I think the crux of the issue and the thing Kobold Press is rejecting is LLMs/generative AI, and most people these days that are critical of AI are critical of these tools, not other algorithms that are referred to as AI. Honestly, we shouldn't be calling LLMs AI, there's nothing intelligent about it, it's just essentially averaging huge swaths of data. If I'm paying for a supplement, I don't want AI-generated art to be in it. It's narratively and artistically void by its very nature, and I so agree that it goes against the spirit of why we play D&D. Common Kobold Press W
As someone who works in AI (not generative AI) and considered himself both an AI evangelist and critic, I'm very happy with Kobold Press's stance. Almost all image-based generative AI uses copyrighted imagery without compensation, which is theft. Text-based generative AI is just autocomplete on steroids. In the end, you get average output that has a chance at being completely wrong. The human brain is far better equipped for creative tasks and is a better match for the TTRPG community. Using our brains also helps us get better over time whereas using AI is simply a crutch that holds us back. Use your brain and don't be lazy.
Current LLMs and image-generation steal copy righted material to train their algorithms, this is why you should never pay for something made by an AI. However, I have no issue with hobby DMs or hobby players using the free algorithms in order to speed up their game prep or generate some custom character art. But no body should be profiting from these types of algorithms until a legal framework is in place to compensate those whose work was used in training the algorithm with a portion of the profits from it.
For me, I put AI on a spectrum. Diablo 3's random dungeons, slightly AI. AI generated art. Much more so. AI art still required a minimum of 2 actions from a human, 1 to train the art program and 1 to input the prompt. THE DIFFERENCE is how we get the AI and how we use it. I don't think anyone has an issue with a random background being generated as long as the artist themselve programed their own art.
The issue is AI is an umbrella term. And as I’ve comment before - most people couldn’t tell you the difference in terminology. Given the general understanding of AI - grammar fix on word is AI, a Google search is AI, etc. which is just a disservice and a co-opt of the term. AI (historically and from a sci-fi perspective) requires self learning and sentiments. All we have is a bunch of algorithms that are only as good as their programmers: think racism in Scottish police AI crime prevention or watching literally any AI learn a video game. But companies “using ai” have always existed - any sort of cataloguing system with filters is really just one step back from what everyone is calling AI now. And companies have proprietary AI - the conflict calculator on DNDbeyond can choose the enemies which given the insanely broad definitions everyone is using falls under AI. Like we need to take a step back to actually reground ourselves in a level of media literacy
AI = "Automated Interpretation". It demands a prompt. It combs through a curated library to produce the desired result with the purpose of saving a human user time. If we have to use these trendy letters, then this is far more accurate than calling it an "intelligence"...which it is not. Let's not give Microsoft's Clippy more credit than he deserves.
Besides other ttrpgs created by Free League, Im mainly Kobold Press and their 5e proxy material like Tales of the Valiant+TomeOfBeasts+Creature Codex ftw ( they got yellow dragons, WotC you are slacking there😂 ). SERIOUSLY! I have siblings that are very talented in art and such and they have their interest threathened! Me as an older brother are 200% with them against the unhinged and reckless use of A.I. If I had the power I would bring ruin to the a.i companies end.of.story!
not all AI is bad, but it should be clearly labeled as AI. I've seen so many car YT channels that the title is all about the new C8 Corvette (2020-present) and all the "art" in the video is clearly a half assed render of the C7 Corvette (2014-2019) and the VO is usually a shitty text to speech or crappy example of Joe Rogan..
The level of retconning necessary on day 1 for the new books shows how utter cr*p AI is for generating new material. It's basically a lower cost option for WOTC: way cheaper to run machine learning models to (notice the quotes) 'refine' their work instead of the back and forth that used to happen. As always WOTC is their own worst enemy and i hope the reap what they've sown.
I don't think AI is the reason that WotC cannot proofread their own rules or create new problems with changes because they don't consider basic things like the ready action to move.
I agree with some of what they said and disagree with some. AI used to help design a game, not an issue. Using it to generate character art for a one shot, not an issue. Using it to make art for a published book is a no go for me. You should higher artists for this. I also do no thing AI should be something you can sell. Cracks me up people trying to sell their AI art on deviantart, etc.
There is no debate as to what is and what isn't AI, AI is simply any computer program capable of solving problems that its programmers didn't code a solution for. So a game that procedurally generates a dungeon is not AI because a programmer coded the algorithm for procedurally generating that dungeon, but a game with enemies that learn from how you fight might utilize AI to learn to fight you better without altering enemy stats to create a sense of difficulty. In this context however, AI is specifically referring to using generative AI to generate artwork, maps, flavor text, rules text, item descriptions, adventure modules, etc. or using a chat bot as a DM. And it's not that people have a problem with any kind of AI used in any context, it's that companies like Hasbro want to use AI to replace the creators behind their games with AI trained off of their content without their permission and without paying them anything for using the data to train their models, and it's shamelessly being done just upper management can fire people and put their salaries into their own bonuses. It's not just with AI either, the transition from DVDs to streaming is a similar cash grab because there are no royalties for streaming, and there is no regulation and no studios have made any agreements with unions forcing them to pay streaming royalties. Not to mention that AI generated content and chat bots are trained to SEEM human, but there is no message or intent underneath what they generate like there is beneath the surface of human made art. Art is communication through creation, so what's there to enjoy when consuming the art created by an AI with no human experience and no intent? It's not like I think AI should never ever be used in this context under any circumstance though. Since it's invention, AI has been used to offer solutions other tools could never do before, like how in the Lord of the Rings movies, AI allowed the CGI team to make individual soldiers move independently and realistically to create those sweeping shots of large scale battles that would have taken years to motion capture or would have looked horrible if they simply copy and pasted the same movement for multiple CGI actors in the same shot. On a smaller scale, I've seen a creator here on youtube that trained his own AI model to use footage of himself and his own badly drawn images to basically rotoscope for him; he took a time consuming process that would normally take him hours and hours to draw over each frame of himself by hand and created an AI tool to do that specific process for him. AI is a tool, and as long as people use it as a tool, they can expand what they can do on their own. The problem is when people use it to try to replace complex, multi-step processes and in doing so, they cut out the heart of the entire piece of art.
I don't think that publishers should be using Generative AI to do any writing of text or dialogue. I don't think that publishers should be using Generative AI to produce final versions of Art, however I could see it as a tool for an art director to clarify a concept to give to a human artist for an art buy and then the artist producing their version of the concept or scene. I could see cartographers using a generative tool to do the first pass of a randomized map, but then rework it so that it made sense and flowed, adding and taking away elements to establish the correct connectivity of elements or insert challenging obstacles, or to fit design concepts that may not make sense when randomly generated. Where I have no problem with publishers using AI would be to use Machine Learning algorithms to do Alpha phase Power Balancing and game testing of rules and rules updates. I think a rule set as complex as D&D 5e with its specific concept of Bounded Accuracy could benefit from Artificial Intelligence doing the initial phases of game testing. This could leverage these algorithms ability to do billions of iterations and combinations to produce a smaller set of red flag issues that the human design team could then focus on to further test or make changes to. I don't think that you can get a Unearthed Arcana process as bold and robust as the one that was undertaken for the 2024 update without some use of Machine Learning to crunch numbers and compile and assess playtest data to summarize all that information for the designers. Here I think it is a smart use of a technological tool that can make for a more stable rule set. The only danger of using Machine Learning would be if the human designers used the data generated from those tests unquestioningly or exclusively and didn't follow up with additional live playtests in the later stages of the development process.
I like to create things myself but its ai can be very useful for making things on the fly. For instance in a game the other day i needed a couple random tables that me and a couple friends are planning to make but we haven't had time to make it so we just asked chatgpt as a temporary measure until we have our own one
There are AI tools that might be acceptable. If there is an AI tool that allowed me to input "I want a CR14 medium encounter with Mind Flayers and Umber Hulks" and the AI would spit out options of "You can have X Mind Flayers and Y Umber Hulks OR V Mind Flayers and W Umber Hulks OR..." - and have the AI do the math for me for the mix of Monsters to hit the CR target - I'd be OK with that. I'm still designing the encounter - and I COULD sit down and do the work by hand to get the results - but the AI is doing the grunt work. Even if it gives the "Here are some suggested strategies for the first round for the bad guys" - Cool - I can ignore or use these as desired. What I do NOT want - Any time the AI is doing the creative work. That's not acceptable and I absolutely support Kobold Press's stance on this.
My only counterpoint there is about the "to play with friends." As SOLO GAME rules are being a top factor on TTRPG to gain more sells. I dont like that solo play trend but, money talks.
For me, I think it’s just as bad as when you buy a book and these writers put in major references to other media. Like how candlekeep mysteries has a literal adventure written by a dude who said his adventure was written as a Scooby doo adventure.
Also, any spark of gm’s creativity is dimmed by AI is a shit take. You live in a town without hobby shop, you are your mates are planning a session for this Friday. You don’t have the time to make the maps and encounter tokens (or lack some of the skills) so you use AI. Your players love it - so you are less of a GM and less creative for making an experience your friends love? As someone who has done games with his own creative drawing skills vs AI - my players hate when I’m drawing the stuff 😂 especially given how accessible AI is. That truly is just a gross statement from Kobold Press and I used to support them but now… I’m going to have to stop because apparently I’m less than for giving my players what they want.
I respect what Kobold Press is trying to do, but unless they are micromanaging everyone associated with them to make sure they have every AI feature in every app or graphics card disabled......then the statement is pointless. AI is a part of our everyday lives, even the people who hate it are using it. Even if they don't realize it. Hell, Nerd Immersion is using it right now if he is making videos in a way to play the UA-cam algorithm. Like it or not, everyone is using AI and everything you know and love has had Skynets binary hands all over it.
I'm glad someone else sees this! AI isn't new and has existed in everyday life for years. These more "creative" focused AIs are newer but I don't think that's what WotC was saying they were going to use
This also would prevent an artist who works for them from using AI in their process, which is actually very limiting and forces them to do tedious tasks that would best be done automatically by a computer.
AI is a tool that happens to work really fast. Photoshop lets you do some questionable things but we don't argue about that the way we argue about AI art.
I have absolutely no problem with AI when used by people who can't afford art. So if someone's making Homebrew that they're trying to sell and they want to add some art I see no problem with that. Because art is very expensive. And you can argue that they could just release it without the art but it's been shown many times that a product does not do as well without there being art in it . And not everyone is blessed enough to be able to draw and I've heard the argument all anyone can learn to draw I fundamentally disagree with that notion. I'm just overly tired of the companies that want to save money and want to make more money. It's just pure greed they have the ability they make enough money but because they're beholden to shareholders they just want to screw over people that they could be giving jobs to and it's not acceptable
AI does not steal art. You wouldn't say that a musician who listened to other people's music was stealing it, or that a painter who looked at other paintings was stealing them.
Other humans learning from your work, who are subject to the limitations of a human mind, has been part of the social contract since the dawn of humanity. "Training" computers running fast enough to consume more content than a human could consume in a lifetime, to make a product that can undermine the economic value of the original content and the ability for the original creator to make a living, has never been part of the social contract. Let's flip the script, and suppose that a private citizen made an AI to "learn" from the intellectual property of the software that the tech giants made, and build equivalents of their software so no one has to buy the original. Would that be acceptable? You can bet they would be sued to oblivion by doing that.
All Bullcrap, Every publisher that tells you they are not using some sort of Large Language Model to help them with editing, formating, mechanic concepts and everything els are either LYING, or f&%$#$ stupid. I see deception and virtue signaling in hopes the part of the audience that cares will still buy their books. And honestly, I think a consumer only cares about a good game....some will say otherwise, but my guess is that is a small demographic
We've heard it all before from everyone? Maybe you shouldn't speak for me because I certainly haven't heard everyone and I've never heard anyone tell me it all before.
Worthless statement and is pandering. They should have had no opinion on the matter and just said we will do what's best for our brand and our customers.
love the subtle tshirt joke
I will continue to support Kobold Press and Tales of the Valiant Thanks for the update.
I think the crux of the issue and the thing Kobold Press is rejecting is LLMs/generative AI, and most people these days that are critical of AI are critical of these tools, not other algorithms that are referred to as AI. Honestly, we shouldn't be calling LLMs AI, there's nothing intelligent about it, it's just essentially averaging huge swaths of data. If I'm paying for a supplement, I don't want AI-generated art to be in it. It's narratively and artistically void by its very nature, and I so agree that it goes against the spirit of why we play D&D. Common Kobold Press W
As someone who works in AI (not generative AI) and considered himself both an AI evangelist and critic, I'm very happy with Kobold Press's stance. Almost all image-based generative AI uses copyrighted imagery without compensation, which is theft. Text-based generative AI is just autocomplete on steroids. In the end, you get average output that has a chance at being completely wrong.
The human brain is far better equipped for creative tasks and is a better match for the TTRPG community. Using our brains also helps us get better over time whereas using AI is simply a crutch that holds us back. Use your brain and don't be lazy.
I think we should go the Mass Effect route, and make a conscious effort to differentiate virtual intelligence (VI) and artificial intelligence (AI).
Good to hear, and a smart business practise considering how much AI tanks buyability
AI art is fine for personal use, it should never be used in a commercial setting
It's not just that it has to be trained on stolen data to function, it's also the ridiculous water and power usage.
Current LLMs and image-generation steal copy righted material to train their algorithms, this is why you should never pay for something made by an AI. However, I have no issue with hobby DMs or hobby players using the free algorithms in order to speed up their game prep or generate some custom character art. But no body should be profiting from these types of algorithms until a legal framework is in place to compensate those whose work was used in training the algorithm with a portion of the profits from it.
Just backed labyrinth limited edition with the beetles n grim add on.
Yes same… I cannot wait
For me, I put AI on a spectrum.
Diablo 3's random dungeons, slightly AI.
AI generated art. Much more so.
AI art still required a minimum of 2 actions from a human, 1 to train the art program and 1 to input the prompt.
THE DIFFERENCE is how we get the AI and how we use it. I don't think anyone has an issue with a random background being generated as long as the artist themselve programed their own art.
The issue is AI is an umbrella term. And as I’ve comment before - most people couldn’t tell you the difference in terminology. Given the general understanding of AI - grammar fix on word is AI, a Google search is AI, etc. which is just a disservice and a co-opt of the term. AI (historically and from a sci-fi perspective) requires self learning and sentiments. All we have is a bunch of algorithms that are only as good as their programmers: think racism in Scottish police AI crime prevention or watching literally any AI learn a video game. But companies “using ai” have always existed - any sort of cataloguing system with filters is really just one step back from what everyone is calling AI now. And companies have proprietary AI - the conflict calculator on DNDbeyond can choose the enemies which given the insanely broad definitions everyone is using falls under AI. Like we need to take a step back to actually reground ourselves in a level of media literacy
AI = "Automated Interpretation". It demands a prompt. It combs through a curated library to produce the desired result with the purpose of saving a human user time. If we have to use these trendy letters, then this is far more accurate than calling it an "intelligence"...which it is not. Let's not give Microsoft's Clippy more credit than he deserves.
Well I may not be playing TotV but I respect Kobold Press far more than Hasbro/WotC.
Also, it really depends on what you are having the A.I. do and where the data set comes from.
Based Kobold Press
And that’s why we prefer Kobold Press to wotc
Im not anti-AI; it has its uses. Im anti stealing the work of an artist, and I'll definitely invest my $$ in human created art over AI.
AIG holds no copyright so if the material is free I don't mind
Besides other ttrpgs created by Free League, Im mainly Kobold Press and their 5e proxy material like Tales of the Valiant+TomeOfBeasts+Creature Codex ftw ( they got yellow dragons, WotC you are slacking there😂 ). SERIOUSLY! I have siblings that are very talented in art and such and they have their interest threathened! Me as an older brother are 200% with them against the unhinged and reckless use of A.I. If I had the power I would bring ruin to the a.i companies end.of.story!
not all AI is bad, but it should be clearly labeled as AI. I've seen so many car YT channels that the title is all about the new C8 Corvette (2020-present) and all the "art" in the video is clearly a half assed render of the C7 Corvette (2014-2019) and the VO is usually a shitty text to speech or crappy example of Joe Rogan..
The level of retconning necessary on day 1 for the new books shows how utter cr*p AI is for generating new material. It's basically a lower cost option for WOTC: way cheaper to run machine learning models to (notice the quotes) 'refine' their work instead of the back and forth that used to happen. As always WOTC is their own worst enemy and i hope the reap what they've sown.
I don't think AI is the reason that WotC cannot proofread their own rules or create new problems with changes because they don't consider basic things like the ready action to move.
I agree with some of what they said and disagree with some. AI used to help design a game, not an issue. Using it to generate character art for a one shot, not an issue. Using it to make art for a published book is a no go for me. You should higher artists for this. I also do no thing AI should be something you can sell. Cracks me up people trying to sell their AI art on deviantart, etc.
There is no debate as to what is and what isn't AI, AI is simply any computer program capable of solving problems that its programmers didn't code a solution for. So a game that procedurally generates a dungeon is not AI because a programmer coded the algorithm for procedurally generating that dungeon, but a game with enemies that learn from how you fight might utilize AI to learn to fight you better without altering enemy stats to create a sense of difficulty.
In this context however, AI is specifically referring to using generative AI to generate artwork, maps, flavor text, rules text, item descriptions, adventure modules, etc. or using a chat bot as a DM. And it's not that people have a problem with any kind of AI used in any context, it's that companies like Hasbro want to use AI to replace the creators behind their games with AI trained off of their content without their permission and without paying them anything for using the data to train their models, and it's shamelessly being done just upper management can fire people and put their salaries into their own bonuses. It's not just with AI either, the transition from DVDs to streaming is a similar cash grab because there are no royalties for streaming, and there is no regulation and no studios have made any agreements with unions forcing them to pay streaming royalties.
Not to mention that AI generated content and chat bots are trained to SEEM human, but there is no message or intent underneath what they generate like there is beneath the surface of human made art. Art is communication through creation, so what's there to enjoy when consuming the art created by an AI with no human experience and no intent?
It's not like I think AI should never ever be used in this context under any circumstance though. Since it's invention, AI has been used to offer solutions other tools could never do before, like how in the Lord of the Rings movies, AI allowed the CGI team to make individual soldiers move independently and realistically to create those sweeping shots of large scale battles that would have taken years to motion capture or would have looked horrible if they simply copy and pasted the same movement for multiple CGI actors in the same shot. On a smaller scale, I've seen a creator here on youtube that trained his own AI model to use footage of himself and his own badly drawn images to basically rotoscope for him; he took a time consuming process that would normally take him hours and hours to draw over each frame of himself by hand and created an AI tool to do that specific process for him.
AI is a tool, and as long as people use it as a tool, they can expand what they can do on their own. The problem is when people use it to try to replace complex, multi-step processes and in doing so, they cut out the heart of the entire piece of art.
People think all AI is as dumb as the free general subject LLMs/image generation that search engines provide for free.
I don't think that publishers should be using Generative AI to do any writing of text or dialogue.
I don't think that publishers should be using Generative AI to produce final versions of Art, however I could see it as a tool for an art director to clarify a concept to give to a human artist for an art buy and then the artist producing their version of the concept or scene.
I could see cartographers using a generative tool to do the first pass of a randomized map, but then rework it so that it made sense and flowed, adding and taking away elements to establish the correct connectivity of elements or insert challenging obstacles, or to fit design concepts that may not make sense when randomly generated.
Where I have no problem with publishers using AI would be to use Machine Learning algorithms to do Alpha phase Power Balancing and game testing of rules and rules updates. I think a rule set as complex as D&D 5e with its specific concept of Bounded Accuracy could benefit from Artificial Intelligence doing the initial phases of game testing. This could leverage these algorithms ability to do billions of iterations and combinations to produce a smaller set of red flag issues that the human design team could then focus on to further test or make changes to. I don't think that you can get a Unearthed Arcana process as bold and robust as the one that was undertaken for the 2024 update without some use of Machine Learning to crunch numbers and compile and assess playtest data to summarize all that information for the designers. Here I think it is a smart use of a technological tool that can make for a more stable rule set.
The only danger of using Machine Learning would be if the human designers used the data generated from those tests unquestioningly or exclusively and didn't follow up with additional live playtests in the later stages of the development process.
I like to create things myself but its ai can be very useful for making things on the fly. For instance in a game the other day i needed a couple random tables that me and a couple friends are planning to make but we haven't had time to make it so we just asked chatgpt as a temporary measure until we have our own one
There are AI tools that might be acceptable.
If there is an AI tool that allowed me to input "I want a CR14 medium encounter with Mind Flayers and Umber Hulks" and the AI would spit out options of "You can have X Mind Flayers and Y Umber Hulks OR V Mind Flayers and W Umber Hulks OR..." - and have the AI do the math for me for the mix of Monsters to hit the CR target - I'd be OK with that. I'm still designing the encounter - and I COULD sit down and do the work by hand to get the results - but the AI is doing the grunt work. Even if it gives the "Here are some suggested strategies for the first round for the bad guys" - Cool - I can ignore or use these as desired.
What I do NOT want - Any time the AI is doing the creative work. That's not acceptable and I absolutely support Kobold Press's stance on this.
My only counterpoint there is about the "to play with friends." As SOLO GAME rules are being a top factor on TTRPG to gain more sells. I dont like that solo play trend but, money talks.
For me, I think it’s just as bad as when you buy a book and these writers put in major references to other media. Like how candlekeep mysteries has a literal adventure written by a dude who said his adventure was written as a Scooby doo adventure.
Why would that be bad thing to write a story written in the style of a Scooby doo adventure?
Also, any spark of gm’s creativity is dimmed by AI is a shit take. You live in a town without hobby shop, you are your mates are planning a session for this Friday. You don’t have the time to make the maps and encounter tokens (or lack some of the skills) so you use AI. Your players love it - so you are less of a GM and less creative for making an experience your friends love? As someone who has done games with his own creative drawing skills vs AI - my players hate when I’m drawing the stuff 😂 especially given how accessible AI is. That truly is just a gross statement from Kobold Press and I used to support them but now… I’m going to have to stop because apparently I’m less than for giving my players what they want.
I respect what Kobold Press is trying to do, but unless they are micromanaging everyone associated with them to make sure they have every AI feature in every app or graphics card disabled......then the statement is pointless.
AI is a part of our everyday lives, even the people who hate it are using it. Even if they don't realize it. Hell, Nerd Immersion is using it right now if he is making videos in a way to play the UA-cam algorithm.
Like it or not, everyone is using AI and everything you know and love has had Skynets binary hands all over it.
I'm glad someone else sees this! AI isn't new and has existed in everyday life for years. These more "creative" focused AIs are newer but I don't think that's what WotC was saying they were going to use
Sure there A.I in the background. Its about the imagery A.I that make sure art by us meatbags gets irrelevant and out of jobs!
This also would prevent an artist who works for them from using AI in their process, which is actually very limiting and forces them to do tedious tasks that would best be done automatically by a computer.
AI is a tool that happens to work really fast. Photoshop lets you do some questionable things but we don't argue about that the way we argue about AI art.
I have absolutely no problem with AI when used by people who can't afford art. So if someone's making Homebrew that they're trying to sell and they want to add some art I see no problem with that. Because art is very expensive. And you can argue that they could just release it without the art but it's been shown many times that a product does not do as well without there being art in it . And not everyone is blessed enough to be able to draw and I've heard the argument all anyone can learn to draw I fundamentally disagree with that notion. I'm just overly tired of the companies that want to save money and want to make more money. It's just pure greed they have the ability they make enough money but because they're beholden to shareholders they just want to screw over people that they could be giving jobs to and it's not acceptable
AI does not steal art. You wouldn't say that a musician who listened to other people's music was stealing it, or that a painter who looked at other paintings was stealing them.
Other humans learning from your work, who are subject to the limitations of a human mind, has been part of the social contract since the dawn of humanity. "Training" computers running fast enough to consume more content than a human could consume in a lifetime, to make a product that can undermine the economic value of the original content and the ability for the original creator to make a living, has never been part of the social contract.
Let's flip the script, and suppose that a private citizen made an AI to "learn" from the intellectual property of the software that the tech giants made, and build equivalents of their software so no one has to buy the original. Would that be acceptable? You can bet they would be sued to oblivion by doing that.
Sound off
One two what are we doing here
Three Four where are going with this.
One, two make a thingy for the rhythm.
All Bullcrap, Every publisher that tells you they are not using some sort of Large Language Model to help them with editing, formating, mechanic concepts and everything els are either LYING, or f&%$#$ stupid. I see deception and virtue signaling in hopes the part of the audience that cares will still buy their books. And honestly, I think a consumer only cares about a good game....some will say otherwise, but my guess is that is a small demographic
That's the last straw. I won't be supporting Kobold Press anymore.
We've heard it all before from everyone, just wait till they see the cost cutting savings using a good AI.
We've heard it all before from everyone? Maybe you shouldn't speak for me because I certainly haven't heard everyone and I've never heard anyone tell me it all before.
Worthless statement and is pandering. They should have had no opinion on the matter and just said we will do what's best for our brand and our customers.