Man this is one legal mess we’re going to have to iron out as a society. I see both sides, obviously a creator doesn’t want their work to be utilized in a way they don’t approve…on the other hand we severely limit ourselves on AI development if we don’t use the collective work of society as a whole. And policing may be a LOT harder than people realize…taking that too far while it protects authors and creatives may ultimately mean falling behind in this area to competitive countries.

For games, at least it kind of makes sense to want to use a model that doesn’t have things trained from libraries or television/movies. You don’t want to be talking to an NPC in a Star Wars game that keeps referencing Harry Potter as an example lol…might be a little immersion breaking haha.

But also, AI usage could bring development a step forward. Indie devs may be able to produce AAA quality experiences on their normal budget, or conversely hobbyist may be able to create Indie-level games.

I see AI bringing us potentially marrying a lot of silos of entertainment in the future. We may move beyond movies, TV shows, gaming into more collective “experiences” that combine the best aspects of all of these mediums.

Idk what the answer is but it’s going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It really just requires a single step of indirection. Instead of indie dev using AI directly, they pay Joe's Asset Shack for their assets which may or may not be generated.

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

If you train on AI generated art, you get bad results.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you explain how that seems logical? It makes it impossible for anyone but the mega-rich to use. AAA developers alone will be able to reap the benefits of generative AI and outcompete indie devs who can't afford models that meet these ridiculous restrictions.

[–] CIWS-30@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It'll prevent indie artists from having their work plagiarized over and over without payment from indie "devs" who honestly shouldn't have the right to exist as "developers" if they can't afford to actually hire artists and such.

It'd be one thing if they made an agreement to get assets from artists for cheap or for free as a favor, but just plain putting them all out of business permanently by letting a machine steal their work forever is another thing entirely.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I disagree, for several reasons. First off, you'you're trying to paint developers who use generative AI plagiarizing other's work without supporting that claim with any evidence. Then you go on to further and start insulting indie developers by insinuating they're not real devs and have no right to exist. These personal attacks conveniently don't address any merits or drawbacks of using generative AI. You should judge them based on their products, not budget or resources.

You end it all off by arguing a slippery slope of catastrophic consequences without evidence or reasoning for this can even happen. Not only that, but you predict that using generative AI to create content will “put them all out of business permanently by letting a machine steal their work forever”(without a shred of evidence as to how this is even stealing). Without you realizing it, this rule could turn Steam into a corpo-only playground by giving them exclusive use of the most powerful cutting edge tools that can save thousands of staff hours, saving only them wads of cash but also giving them a leg up on learning how to use these tools to enhance their work, discover new forms of expression, or to challenge the boundaries of art.

Your comment is elitist and doesn't reflect the reality or generative AI in game development, and misunderstands our rights to give IP holders more power over creatives than they deserve. I suggest you do some more research and open your mind to the possibilities of generative AI, instead of dismissing it as a threat or a cheat. AI training and use isn't only for mega-corporations. We can already train our own open source models, so we shouldn't let people put up barriers that will keep out all but the ultra-wealthy.

I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, who’s a senior staff attorney at the EFF, a digital rights group, who recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone. I'd like to hear your thoughts.