AI, Content Creation and Us.

[First_Witch]

With the ever fastening rise of AI technology and the possibilities it brings in the fields of interactive content, I wondered how we would deal with the slowly encroaching question of; How will we deal with AI (Or more precisly, intelligent chatprograms) incorporated directly into Fiction?

This question cropped up in my mind after finding a small indie game called "Depersonalization". The game itself isnt anything radical, its a classic RPG set in a Lovecraftion setting. What is radical and new though is the usage of AI within the game, or better said, the planned usage. To quote the developers from their own Discord Server:

As you can see, the only thing stopping them from implementing a character (Yog-Sothoth is a key character in the game) who uses AI technology to answer questions the players might ask it, is simply knowhow and technology limitations from the team.

Setting the moral and ethnic discussions of AI technology aside, because this conversation is not about that, I'm sure some people can already tell what future issues we specifily might face; In a future, but not far version of the game, a AI, a canon and integral part of the game, can answer powerscaling related questions with the quality of probably Chatbot. The AI program you can currently gaslight into believing factually wrong things.

In future, AI will probably open up avenues for some headache inducing powerscaling practises. The authority of the AI will stand and fall with the factual information its developers have fed it with and that might not stop it from conjuring up bullshit about the setting and plot either.

So the most easiest answer is to just forbid users from using statements produced by such a AI from being used as evidence right? But... what if developers design a whole series around a Chatbot being the defacto storytelling authority? What if the AI is decreed word of god by word of god? And tons of other questions that currently might have relevancy, as this is a brand new concept barely conjured up by new developers and writers, but will become questions we must solve in the future.

Which is not the goal of this thread. Right now, it wont be a issue, so I'm doing this more so for interest, so I wish for a open conversation with the community.

 

[Arceus0x]

 

[Arceus0x]

I think those kinds of verses will end up being unallowed on the wiki simply cause everyone hates AI nowadays and their existence would cause too much drama. There's also the fact that not dealing with that verse is easier than creating standards so it is more likely that a lazier option will be used.

 

[First_Witch]

I think those kinds of verses will end up being unallowed on the wiki simply cause everyone hates AI nowadays and their existence would cause too much drama. There's also the fact that not dealing with that verse is easier than creating standards so it is more likely that a lazier option will be used.

Probably, but assume for conversations sake, that enough staffmembers found such works that they would really like to be featured on the wiki. So standards have to be made now.

 

[Shmooply]

Kill AI, behead AI, roundhouse kick an AI into the concrete, slam dunk an AI baby into radioactive waste.

Considering that people are now close to losing their livelihoods because of AI, Witch is right in the fact that this matter should be addressed soon.

But... what if developers design a whole series around a Chatbot being the defacto storytelling authority?

Can you elaborate on this further? I'm pretty sure we already don't allow something like AI dungeon on the wiki.

What if the AI is decreed word of god by word of god?

This is either a really faulty question or it's just my hatred towards WoG speaking, but I don't see why we should treat whatever the developers say as gospel. Do we immediately dismiss the WoG if the AI storyteller starts being inaccurate with the story? Whose words should we accept if we are still using developers as examples? Do we treat it the same way we already treat WoG of big media, where the developer who spent most of the time "working" (lol) on the project states that the AI knows what it's doing, but we still accept the statements from the lead of the project who says that it's messy and sometimes spouts nonsense?

 

[First_Witch]

Can you elaborate on this further? I'm pretty sure we already don't allow something like AI dungeon on the wiki.

I cant at the top of my head, as this is just a hypothetical with no currently existing basis. I cant imagine a game off the top of my head that would implement AI to such an degree. I think a valid question would thus be "How much are we comftable with"

This is either a really faulty question or it's just my hatred towards WoG speaking, but I don't see why we should treat whatever the developers say as gospel. Do we immediately dismiss the WoG if the AI storyteller starts being inaccurate with the story? Whose words should we accept if we are still using developers as examples? Do we treat it the same way we already treat WoG of big media, where the developer who spent most of the time "working" (lol) on the project states that the AI knows what it's doing, but we still accept the statements from the lead of the project who says that it's messy and sometimes spouts nonsense?

Its not a faulty question, but your answers to it is a perfectly valid stance. Maybe we should just discard the notions of authority for AI regardless of its developers intended position. How much are writers and developers willing to cede in terms of creative authority to the AI in order to make the project as interesting as possible?

 

[First_Witch]

And this is purely sci-fi right now, but if, IF AI reaches genuine levels of intelligence, would that change anyones stances?

 

[Shmooply]

Alright, you're going way too far with this, let's stick to the believable stuff for now.

 

[First_Witch]

Bump