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

411–420 of 420 posts

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

#411

Post by ekianjo »

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…

> 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 should apply to humans as well then because brains ultimately do the exact same thing. Nobody creates art in a vaccuum.

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

#412

Post by dwaite »

jwestbury wrote: post #392
__loam wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm still not convinced by this argument. All human-generated art is also a result of the artist's experiences, and is strongly influenced by other art they have consumed. So why should GenAI not be allowed to blend the work of other artists? If you want to argue that we should fundamentally treat machine- and human-generated works differently, that's fine -- but it's a different argument from "looking at a bunch of…

I believe the expectation is that there is a difference between new creative work by humans and the output of tools. Tools are not 'artistically influenced' by their inputs.

Also, a human can take a work, modify it, and create a derivative work. They do not have copyright to the original material, and the degree of derivation is a winding blurry line through the court system to determine if they fully own the new work.

I suspect these to dominate the arguments for the first court cases around generative AI art - that the artist (operator) is the one who has to justify that they provided enough creativity in the process to create an independent work.

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

#413

Post by dwaite »

chii wrote: post #387
soerxpso wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The tool used to create said art has no bearing on the final art with regards to copyright. This is still an open question with regards to AI art generation tools. Do you have recent legal precedent to cite that I don't know about, or are you just making things up?

> This is still an open question with regards to AI art generation tools. While it is an unanswered question with no legal precedence, i am a believer that what isn't currently illegal is and should be considered legal, until harm has been shown and thus require legal ruling.

Do you have a legal decision that AI art forms no derivative of a copyrighted work, vs a derivative of ALL the copyrighted work in its training set?

There is no new law, there is ambiguity with the lack of current case law. There are certainly people who think generative art based on scraping the internet is infringing under current legal standards. We won't know until people go to court and judges make decisions.

Valve's insistence in the face of their own liability for selling derivative works seems a sound business decision here, at least when selling in markets where it is an open legal issue.

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

#414

Post by georgeecollins »

jameshart wrote: post #326
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…

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.

That's a completely fair point a few people have made. But I think the idea is, if you are a creator, the AI is doing something that you might call copying if it were a person. If it does that, what is your redress as the creator?

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

#415

Post by drewgross »

__loam wrote: post #396
jwestbury wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still not convinced by this argument. All human-generated art is also a result of the artist's experiences, and is strongly influenced by other art they have consumed. So why should GenAI not be allowed to blend the work of other artists? If you want to argue that we should fundamentally treat machine- and human-generated works differently, that's fine -- but it's a different argument from "looking at a bunch of…

There's a pretty big fucking difference between the organic experience of a human being and a massive VC funded hellsystem that can process 400 million exact copies of images and generate thousands per day. I honestly can't believe people are still making this dishonest, bad faith argument. It's obviously problematic if you think about it for more than 3 minutes.

If you want to talk about bad faith arguments, calling the AI a "hellsystem" is showing your bias just a bit.

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

#416

Post by NelsonMinar »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #67
kevinh wrote: post #3

I'd wait for more information before making any assumptions about what Valve is doing here. So often these stories here are lacking context due to only one side trying to paint the situation in a very one-sided light.

Agreed. The link here here is to a Reddit post from an relatively unknown person claiming to be quoting a private email from Valve. Kotaku has a bit more reporting, including a second report from a developer on Reddit. Also some comments on skepticism. https://kotaku.com/valve-ai-art-generator-steam-crypto-ban-m... I'm pretty sure if this is Valve policy they'll have no trouble saying so publicly. I miss the old days…

Valve made an official statement, which PC Gamer (and others) have reported on. https://www.pcgamer.com/valve-is-scrutinizing-games-with-ai-...

> In its statement to PC Gamer, Valve said that "The introduction of AI can sometimes make it harder to show a developer has sufficient rights in using AI to create assets, including images, text, and music. In particular, there is some legal uncertainty relating to data used to train AI models. It is the developer's responsibility to make sure they have the appropriate rights to ship their game.

> We know it is a constantly evolving tech, and our goal is not to discourage the use of it on Steam; instead, we're working through how to integrate it into our already-existing review policies. Stated plainly, our review process is a reflection of current copyright law and policies, not an added layer of our opinion. As these laws and policies evolve over time, so will our process."

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

#417

Post by pcai »

paxys wrote: post #343
pcai wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Actually no, me pointing out that “a literal anon in their armchair probably hasn’t thought through a challenging legal problem as thoroughly as the billion dollar company making the decision has” is not actually the same as saying that “every big company is infallible” but nice try

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

#418

Post by hyperhopper »

adamc wrote: post #171
hyperhopper wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

INAL. But... show me the case law establishing there is near-zero risk to them if they let it go through. People make business decisions all the time to avoid murky areas that may hold peril. Unless there is a big benefit to them, why take the risk?

There is no case law. Literally anybody saying that things related to this are illegal, are making up Boogeymen.

Yes, businesses act like this, no shit.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't call them out on it because it's cowardly behavior.

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

#420

Post by CatWChainsaw »

tzekid wrote: post #227
pessimizer wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looms weren't trained unwillingly by the people they replaced. You're thinking about outsourcing.

But they were. Weavers improved on their processes for a long time before the engineers swooped in and put that accumulated knowledge into an automated form.

And they were worried it would be used to disenfranchise them and enrich the factory owners at the expense of themselves/laborers, and surprise! they weren't wrong.
Post reply on HN