this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
159 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

78 readers
1 users here now

Discuss Games, Hardware and News on PC Gaming **Discord** https://discord.gg/4bxJgkY **Mastodon** https://cupoftea.social **Donate** https://ko-fi.com/cupofteasocial **Wiki** https://www.pcgamingwiki.com

founded 1 year ago
 

Valve quietly not publishing games that contain AI generated content if the submitters can't prove they own the rights to the assets the AI was trained on

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Not that AI should be treated with the same rights and dignity a person, but is this not a sort of double standard? I mean, do they publish games with art made by humans who learned from works the human artists did not own?

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago

Based on the language from Valve, it sounds more like legal protection for themselves than a judgment from an ethical perspective.

Your question isn't a bad one, but the battleground over copyright ownership probably isn't one they're weighing in on here.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think I'm starting to understand... If I go to an art gallery that allows photos, take some photos, and share them with a friend who is learning to be an artist, that seems to be generally ok and does not feel unethical. But if I take those photos to an underground sweatshop and use it to train a thousand people who are mass producing art for corporate use, that seems wrong.

If I think of the AI as a human analog, then I have trouble seeing the problem with it learning from the same resources as humans, but if I see it as a factory then I see the problem.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

And that's why the companies behind these algorithms are so intent on selling the lie that it's "revolutionary human-like artificial intelligence" and not just a plagiarism algorithm regurgitating a mashup of the work it was fed.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If a human artist learned by copying paintings, they still create original work. An AI simply copies.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, algorithmically copying one's style with out permission isn't the same thing as a human mirroring art. It's not a skill.

You can create art with AI for sure but it's nothing but a tool (at least for now). And it's unethical to use art without permission in this context where it literally algorithmically copies the material.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

When somebody uses a ML model to generate content, the skill is not their goal. The end result is.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If an AI simply copies, it should be easy as pie to tell me what artist they copied here.

If someone told me a human drew this, I would believe them. Looks original as anything else people have made.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It doesn't copy from a single artist. It's an amalgamation of a bunch of different artists' work. That's literally the entire concept of a model.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Isn't that literally the entire concept of a person?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That is what people do. I like to write stories and my ideas are a mashup of books that I read.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Describe the criteria you use to determine whether something is "creation".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean, do they publish games with art made by humans who learned from works the human artists did not own?

You know plagiarism is a word right? Artists/Writers still strive to have a style unique to themselves....