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

361–370 of 420 posts

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

#361

Post by jamilton »

__loam wrote: post #358
jamilton wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure. I'm not an expert, but it doesn't seem that different from including public domain text and art in your game.

I assume that, if it is true that Valve isn't allowing games with generated images, it's because (they feel) the legal status could change, not because of the current status.

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

#362

Post by __loam »

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #179
mrweasel wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which honestly sounds rather reasonable and should be the expectation of all current AI products. The only reason it wouldn't be easy enough to provide is if you just scraped any available data set with a complete disregard for intellectual property.

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.

What humans do when they learn is a completely separate issue and has absolutely nothing to do with how this technology is regulated.

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

#363

Post by krainboltgreene »

ryathal wrote: post #249
kemayo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a manual review step when you submit a game. Although you're right that they can't catch everything, they can certainly catch obvious things. I'm sure they mostly just don't want to wind up in court with a lawyer being able to say that they let [blatant example here] get published on their store. So long as they can credibly claim that there was no way for them to tell something was in an objectionable cate…

I doubt their manual review actually does much of anything. There are already tons of "games" that don't actually function that are just pre-built engine assets shoved together.

Those games aren't breaking any rules, why would them being allowed through imply the manual review "doesn't do much of anything"?

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

#364

Post by __loam »

XCSme wrote: post #112
nemomarx wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can ask you to say that you own all the relevant rights, and then if it turns out not to be true later they can say they don't know. Which seems like as much as you can hope for in a policy?

But how does this work for YouTube for example? People still upload copyrighted stuff, even if the ToS says you shouldn't.

YouTube has to comply with things like DMCA takedowns.

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

#365

Post by xk_id »

com2kid wrote: post #214
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.

> But for non-trivial content I haven’t seen an example that was compelling. ChatGPT helped me write my websocket code, I'd never used websockets before and it saved me hours (of not more) of time learning a new API. I had a concurrency bug in some code, I threw it at GPT4 and asked it what the problem was, a few seconds later it split out a solution. I had some complex state management code: "Hi this code has an off…

I wouldn’t be able to trust running generative code that I don’t personally have context for, or hasn’t been reviewed by an experienced peer; even if it seems to work as intended. It’s the kind of irresponsible OceanGate mentality. As for blog posts, “better than nothing” doesn’t automatically make content “compelling”.

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

#366

Post by xk_id »

schroeding wrote: post #283
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.

In this context: Generative ML models allow e.g. a single motivated writer with almost no budget to make a Visual Novel which they then could publish on Steam (before the policy change) for the world to see. Write the script yourself, generate and curate 2D art assets, optionally generate and curate your OST / BGM, optionally generate and curate voice lines, put everything into Ren'Py. Done. It's still very much not…

> but it's possible now for a sole developer (or very small team) with no great artistic and musical talent.

Better than nothing and compelling are different things.

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

#367

Post by __loam »

jamilton wrote: post #361
__loam wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not sure. I'm not an expert, but it doesn't seem that different from including public domain text and art in your game. I assume that, if it is true that Valve isn't allowing games with generated images, it's because (they feel) the legal status could change, not because of the current status.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying lol.

There's also a quality argument. If Valve lets a bunch of slapdash AI hackjobs onto the store that were developed in a week by people who don't know anything about game development, and that makes it harder to discover well made games, that's a meaningful business risk for them. They're responsible for curating the steam store.

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

#368

Post by __loam »

mr_coleman wrote: post #159
ethbr0 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the OpenAI model?

I prefer to think of it as the Uber/AirBnB model. Just do illegal things so much that you clog the enforcement mechanisms. Then it becomes such an unreasonable burden that they change the laws in your favor.

Classic VC bullshit.

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

#369

Post by Dylan16807 »

mehlmao wrote: post #220
mock-possum wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI doesn’t copy and paste art though, it generates new art based off of patterns it’s seen in its training material. If it’s training material heavily features red squares, and you prompt it to generate a new piece, chances are you’ll get something with a red square - not because it copied that red square from any particular piece, but because it was a common element. There’s a difference between reproducing common e…

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.13188.pdf Stable Diffusion spits out slightly blurrier versions of the pictures in its training set.

It can do that for some images, and that's a training mistake.

There's no way it can do that for more than a tiny fraction.

"we bias our search towards duplicated training examples because these are orders of magnitude more likely to be memorized than non-duplicated example"

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

#370

Post by __loam »

throwaway675309 wrote: post #359
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…

I think programmers also often confuse "public domain" with "publicly accessible on the internet"
Post reply on HN