this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
66 points (88.4% liked)

Games

16453 readers
996 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
66
Terraforming Mars team defends AI use as Kickstarter hits $1.3 million (www.polygon.com)
submitted 1 year ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kerfuffle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

As a general statement: No, I am not.

You didn't qualify what you said originally. It either has the capability or not: you said it didn't, it actually does.

You’re making an over specific scenario to make it true.

Not really. It isn't that far-fetched that a company would see an artist they'd like to use but also not want to pay that artist's fees so they train an AI on the artist's portfolio and can churn out very similar artwork. Training it on one or two images is obviously contrived, but a situation like what I just mentioned is very plausible.

This entire counter argument is nothing more than being pedantic.

So this isn't true. What you said isn't accurate with the literal interpretation and it doesn't work with the more general interpretation either. The person higher in the thread called it stealing: in that case it wasn't, but AI models do have the capability to do what most people would probably call "stealing" or infringing on the artist's rights. I think recognizing that distinction is important.

Furthermore, if I’m making such specific instructions to the AI, then I am the one who’s replicating the art.

Yes, that's kind of the point. A lot of people (me included) would be comfortable calling doing that sort of thing stealing or plagiarism. That's why the company in OP took pains to say they weren't doing that.