301–310 of 420 posts
Without seeing the art there is nothing to judge. I bet it's a visual story and they are using characters from established ips.
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…
> 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 FAANG or a state actor would need to dedicate team(s) to detection technology and still have false negatives. Are people actually trying to detect AI-generated content? That would not only be pointless and futile; the threat of false positives would be enormously de…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not a good analogy and you should know it.
It’s a terrific analogy. The alternative is to believe that a 5GB model somehow contains a database of 160 million images.
It seems like you could calculate how much data is within X% error of a 5GB model, and what X% should be for 'visual data'.
I bet it's pretty big.
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…
> 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 FAANG or a state actor would need to dedicate team(s) to detection technology and still have false negatives. Are people actually trying to detect AI-generated content? That would not only be pointless and futile; the threat of false positives would be enormously de…
Think about security or trust and safety or anti-scam or anti-fraud.
AI generated image, video, and audio can be used to circumvent a lot of systems used in these domains. Many of these domains are for protecting users from being scammed, being impersonated, being tracked, etc.
Think about criminal court. Evidence may become impermissible if it can't be proven whether an image or video or audio document is a forgery or captured reality.
It's a bit flippant and absurd to insult the intelligence of people working on AI detection. I'd be a bit dumbfounded by someone dismissing an effort w/o spending time to think about why that effort may exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sounds like a cop-out. Adhering to legal and copyright standards isn't a "cop-out"
And which standard is that for ai generated art ?
If this is true, then ordinary copyright law means that AI-generated media cannot be used unless you have a release from every bit of training data you used. At least some of the currently existing AI:s were trained with datasets for which such releases are impossible, so they should not be used.
Also, for the love of god, do not use any of the AI coding assistants, or if you do, at least never publicly admit you do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What journalism? This is a link to reddit
Here's one from Ars Technica. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/06/steam-mods-reportedly...
I wanted to point out that journalists at least check their sources...
Just because now generative AI has made a significant leap doesn't mean its anything new. And copyright is irrelevant because models are clearly derivative works the same way artists remix existing works of art, if that were to change, copyright law would destroy the majority of all creative endeavors.
> 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.
Besides my already established biases towards AI: It's threatening to creative endeavors, not because it exists, but because it will impact the earning potential of creatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Soon they will be auto-generated with ChatGPT from reddit threads...