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

341–350 of 420 posts

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

#341

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

chefandy wrote: post #240
hyperhopper wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Sure— the method of making the image, such as being AI generated, is entirely irrelevant in terms of IP enforcement. You could cut a cross-section from a log that had coincidentally formed the Nike symbol with it's rings, and if you slapped a picture of it on your line of sportsware, you better believe you're going to get owned. But if they see an increased risk of IP violations from AI generated assets— and given th…

The Nike example is trademark rights, not copyright.

If you give a worker 5 examples of cars, and tell him "draw me a new car in this style", and he does so (from memory without clearly copying any individual example), it's unlikely to be a copyright or other IP violation.

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

#342

Post by kube-system »

hedora wrote: post #339
kube-system wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> 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?

Simple. If it wasn't created by a human, it's not eligible for copyright. The law is quite clear about this.

Microsoft gets the copyright to Windows 95 because they wrote it with humans. You wouldn't get it because you didn't write it. Your laptop wouldn't get it because it isn't a human.

> It’s pretty clear that the “neural networks are just a tool” ruling

I think you misinterpreted the above. There is no "“neural networks are just a tool” ruling".

The copyright office never said neural networks were or were not a tool.

They said if a human makes a creative work, and they happen to use use a tool, then it is eligible for copyright. As it always has been.

All they said is what every lawyer already knows, which is that a work has to have an element of human creativity in order to be eligible for copyright.

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

#343

Post by paxys »

pcai wrote: post #263
paxys wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"No big company can ever do a bad thing because I'm sure they've thought deeply and thoughtfully about it."

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

#344

Post by dragonwriter »

imchillyb wrote: post #211
hyperhopper wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 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.

> US Copyright Office has stated unequivocally that AI works cannot be copyrighted, or otherwise protected legally.

The “or otherwise legally protected" piece is outright falss (and would be out of their scope of competence if true), the other part is true but potentially misleading (a work cannot be protected to the extent that AI, and not the human user, “determines the expressive elements of the work”, but a work made with some use of AI where the human user does that can be protected to the extent of the human contribution.)

The duty to disclose elements that are created by generative AI in the same guidance is going to prove unworkable, too, as generative AI is increasingly embedded into toolchains with other features and not sharply distinguished, and with nontrivial workflows.

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

#345

Post by asveikau »

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.

I think game art for programmers or people with a game design idea but no visual arts chops is a very fitting use. As would be generating text for such a use, like dialog for an NPC.

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

#346

Post by rngname22 »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #337
rngname22 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't agree, I think it's just a matter of the right mix of distributed trust and creating incentives for honesty and penalties for dishonesty. As well as those costlier mechanisms for verification to be available for a subset of cases.

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

#347

Post by shultays »

intrasight wrote: post #296
raincole wrote: post #144

Earlier 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.

I usually read HN comments before articles. Is a good filter. Seeing that article was just a Reddit post, I stopped reading comments at this one.

But it is just a random HN post!

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

#348

Post by palata »

DirkH wrote: post #322
palata wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soon they will be auto-generated with ChatGPT from reddit threads...

A lot were already automated prior to ChatGPT

Sure, but I like to think that I could pretty quickly recognize them. Much harder with GPT.

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

#349

Post by shultays »

usrusr wrote: post #280
ravenstine wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Valve be on the hook for copyright? If a particular game developer happens to get sued (which happens regardless of AI), all Valve has to do is remove the game from Steam. 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.

"all Valve has to do is remove the game from Steam." And take the reputation hit that would go along with that. Valve's business is 30% technology and 70% the reputation of being much less untrustworthy than the alternatives. If they lose that they can close shop.

Valve's business is its user base, as long as it has that I think they will survive.

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

#350

Post by dang »

Wouter33 wrote: post #333
dang wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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! :)

I haven't followed any of the details so you could well be right (in which case, sorry!)
Post reply on HN