131–140 of 421 posts
I bet if they'd only used AI assisted coding would be a complete non-event, but oh no, some inconsequential assets were generated, grab the pitchforks!
As always the market decides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure about licenses that explicitly forbid LLM use -- although you could always modify a license to require this! -- but GPL licensed projects require that you also make the software you create open source. I'm not sure that LLMs respect that restriction (since they generally don't attibute their code). I'm not even really sure if that clause would apply to LLM generated code, though I'd imagine that it shoul…
Very likely no license can restrict it, since learning is not covered under copyright. Even if you could restrict it, you couldn't add a "no LLMs" clause without violating the free software principles or the OSI definition, since you cannot discriminate in your license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure about licenses that explicitly forbid LLM use -- although you could always modify a license to require this! -- but GPL licensed projects require that you also make the software you create open source. I'm not sure that LLMs respect that restriction (since they generally don't attibute their code). I'm not even really sure if that clause would apply to LLM generated code, though I'd imagine that it shoul…
They don't require it if you don't include OSS artifacts/code in your shipped product. You can use gcc to build closed source software.
Note that this tends to require specific license exemptions. In particular, GCC links various pieces of functionality into your program that would normally trigger the GPL to apply to the whole program, and for this reason, those components had to be placed under the "GCC Runtime Library Exception"[1]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a double standard because it's apples and oranges. Code is an abstract way of soldering cables in the correct way so the machine does a thing. Art eludes definition while asking questions about what it means to be human.
I love that in these discussions every piece of art is always high art and some comment on the human condition, never just grunt-work filler, or some crappy display ad. Code can be artisanal and beautiful, or it can be plumbing. The same is true for art assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, but that is a different issue. The use of generative AI for art is being rightfully criticised because it steals from artists. Generative AI for source code learns from developers - who mostly publish their source with licenses that allow this. The quality suffers in both cases and I would personally criticise generative AI in source code as well, but the ethical argument is only against profiting from artists…
No, the only difference is that image generators are a much fuller replacement for "artists" than for programmers currently. The use of quotation marks was not meant to be derogatory, I sure many of them are good artists, but what they were mostly commissioned for was not art - it was backgrounds for websites, headers for TOS updates, illustrations for ads... There was a lot more money in this type of work the same w…
There is a problem with negative incentives, I think. The more generative AI is used and relied upon to create images (to limit the argument to inage generation), the less incentive there is for humans go put in the effort to learn how to create images themselves.
But generative AI is a deadend. It can only generate things based on what already exists, remixing its training data. It cannot come up with anything truly new.
I think this may be the only piece of technology humans created that halts human progress instead of being something that facilitates further progress. A dead end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does the Luddites a bit of a disservice: > But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield,…
In that case, the neo-Luddites are worse than the original Luddites, then? Since many are definitely not "totally fine with the machines", and definitely do not confine their attacks only on the manufacturers that go against worker rights, but they include the average person in their attacks. And the original Luddites already got a lot of hate for attempting to hold back progress.
The issue is not the technology per se, it's how it's applied. If it eliminates vast swathes of jobs and drives wages down for those left, then people start to have a problem with it. That was true in the time of the Luddites and it's true today with AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s incredibly harsh. A blanket ban on AI generated assets is dumb as hell. Generating placeholder assets is completely acceptable.
The problem of allowing "placeholder AI assets" is that any shipped asset found to be AI is going to be explained away as being "just a placeholder". How are we supposed to confirm that they never meant to ship the game like this? All we know is that they shipped the game with AI assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It literally is shipping AI generated content in the product.
> It literally is shipping AI generated content in the product. When someone goes three miles per hour over the speed limit they are literally breaking the law, but that doesn’t mean they should get a serious fine for it. Sometimes shit happens.
But you’re also not supposed to drive as close to the speed limit as possible. That number is not a target to hit, it’s a wall you should stay within a good margin of.
I understand analogies are seldom flawless, but the speed limit one in particular I feel does not apply because you can get a fine proportional to your infraction (go over the limit a little bit, small fine; go over it a lot, big fine) but you can’t partially retract an award, it’s all or nothing.
There is a small irony that the Indie Game Awards rejects nominations of games using AI but The Game Awards does not. It is independent teams of developers who are less likely to be able to afford to pay an artists who may be able to produce something of value with AI assets that they otherwise would not have the resources for. On the other side, it is big studios with a good track record and more investment who are…
I agree that this holds in theory, but in practice? All the overhyping of AI I've heard from the gaming sector has come from the big studios, not indies. And, as you point out, Clair Obscur isn't the 'most indie' of indies anyway.
