Sounds like a market opportunity.
Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
261–270 of 420 posts
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a change from this though, as long as those AI generated textures are from systems that were trained on images that they have permission to use (or are copyright free).
No such system exists so they won’t. Even Adobes system has questionable training data mixed in
Every major game publisher has an enormous archive of in-house artwork, and probably a decent amount of hardware they could use for training. They'd be stuck with open source software like Stable Diffusion - or have to cut a deal with Midjourney or whoever - but there's no barrier to creating such a system.
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#263> 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…
This is a bullshit argument. There is zero liability for Valve here. They are a publisher, and are fully protected by the DMCA. Have they received a single takedown request for AI generated art? Why are they judging it to be possible infringement then?
Consider for just a moment that they have almost certainly thought about this much more deeply and thoughtfully than you have
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#264We're on the cusp of a profound content shovelware crisis. It will happen regardless, but any oasis of real content will become important. Automation will be a force multiplier for laziness and predation more so than for creativity.
> We're on the cusp of a profound content shovelware crisis. No, we've been inundated with low-quality content for decades now. This is nothing new. Fortunately, ratings and reviews and popularity have always been an extremely effective antidote. Even if 99% of stuff on a platform is total crap, nobody cares. It's a non-issue. Whether you're talking about music, books, TV shows, or whatever. The 1% rises to the top a…
> No, we've been inundated with low-quality content for decades now. This is nothing new.
The problem with this argument is that scale matters.
When a small number of people were trading mp3 files on FTP servers it was not seen as a problem. When Napster came out, it was seen as a problem. It was correctly seen as a qualitative shift in the effect it would have on society.
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#265> 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…
It's just a random reddit post. The OP on reddit didn't even post his game. Three possiblilities: 1. It's just fictional. Probably written by a troll or generated by ChatGPT. 2. Steam refused to publish the game due to some obvious copyright issues (like they told Midjourney to generate superman or one-piece characters) 3. Steam is banning any AI generated assets. My bet is 1 > 2 > 3.
It's a really strong indictment of the state of journalism that "I read it on reddit" has become sufficient to turn into a news story.
The internet is flooded with content right now to the effect of "Valve might be doing this thing", but not one of those sources has actually reached out to Valve for comment. Instead they all cite a random commenter on Reddit (or they cite each other).
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just a random reddit post. The OP on reddit didn't even post his game. Three possiblilities: 1. It's just fictional. Probably written by a troll or generated by ChatGPT. 2. Steam refused to publish the game due to some obvious copyright issues (like they told Midjourney to generate superman or one-piece characters) 3. Steam is banning any AI generated assets. My bet is 1 > 2 > 3.
It's a really strong indictment of the state of journalism that "I read it on reddit" has become sufficient to turn into a news story. The internet is flooded with content right now to the effect of "Valve might be doing this thing", but not one of those sources has actually reached out to Valve for comment. Instead they all cite a random commenter on Reddit (or they cite each other).
What journalism? This is a link to reddit
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a really strong indictment of the state of journalism that "I read it on reddit" has become sufficient to turn into a news story. The internet is flooded with content right now to the effect of "Valve might be doing this thing", but not one of those sources has actually reached out to Valve for comment. Instead they all cite a random commenter on Reddit (or they cite each other).
What journalism? This is a link to reddit
https://news.google.com/search?q=valve
There are dozens of articles that are just summaries of this reddit thread with no further effort put into them, and that's pretty much the norm these days for a lot of content.
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.13188.pdf Stable Diffusion spits out slightly blurrier versions of the pictures in its training set.
But that’s not the default behaviour of these models at all. Instead you have to work pretty hard to extract these original images.
When using the models normally, they do generate new content, even if the style and subjects are of course interpolated from training data.
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
And no one is trying to take that away from you. You are using it as a tool, and intend to pay someone to create the final version, or do it yourself. The issue people have is when you just use a dataset trained on someone else's work and pass it off as your own, and in the case of Steam games, most likely profit from it.
What if I look at other people's art and learn from it? Seem unfair to pass that work off as my own. All artists should be banned from looking at copyrighted images, we can't risk them incorporating copyrighted elements into their own work. /s
That’s not a good analogy and you should know it.
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#270> 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…
This is a bullshit argument. There is zero liability for Valve here. They are a publisher, and are fully protected by the DMCA. Have they received a single takedown request for AI generated art? Why are they judging it to be possible infringement then?
That may be true but that won't stop people from trying to sue undoubtedly - clearly they've decided the effort and legal fees required to deal with that aren't worth it.