[-] bignose@ttrpg.network 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

You even directly quoted the complaint that this is built on the backs of thousands of people's work. Without their consent, without the possibility of attribution and recognition for their work.

And then blithely ignored it, failed to address it at all.

You have demonstrated you just don't care about the creative work of countless people over countless hours, that has been shredded and fed into the machine which extruded this thing you want to promote. Why should anyone care about giving you “constructive” feedback? De-construct this thing and think a lot harder about the people you're trying to market to.

[-] bignose@ttrpg.network 2 points 2 months ago

Thank you for the disclosure that you used Generative AI.

323
119
submitted 11 months ago by bignose@ttrpg.network to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
  • Police were called to Dragon Con after an artist was accused of selling A.I.-generated artwork at their booth.
  • Vendor Oriana Gerez faced backlash and was asked to leave, sparking heated debate across social media platforms.
  • Dragon Con currently lacks a clear public policy addressing A.I. art in its Artist Alley or exhibition guidelines.
  • Controversy follows past A.I. art incidents, with the Dragon Awards and Fan Expo Canada grappling with similar issues.
244
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by bignose@ttrpg.network to c/games@lemmy.world

CGE faced an immediate online backlash after unveiling Codenames: Back to Hogwarts on social media site BlueSky on July 23, with the announcement receiving hundreds of responses attacking the decision before the Codenames account locked comments, and switched off the function allowing users to share the post alongside their own remarks.

The continued online criticism intensified two days later when CGE released a short statement attempting to justify its decision to release the game – which was panned for going out of its way to avoid mentioning Harry Potter or JK Rowling by name.

That statement also immediately came under fire online for its attempt to separate the art from the artist, while failing to address that Rowling – a dollar billionaire thanks to Harry Potter – has used financial proceeds from her creation to directly fund organisations attempting to strip trans people of their rights.

bignose

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago