Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 420 posts

Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?

#331

Post by [deleted] »

xk_id wrote: post #172
com2kid wrote: post #131

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.

[deleted]

Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?

#332

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #327
i_like_apis wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?

#333

Post by Wouter33 »

dang wrote: post #329
jasonjmcghee wrote: post #26

Why 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.

No bad intentions with the title, was just using "banned" since Valve used it in their response to the Reddit poster. Change it to whatever you think is better! :)

Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?

#334

Post by rngname22 »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #330
rngname22 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It does work. If you absolutely need to know if an image is AI generated, you can just have a central authority in the system watch the person draw the picture on a piece of paper. Or drive to your house and hand you the paper and pencil and watch you draw it in person.

There are workflows or system designs that absolutely can and will solve for human-verified creation, they just might be incredibly costly or unscalable compared to existing solutions. It's all just tradeoffs. Might make existing business models no longer work. Might open new ones.

Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?

#335

Post by Animats »

eropple wrote: post #242
Animats wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> That you probably don't need rights to the training set in the US Even if that is true--and it's not sure to be--Valve is within their rights to demand additional coverage. > 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. Horseshit and worse words. Computers aren't people. They create derivative works from pushing inputs th…

> Valve is within their rights to demand additional coverage.

As a near-monopoly gatekeeper, Valve is vulnerable to antitrust charges.

FTC is apparently about to go after Amazon.[1] US antitrust policy did far too little for too many years. EU competition policy is more aggressive.[2] The EU competition authorities already fined Valve for selling geo-blocked content that only worked in some EU countries. That's a violation of the basic Single Market rules of the EU.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/ftc-prepares-the...

[2] https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/ict/cases_en

Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?

#336

Post by bilalq »

giobox wrote: post #120
bilalq wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be a line between there somewhere, but it's not at all clear where it is. What about generating foliage or varied ground textures? What about generating buildings? Or NPCs? Also, the "just upscaling" relies on training data from outside your own game. Why is that okay when the rest of this isn't? I totally get why Valve is taking the stance that they are. I imagine its hard even for them to know where to dr…

> What about generating foliage or varied ground textures? What about generating buildings? Or NPCs? This isn't how NVidia DLSS or AMD FSR works at all. DLSS/FSR can't create new buildings or foliage, or NPCs, so hard to foresee problems of the kind Valve are concerned with. Same for varied ground textures- the entire point of the technology is to sharpen and upscale the original image, or in case of DLSS3 inject new…

Apologies if I was unclear. I didn't mean to suggest that DLSS generates textures. I was raising the question about whether or not generated textures would be in violation of the policy. And if they're fine, what about generated buildings or NPCs? It's fine that DLSS is considered compliant. My point is that it's not at all clear where we draw the line.

Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?

#337

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

rngname22 wrote: post #334
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It does work. If you absolutely need to know if an image is AI generated, you can just have a central authority in the system watch the person draw the picture on a piece of paper. Or drive to your house and hand you the paper and pencil and watch you draw it in person. There are workflows or system designs that absolutely can and will solve for human-verified creation, they just might be incredibly costly or unscala…

> If you absolutely need to know if an image is AI generated, you can just have a central authority in the system watch the person draw the picture on a piece of paper. Or drive to your house and hand you the paper and pencil and watch you draw it in person. There are workflows or system designs that absolutely can and will solve for human-verified creation, they just might be incredibly costly or unscalable compared to existing solutions. It's all just tradeoffs. Might make existing business models no longer work. Might open new ones.

This is pretty much my point. Like you said, incredibly costly and unscalable. A non-solution! We're better off not pretending we can compute what is and isn't real.

Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?

#338

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #241
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #221

Earlier 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…

I know companies that are trying to do this, yes. The detection tools are terrible, but places really do not want writers submitting AI-written content, for example.

> but places really do not want writers submitting AI-written content, for example

And I want the power of flight, but it isn't going to happen!

Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?

#339

Post by hedora »

kube-system wrote: post #252
imchillyb wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/ai-generator-art-text-... 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.

That is a shallow regurgitation of their opinion that has been repeated out of context in headlines, but it misses their point. The Copyright Office's opinion can be better summed up as: 1. Copyright protects work that humans create 2. Humans sometimes use tools to create their works, that is okay 3. Y'all make up your mind whether your AI is some sentient being or whether it's just a tool. We're just lawyers. If the…

But what if the wind blows, and my laptop falls off a shelf and writes the source code for windows 95, but reindented, with some implementation details and variable names changed?

It’s pretty clear that the “neural networks are just a tool” ruling is going to have to be revisited eventually (and probably soon).

Re: Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore?

#340

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

georgeecollins wrote: post #174
ekianjo wrote: post #153

Earlier 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…

I believe the AI generates a watermark because so many examples contained it.

Imagine taking a really dumb gig worker, showing him 10000 images, some of them with watermarks, and then telling him "draw a red car, kinda like the kind of images you saw". There's a decent chance you'll get a red car that looks nothing like any cars with the data set (original work), and yet he'll paint a memorable watermark on top because so many examples contained it, you said "kinda like the kind of images you saw", and he doesn't understand that the watermark isn't meant to be part of the picture. I believe that's whats happening.

Post reply on HN