What about in the creation of Art for non d&d products?

@Cytokine I think if it's coming from Wizards, it should count. Maybe it depends on what their revised artist guidelines says. But I think the subtext of their statement is that they are anti-AI-art in general, and that's what they want to signal to consumers. So I think anything that walks that sentiment back will count.

Their not the type of company to back now from this

@Breadbrowser Every company on the planet will either back down from this stance or be eaten alive by market forces. Whether it happens before 2026 is the actual question. 👍

@fukumomo Is art a significant part of WotC’s budget? I wonder what products would change if they could get 10x times more art for the same price.

@Charlie That's interesting. Definitely possible that the art isn't significant enough of an expenditure to justify the backlash over AI art. I do think that consumers are going to start to expect absolutely everything to have visuals, maybe even audio, to go along with content, as it gets easier and easier to include, so the cost to keep up could go up.

@fukumomo try Microsoft, they will not back down from anything unless it makes them less money

I think it depends on what they count as "their art creation process" - e.g. can artists use AI to generate reference poses/reference backgrounds, so long as the art itself is entirely hand/mouse/stylus/etc.-drawn?

@evergreenemily I think that they do MEAN that they can't use it at all. But I think it's lip-service and obviously impossible to enforce. A lack of real distinction for where "ML-based tools" end and "generative AI begin" makes it probably not worth resolving this over that kind of nit-picking. But if they actually came out and said that people CAN specifically use generative AI as part of their process as long as it's not the final product, I'd resolve this "YES".