211–220 of 420 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sounds like a cop-out. Adhering to legal and copyright standards isn't a "cop-out"
[flagged]
US Copyright Office has stated unequivocally that AI works cannot be copyrighted, or otherwise protected legally.
The US patent office is studying the effects of AI on the patent system and asking citizens and businesses for comment.
If that’s not enough for you, I don’t know what would be.
This is just legal cover until such time as its possible to enforce no child exploitation imagery, no copyright stuff, etc. It doesn't matter if they are able to enforce it, Valve can use this policy as cover if they ever get sued. Don't overthink the motivation. They will not even have a bulletproof way to detect AI imagery as it evolves every single day as an arm's race and detection is a full-time job. Even a FAAN…
Going public about your awareness to a problem necessitates an enforcement response to be considerable. Imagine you are a trademark holder and someone is using your IP but you don't enforce your trademark by litigating. Your claim is weakened. It shows the public and the court how significant this problem is for your party. Edit: copyright -> trademark
Intellectual property is an encompassing term that seems to lead to this sort of confusion.
> After reviewing, we have identified intellectual property in [Game Name Here] which appears to belongs to one or more third parties. In particular, [Game Name Here] contains art assets generated by artificial intelligence that appears to be relying on copyrighted material owned by third parties. As the legal ownership of such AI-generated art is unclear, we cannot ship your game while it contains these AI-generated…
Assuming this is even real, it may have more to do with preventing another 1989 video game crash resulting from the market being overwhelmed with crappy games.
Then again, most AAA games today are broken pieces of suck, so IDK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are also on the cusp of individual developers being able to produce works that used to take entire teams. I'm working on simulating a small town using Generative AI agents, schedules, social interactions, realistic reactions to outside events, dialogue between characters, the whole shebang. A year ago that wasn't an "after work side project". I just did a full launch on https://www.generativestorytelling.ai/ - a s…
> AIs are an obscene boost to what individuals can do. Depends what the individual is trying to do. Making memes? Blog spam? Sure. But for non-trivial content I haven’t seen an example that was compelling.
ChatGPT helped me write my websocket code, I'd never used websockets before and it saved me hours (of not more) of time learning a new API.
I had a concurrency bug in some code, I threw it at GPT4 and asked it what the problem was, a few seconds later it split out a solution.
I had some complex state management code: "Hi this code has an off by 1 error in it, can you find it?"
"My page demonstrates this visual problem, here is the CSS file for the page, what is wrong?"
The color picker component used on my above linked site was 80% written by ChatGPT4.
AI is a huge productivity booster.
Heck I use it to steel man opposing views of my blog posts to try and make sure I have sound arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are already successful Steam games known to have used AI art. And this is only in the cases of the developers publicly admitting that. High On Life used Midjourney for it's ingame posters - https://store.steampowered.com/agecheck/app/1583230/ - https://www.thegamer.com/high-on-life-ai-generated-art/ And Firmament https://store.steampowered.com/app/754890/Firmament/ - https://www.pcgamer.com/firmament-ai-generat…
Can you explain to me how "you must affirmatively state that you own or have licensed rights to the training data (and if you're lying, the legal responsibility is yours and not Valve's)" is not a clear rule? And yeah, they should kick those games off for using copyrighted materials that they do not own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not being "rejected entirely". That is mendacious editorializing. Generative AI products are being rejected unless you affirm that you have rights to the entirety of the training data set . What's wrong with that?
That you probably don't need rights to the training set in the US, unless Congress changes copyright law. This is being litigated.[1] Humans can look at a collection of copyrighted images and draw a new picture. The legal basis for holding AIs to a higher standard is weak. Current litigation: [1] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/16/23557098/generative-ai-ar...
And if Valve doesn't want to take this risk? To reiterate eropple, what's wrong with that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> ultra super conservatively cautious. This has nothing to do with politics. This has everything to do with CYA, the issue is AI trained with copyrighted material is a huge gray area and they don’t want to be in the gray area. That’s rational and has zero to do with “conservative”. This is likely not set in stone and after the copyright laws and courts catch up and decide what to do, Valve will likely go back and upd…
Please tell what is, in your opinion, a conservative garbage collector without looking on google.
That seems pretty sensible. There have been lawsuits from artists before. Do you want to risk a game selling 10m copies and then it turns out that all the art was just copied and pasted by the "AI" and Valve is now on the hook. Also from a store perspective, any game where shortcuts like this are used tend to be shit games. They don't want spam games to be pumped. There's already enough indie trash platformers that n…
AI doesn’t copy and paste art though, it generates new art based off of patterns it’s seen in its training material. If it’s training material heavily features red squares, and you prompt it to generate a new piece, chances are you’ll get something with a red square - not because it copied that red square from any particular piece, but because it was a common element. There’s a difference between reproducing common e…
Stable Diffusion spits out slightly blurrier versions of the pictures in its training set.