Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore - r/aigamedev
reddit.adminforge.de
View on Libreddit, an alternative private front-end to Reddit.

Valve quietly not publishing games that contain AI generated content if the submitters can’t prove they own the rights to the assets the AI was trained on

    • effingjoe@kbin.social
      51·
      1 year ago

      Not someone, AI.

      I am old enough to remember when “X, but on the internet” was considered a new and novel thing-- turns out that it isn’t. X, but with AI is no different than X. Training a person and training an AI do not need different laws.

      It takes years to train a person, it takes years to train a person, much less to train AI

      Most people, and so what? You think an artist gets different rights depending on how fast someone can learn their style?

      if that content is sold it’s more akin to something selling tracings of someone else’s work.

      Only if it’s an exact copy, which would already be covered by current laws. This would be more like when people create art in the style of other art. Like, for a made up example, if someone drew the stranger things characters in the style of the Simpsons.

      it’s directly used to generate new content.

      What does this even mean?

      Edit: Sorry about all those typos!

        • effingjoe@kbin.social
          31·
          1 year ago

          I can’t help but notice you didn’t answer the question. My question was more like “How is this different than when a human learns to make art”? It’s to directly generate new content, is it not?

            • effingjoe@kbin.social
              1·
              1 year ago

              whether or not AI generated content is “new content” is a philosophical debate that doesn’t matter

              It clearly does matter if valve is rejecting games because their art was generated by an AI.

              Generative AI will push productivity to all time highs by an order of magnitude and wages will not have increased by the same, enabling a faster rate of wealth transfer to corporations and the top percentage of shareholders.

              You think generative AI will be more advantageous to big corporations, versus smaller operations? How does that track?

              I didn’t answer your question because it was vague and shows a lack of understanding of both how AI generates content

              You have no idea what my skillset is, and I am passingly familiar with the concepts of machine learning. But my question, as I already noted, was more like “why do you think this phrase doesn’t also apply to humans?”. Which I already clarified, and you still haven’t answered.

              If a person is in the art/media-for-hire business, they’re going to be in a rough spot in the very near future because a computer program will likely replace them. Just like self-driving cars-- the technology doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to be better than humans. For cars, we’re a little ways away from that; for art, that time is arguably right now.

                • effingjoe@kbin.social
                  2·
                  1 year ago

                  If you don’t see that as a problem then this conversation isn’t worth having and your views are unimportant.

                  My views only matter if they align with yours? This is a pretty ignorant way to go through life.

                  In any event, I guess it depends on what you mean by:

                  this has the potential to severely displace skilled individuals, and not just artists

                  If, by “displace” you mean they can’t get paid to do something they used to get paid to do, then no, I do not see that as a problem. That’s just how technological progress works.

                  However, if by displace you mean “they end up destitute on the streets”, then yes, I do see that as a problem. A problem that should be solved by something that disconnects the need to work with the ability to live comfortably-- something like a UBI, not by trying to hold back technological progress to artificially keep those jobs in demand.

                  So, does my view matter?

          • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            You noticed that, did you? If I ask a small child to draw a picture of a sunflower - and they have never seen a picture of a sunflower, but they are sitting in a field of sunflowers - is it your contention that they would be unable, because they’ve never seen a picture?

            Because I think the small child will manage it. And the AI with no training data won’t.

            But yes, to answer your broader question, I think it is reasonable to have legislation around automated or large scale processes that don’t pertain to something an individual can do. Which is why there is regulation around robocalling, sending spam and photocopying and selling books.

            • effingjoe@kbin.social
              11·
              1 year ago

              I am not sure why you’re starting another thread with me, but I don’t think the distinction you’re making between a live stream of a flower and a picture of a flower is sensical.

              I don’t want to get too bogged down in the details of your analogy. (It’s really bad.) but in either case, you have to explain what a flower is when you request a picture of a flower. If you ask a child that doesn’t speak English to draw you a picture of a “sunflower”, they won’t be able to do so even if they’re sitting in a field of sunflowers.

              You make a good point regarding the legislation of the output of an automated process, but we were talking about the input; whether the AI needed to be trained only one works with permission. This is certainly not how the law works now, and I argue that it makes no sense to implement such a law.