We need an "AI generated web game tower defense" FULL FN STOP.
Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
321–330 of 420 posts
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#322Earlier 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...
A lot were already automated prior to ChatGPT
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
And which standard is that for ai generated art ?
A lot of AI generated images retain the watermark of the copyright image it was trained on. If you sell something with that image with no agreement from the rights holder it is not fair use. It is completely reasonable for Valve to forbid this until it is sorted out. Keep mind they are a company of IP creators, creating a marketplace for IP creators. The whole reason Steam was created was to establish a DRM that foug…
To correct the common misconception:
Sometimes AI image generators insert a watermark because they have seen a lot of watermarks on certain kinds of images during training. This does not mean that the image itself is a copy of any particular image in the training data.
Producing (distorted) copies of images in the training data takes some real effort, and typically only occurs for images which are heavily repeated in the training data... Most of the complaints along these lines can be compared to complaints that cars cause massive bodily harm if you steer them into lightposts: The problem is easily preventable by not driving into a lightpost.
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I see three relevant articles (the rest aren't relevant, e.g. talking about Steam summer sale), from sites that look more like content farms than legitimate news websites.. but yeah, there are too many content farms nowadays.
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans take in inputs and transform what they learn into distinct outputs. Training data is essentially just a machine doing the same thing. Knowingly scraping pirated material would be one thing, but essentially having the machine view publicly-available material is not clearly at odds with existing IP law.
And if your output isn't distinct enough from the inputs, you too aren't allowed to claim copyright or sell your work without proper licensing. With the AI we can at least be 100% certain of which input you trained it on and under which licens, making the whole a lot easier to deal with, as compared to humans. The liability is the same, but it's much easier to avoid legal implications, so why not play ball and ensure…
Have what correct licenses?
It's not clear that you need any license to train on data in the vast majority of cases. Having a license to train on it won't guarantee that you can grant your users a license to any particular output, especially given the addition of user input. And most of the utility is in creating outputs that are indeed distinct.
So the answer to "why not play ball?" is: 1. It's not clear that it's legally required 2. It would be incredibly expensive and/or slow progress dramatically, or limit you to pre-existing licensed content (e.g. Adobe) which drastically reduces some types of capabilities 3. Given #1, for any company that doesn't have an Adobe-style library, "playing ball" is essentially betting the company that it will become legally required, because on top of developing an AI model you're going to have to become an expert content licensing and documentation studio
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
And which standard is that for ai generated art ?
A lot of AI generated images retain the watermark of the copyright image it was trained on. If you sell something with that image with no agreement from the rights holder it is not fair use. It is completely reasonable for Valve to forbid this until it is sorted out. Keep mind they are a company of IP creators, creating a marketplace for IP creators. The whole reason Steam was created was to establish a DRM that foug…
They don’t ‘retain’ a watermark. They ‘reproduce’ the watermark.
It’s entirely possible for a diffusion model to produce an original work and yet still hallucinate a ‘shutterstock’ watermark onto it, in much the same way as GPT can hallucinate valid-looking citations for legal cases that never happened.
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#327Why editorialize? "Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore" Your title changes the meaning- they didn't ban games afaict. It's also a misleading post, as it's specifically GenAI where authors can't prove or don't have rights to content. If you use ProcGen etc or have full rights to the data used, I can't imagine there would be any issues.
Yeah this seems like the title should be edited. @dang (not sure how to get his attention)
@dang is a no-op. The only way to get reliable message delivery is to email hn@ycombinator.com. Fortunately someone did that. I'll take a look at the title situation now.
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's one from Ars Technica. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/06/steam-mods-reportedly...
"Journalists" are like vultures now, they just run towards anything to publish as much as possible with absolutely zero regard for any journalistic ethic. Might as well just replace journalists by AI at this point, to a large group of people (me included) they've all made themselves more hated and untrustworthy than a company, economist, politician or civil servant.
By and large, it's true. But Reuters still does some decent investigative journalism, imo.
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#329Why editorialize? "Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore" Your title changes the meaning- they didn't ban games afaict. It's also a misleading post, as it's specifically GenAI where authors can't prove or don't have rights to content. If you use ProcGen etc or have full rights to the data used, I can't imagine there would be any issues.
Thanks. The submitted title ("Valve bans games using AI generated graphics or text from Steam") broke the HN guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
Even the original title seems questionable until properly substantiated, so I've reverted to it plus tacked on a question mark.
Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
You need to think about different contexts. 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 im…
> Think about security or trust and safety or anti-scam or anti-fraud.
It doesn't matter what context I think about it in. It isn't going to work! And it will make things worse for everyone involved.
Hypothetically let's say we get to a point where everyone believes the detection is 100% accurate. Well that's all that means: everyone believes it. Meanwhile AI has just gotten better, and we're all more fooled than we were before. All we are really accomplishing is enhancing the training necessary for AI to elude detection.
And there will be an inherent bias toward false positives, because high detection rate will be the selling point. The truth is secondary, and there's no way to verify the results.