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

351–360 of 420 posts

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

#351

Post by __loam »

gcampos wrote: post #79
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.

> we cannot ship your game while it contains these AI-generated assets, unless you can affirmatively confirm that you own the rights to all of the IP used in the data set that trained the AI to create the assets in your game. Yep, you are absolutely right.

This is exactly how this stuff should work. Greedily scraping whatever content you want hurts people who made that content and ultimately hurts AI developers who still need more high quality data.

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

#352

Post by __loam »

naet wrote: post #193
thrashh wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet it's 2 because OP said they used "admittedly obviously AI generated from the hands" and a lot of AI generation makes really funky hands that you have to fix because it looks so bad. So it sounds like OP slapped some half-assed generated images into a game and tried to submit it. Valve now can't really trust someone that does that to have done any due diligence.

The OP's only other reddit post says that they want to start a corporation to avoid associating their name with the game, which is a pretty big red flag to me. "I've been developing a game for a while now, and am near ready to release it on Steam. I'd prefer it not to be associated with my name (as in I'd prefer people googling my name and future employers being unable to find out i developed this game )."

I wouldn't put my name out there for any piece of media I wanted to publish. People on the internet are insane.

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

#353

Post by __loam »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #306
ekianjo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And which standard is that for ai generated art ?

There are multiple jurisdictions where there have been rumblings that an AI-generated work is possibly a derived work from every single work that the AI was trained with. This hasn't been properly tested in court, but I would give very high odds that the standard will be upheld at least somewhere where Steam sells things. If this is true, then ordinary copyright law means that AI-generated media cannot be used unless…

Good

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

#354

Post by com2kid »

asveikau wrote: post #345
xk_id wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

People aren't nearly creative enough with this.

You can use generative AI to give you a complete schedule for every NPC in the town. You can use generative AI to determine what the relationships between people in the town are.

I am working on using generative AI to simulate an entire small town.

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

#355

Post by __loam »

sdenton4 wrote: post #323
georgeecollins wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the "well it's transformative" argument is pretty bad faith and I think a lot of the people making it might know that.

Generative AI cannot exist without pre-existing bodies of work created by human labor. It also displaces that labor and hurts the people whose content was a requirement for AI to exist. From this view, AI is not fair use.

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

#356

Post by __loam »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #341
chefandy wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you give a worker 5 examples of cars, and tell him "draw me a new car in this style", and he does so

Yeah that's great, but it actually has nothing to do with how the AI works. A worker learning through observation about 5 cars is hugely different situation than an AI company scraping 400 million often copyrighted images onto their servers to run through a training algorithm to create a for-profit system that displaces the people who produced the original images.

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

#357

Post by __loam »

blibble wrote: post #290
hyperhopper wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

regardless of legality: the odds are games with AI generated materials are going to be much lower quality (shovelware)

Made by people with none of the skills or drive to make games.

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

#358

Post by __loam »

jamilton wrote: post #223
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's meaningfully different. "Can't be copyrighted" doesn't mean "can't be sold", or "someone else owns the copyright". It just means someone can copy and resell the generated portions without payment/licensing.

That sounds like a fucking nightmare if you're running a marketplace for what is essentially intellectual property.

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

#359

Post by throwaway675309 »

euix wrote: post #165

Midjourney has been really helpful to me as a one man dev. I can mockup art much faster then what I can do in photoshop. I still intend to at some point do a complete pass using a professional artist (or learn to draw myself) - because generative art is not consistent thematically from asset to asset. But if I just want to see what my tile assets look like if they were all done in 30's art deco style, I can do it in…

"The other idea I have toyed with, coming from professional ML experience - was to build my own generative model and use it to create my own art assets. Here I wonder how the copyright rules would work - would the assets I train on be subjected to copyright?"

Unless you're training on assets available in the public domain, any generated output from your "custom model" would have the same potential copyright issues as midjourney, stable diffusion, etc. What exactly are you confused about?

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

#360

Post by xk_id »

asveikau wrote: post #345
xk_id wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There’s a long way to go from “no artistic chops” to “compelling art” and although this is subjective, I haven’t seen AI getting there.
Post reply on HN