instantly.

Is all that to say Silverman is 100% right here? Probably not. But I do think that, the legality of ChatGPT, and other AI that can ‘copy’ artist’s work, is worth questioning. But its a sticky enough issue that I’m genuinely not sure what the best route is. Certainly, I think current AI writing and image generation ought to be ineligible for commercial use until the issue has at least been addressed.