Think there’s a lot to be wary of in regards to AI, the UK government asked META and Microsoft if an AI model that grew unsafe could be recalled and/or shut down and they were evasive about giving a solid answer. They were more intent on insisting they wouldn’t be the only actor culpable in the event of it happening.
But I think the writing is on the wall with it. It’s here, it isn’t going away.
As far as art goes, I am fine with being a luddite
This is the main take away from it.
The hoidy doidy “well -I- am -NEVER- using AI” tier arguments are reductive “cool story, bro” tier reactions. It doesn’t care that you aren’t using it, you aren’t the intended audience.
The simple fact is as you said, it’s not going anywhere. Convenience has never left mankind once its introduced for better or worse. The wise option however is to see how best one can work around the new technology, either to use or to not use. Understanding it is better than just throwing up walls and pretending its not there.
From a corporate perspective the answer depends on whether or not they are going to be compensated by big government for their own mistakes (think financial institutions in 2007/2008).
Best not to even use AI art to begin with honestly, especially not for RP.
The algorithim is made up of stolen illustrations, often commissioned work of original characters. It’s just a morally slippery slope.
It’s much better to support artists by commissioning them, or even take the time to learn how to draw yourself! 
What is made by human hands is so much more meaningful.
As AI exists today, it is nothing more than theft at a mass scale that we as individuals can’t comprehend.
As an RP’er and a writer, I see myself as a fellow creative and think it’d be doing a disservice to others if I were to support the technology as it is used at the moment.
There ware ways in which it could feasibly, in the future, be used as a beneficial part of the creative pipeline, but we aren’t there yet and it’s not the discussion we’re having right now.
No more chant your old rhymes about old Robin Hood
His feats I do little admire
I’ll sing the achievements of General Ludd
Now the hero of Nottinghamshire.
Brave Ludd was to measures of violence unused
'till his sufferings became so severe
That at last to defend his own interest he rose
And for the great fight did prepare.
The guilty may fear but no vengeance he aims
At the honest man’s life or estate
His wrath is entirely confined to wide frames
And to those that would prices abate.
Those engines of mischief were sentenced to die
By unanimous vote of the trade
And Ludd who can all opposition defy
Was the grand executioner made.
And when in the work he destruction employs
Himself to no method confines
By fire and by water he gets them destroyed
For the elements aid his designs.
Whether guarded by soldiers along the highway
Or closely secured in a room
He shivers them up by night and by day
And nothing can soften their doom.
Ye may censure great Ludd’s disrespect for the laws
Who ne’er for a moment reflects
That foul imposition alone was the cause
Which produced these unhappy effects.
Let the haughty the humble no longer oppress
Then shall Ludd sheath his conquering sword
His grievances instantly meet with redress
Then peace shall be quickly restored.
Let the wise and the great lend their aid and advice
Nor e’er their assistance withdraw
Till full-fashioned work at the old-fashioned price
Is established by custom and law.
Then the trade when this arduous contest is o’er
Shall raise in full splendor its head
And colting and cutting and swearing no more
Shall deprive all his workers of bread.
The luddites were right to do what they did, and being associated with them against “AI” could only ever be a compliment.
The Butlerian Jihad will not be kind to AI bros, I think
Will end up with them getting behavioural chipped in the back of the cerebellum.
Which will benefit everyone involved honestly.
Comparing AI to the printing press is both absolutely glazing AI and its abilities, as well as utterly useless as an analogy.
Another point I often see people bring up in defense of AI art is that commissions are expensive. Well… art is a luxury and it takes time. Prices vary drastically too- I’ve seen artists advertise portraits that only cost the equivalent of about a two month subscription for retail. (Really, they should get paid a lot more.)
Or, again, just learn how to paint! There’s so many wonderful free tutorials online. 
To second this, me not being able to afford a luxury car doesn’t give me the right to steal one off the assembly line
You may end up creating a masterpiece by accident.
Sometimes what we make by mistake is something that sticks, even if we initially hate it.
I have art of 2 or 3 of my characters, all was given to me and I could get by without it. RP is done largely in a text medium and if the words are there I’m happy creating an image in my head with what’s presented in game to build off.
If you’re confusing Ludd with the printing press let me elucidate you.
Ludd wanted to stop the automated spinning machines - which vastly increased output for clothing and one of the major precursors to the industrial revolution which in turn is ultimately how we are communicating via online interaction.
So by all means think of AI as the demon but you’re condemning yourselves to reactionary and superstitious thought.
I for one welcome our AI overlords.
An absolute joke of a summary. Perhaps you should expand your historical knowledge from what you learned when you were thirteen.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/when-robots-take-jobs-remember-luddites-180961423/
Gentle reminder that the Unabomber was a Luddite too.
Without the industrial revolution and its effects there would be at most 2 billion people on this world.
Which of those two billion do you think you’d be in? (hint, none of them)
Either way, the analogy is useless, truly apples to oranges. Our discussion isn’t whether AI could be usable or useful for any tasks whatsoever, but the concept of generative AI, as it exists right now, which is nothing short of grand larceny at a scale so massive the justice system internationally, cannot grasp it.
Man is whole horse comparing people who disagree with him to the fuggen Unabomber I’m dead 
As an open source enthusiast who releases all her hobby software and blog posts under open source licenses, no, it’s not.
I can, and do, release my code and writing under open source licenses because I write it myself. Yes, my software projects use third-party libraries written by others, but I only claim copyright over my own code; the third-party libraries are used with attribution, and I can use them because they themselves are released under open source licenses. The authors retain copyright and have chosen to let others use their works, and to modify their source code, as long as certain conditions are met.
For example, I’ve released Chaos Archives under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) version 3. In plain language, it means that anyone can
as long as they
Open source licenses are implicit contracts between the original authors and the users, who can contribute. They are what allows many people to contribute to open source projects and send their modifications to the original developers when they’re useful to the project. Everyone benefits.
(And indeed, there is a German language fork of Chaos Archives, Elpis Garten, that runs a heavily modified version of the code. The two projects exchange code in a mutually beneficial relationship.)
Wikipedia is also licensed under an open source license, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, which has similar terms but for non-software works (since the concept of source code isn’t applicable to a human-readable text encyclopedia). It is the legal foundation that has allowed millions of people to contribute to Wikipedia. It also means that everyone who makes their own copies of Wikipedia articles must release their modifications under the same license, so that the original Wikipedia can benefit from them.
In contast, AI generators are trained on art scraped from the Internet without the consent of the original authors, without crediting them, and in violation of their copyright — because by default, in copyright law, creators retain exclusive right to their creations unless they explicitly say otherwise. Since AI generators use the work of artists without their consent for derivative works, their output cannot be legally distributed, even leaving aside the morality of it.
Unlike open source, it’s not a symbiotic relationship, but a parasitic one.
(Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and this post does not constitute legal advice.)
An entire non-sequitur because you’ve been caught out spouting rubbish and - apparently - unable to read.
From the linked article:-
At heart, the fight was not really about technology. The Luddites were happy to use machinery—indeed, weavers had used smaller frames for decades. What galled them was the new logic of industrial capitalism, where the productivity gains from new technology enriched only the machines’ owners and weren’t shared with the workers.
The Luddites were often careful to spare employers who they felt dealt fairly. During one attack, Luddites broke into a house and destroyed four frames—but left two intact after determining that their owner hadn’t lowered wages for his weavers. (Some masters began posting signs on their machines, hoping to avoid destruction: “This Frame Is Making Full Fashioned Work, at the Full Price.”)