71–80 of 420 posts
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.
Where do they draw the line? What about DLSS? Doesn't any game using that have "AI generated graphics"? I guess their email wording focused specifically on assets. Does that mean if you don't pre-bake assets in as artifacts, you're fine?
There is very clearly a line most people will understand between what DLSS does, and generating completely new art that mimic existing intellectual property. No one is ever going to accuse DLSS of creating new art works containing some other legal entity's existing IP for example, its literally just a (very clever) upscaling of the original art. If it did, it would presumably render the game being upscaled almost unp…
I totally get why Valve is taking the stance that they are. I imagine its hard even for them to know where to draw the line (evidenced by how long the turnaround time was on the support response).
This just creates a moral hazard to not disclose the use of any AI-generated assets, which is something other creative industries have already learnt the hard way. Recent text-to-image models have improved enough such that it's possible to get realistic, not-Midjourney-dreaminess in the generations with a modicium of effort, so banning obviously-AI-generated images is shortsighted and unsustainable.
> This just creates a moral hazard to not disclose the use of any AI-generated assets The whole space is somewhat amusing to me. what is the bigger moral hazard: Openly disclosing everything about your content pipeline and getting your team's efforts shitcanned, or keeping everything private unless a court order shows up?
We're on the cusp of a profound content shovelware crisis. It will happen regardless, but any oasis of real content will become important. Automation will be a force multiplier for laziness and predation more so than for creativity.
AI generated content is not meaningfully better or worse than these low effort games, though taking the time to generate passable content with AI is probably a lot more effort than just using $50 worth of assets that are already packaged up for unity.
> After reviewing, we have identified intellectual property in [Game Name Here] which appears to belongs to one or more third parties. In particular, [Game Name Here] contains art assets generated by artificial intelligence that appears to be relying on copyrighted material owned by third parties. As the legal ownership of such AI-generated art is unclear, we cannot ship your game while it contains these AI-generated…
Sounds like a cop-out. They can't possibly verify that any content they're hosting isn't already copyrighted, let alone in a "murky copyright state"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, You can assert you own or have the rights to those images, based on your license with Adobe.
How do you prove that the images where generated using Adobe Firefly instead of SD or MJ?
> we are declining to distribute your game since it’s unclear if the underlying AI tech used to create the assets has sufficient rights to the training data
So it seems that asserting "assets X and Y were generated by tool Z that has rights to its training data" would be sufficient. Presumably AI tools will also start to formalize that declaration alongside their terms of service.
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.
Yep, you are absolutely right.
Where do they draw the line? What about DLSS? Doesn't any game using that have "AI generated graphics"? I guess their email wording focused specifically on assets. Does that mean if you don't pre-bake assets in as artifacts, you're fine?
With DLSS Steam isn't hosting and distributing AI generated content, Nvidia is distributing it with their drivers. So any liability regarding the source of the training datasets falls on Nvidia, and there is no reason for Steam to get involved.