91–100 of 420 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"
> Sounds like a cop-out. Sounds like due diligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm quoting the relevant bit from Valve's email in the reddit post, to indicate exactly what they're actually forbidding. Notably: not all AI-generated content, but rather AI-generated content from models that were trained on material that's not owned by the person submitting the game.
Can that even be proven/tested?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm quoting the relevant bit from Valve's email in the reddit post, to indicate exactly what they're actually forbidding. Notably: not all AI-generated content, but rather AI-generated content from models that were trained on material that's not owned by the person submitting the game.
Can that even be proven/tested?
Which seems like as much as you can hope for in a policy?
> 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"
> 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"
Adhering to legal and copyright standards isn't a "cop-out"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
So, the OpenAI model?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that was the entire point of banning AI generated content, right? Or, are you implying that the article states different reasons for the ban?
> that was the entire point of banning AI generated content, right? But AI generated content is NOT banned. You just have to prove you have the copyright (or permission) for the training data.
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.
Does that mean High on Life is now banned? If I recall correctly, they used AI on purpose to give ads and billboards a nonsense alien feel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you prove that the images where generated using Adobe Firefly instead of SD or MJ?
They don't seem to be asking for proof. > 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 servi…
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.