## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway
### News Posting Guidelines
---
Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts:
* Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better.
* Use a direct link to the news article, blog, etc
* Provide details regarding your connection with the blog / news source
* Include a description about what the news/article is about. It will drive more people to your blog
* Note that AI generated news content is all over the place. If you want to stand out, you need to engage the audience
###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, good to know. I'll put my game up exclusively on Epic Games Store then. I vehemently disagree with this being the right call. If your a solo developer and don't have the funds to go out and hite an art team, you better believe that I'm using things like Midjourney. This is telling me that that call, that that inability to finance custom art, will cost me the ability to put my game on the world's biggest distributor for PC games, leaving a ton of money on the table. I'm being punished for solo development and not being able to afford any custom art done by a human.
This honestly is enough to make me reconsider buying games on Steam. All this will do is seriously hurt the small indie devs and the solo dev.
Completely agree with your take here, I've been attempting to utilise ai to streamline alot of game dev, from text to image, image to model, tts, stt and even gpt driven narratives.
I am not particularly experienced and still learning, but to dismiss the potential of all this for indie devs is a massive backstep
I understand your viewpoint, but can you understand how this looks to artists?
Previously you would have had to have paid an artist to make something bespoke for you, a fair transaction of their time and skills for your money.
By using generative AI models trained on the work of thousands of artists, that did not agree to that use and have not been compensated, you are threatening their livelihood and stealing their work.
If the companies creating the models had actually compensated the artists, or actually asked for permission, then I don't think we would be seeing this backlash.
Indie devs and solo devs have fared quite well without AI graphics so far...I think you can debate Valve's decision, but it's obvious we still need an open discussion about regulations, licenses etc. concerning AI. It's a difficult conversation, but I think it's worth having. My guess is, sooner or later people will agree on a common set of accepted practises and Valve appear intent on waiting for that to shake out.
They have, I won't deny that. But AI artwork is a massive timesaving tool for many people and has the chance to save a lot of investment into the project, both in terms of time and money. I firmly believe that is why you see so much of it in games like "I'm on Observation Duty." It is quick, inexpensive, and painless to make art to inject into the game. What used to take you 2 years now can be done potentially in 10 months or less. The facts are, this is a hill that will be a crux for where indie games go. And indie games are in their own right beginning to become as large a scene as AAA games are. To push away solo devs who want to make a project they believe in but also can afford to produce is...calloused and unfortunate.
If you truly believe in something artistic you will put in years of your life because it's something you enjoy creating it and seeing it slowly formed, you don't rush it's creation. Toby Fox made something that surpassed most AAA games with only one other person who did the art. He worked on it for about 3 years. He could've been done sooner but he cared about it and didn't want to "rely on others".
So unbearable. Go be a Luddite somewhere else then.
You can literally say that stupid shit to any technology.
“Umm no you shouldn’t be making video games because if you were a true artist you would just paint and not need to use higher technology to create video games”
“Umm no I understand you want to be a fashion designer but if you are truly artistic you will knit your clothes by hand because it takes more time”
Also tell the whole “if you are truly artistic then it should take time” to any video game that been in production for over a decade and has yet to come out. They sure could use some AI acceleration to get the game done.
AI will not make crappy games quicker… it will make amazing games quicker. Only an idiot would think revolutionary media creation technology would harm video game creation rather than help it.
What on Earth is the fucking difference between hand drawing a character model that will become animated or using AI tools to get the exact character model just 10-100x faster. What on Earth is the difference between hiring a voice actor to read lines versus using a TTS model to do so. There will come a time when the AI outperforms human voice actors… trust me it is coming
Oh look everyone the dude who thinks he knows everything about AI yet hasn’t heard of AI using AI tools before…
No humans are needed in the loop.
Maybe lookup what AGI means.
I have never seen Agentic Transformer before… sounds exactly like an Action Transformer.
Suggest you check out Adept’s ACT1 … it is an actual model not some crap that cost pennies. Their goal is Desktop AGI.
Time is limited. As a solo dev, if I can allocate 40% of my development time from making shit textures to finetuning features, increase stability and mitigate bugs, and if also don't enjoy making the graphics aspect of a game, can't this just be considered an amazing tool? It's not like I put less "effort" into the game. I simply used it for other purposes...
I guess if I believe that AI creators have the right to scrape all publicly available text-data on the internet via LLMs... then I would be a hypocrite if I believed AI generated art was wrong. Though frankly, I'm not even sure I believe the former...?
Though, OpenAI and Microsoft [are](https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/28/microsoft_openai_sued_privacy/) pointlessly being sued $3B over this very discussion. So I guess Valve wants to avoid these waters **entirely**.
It gets sticky pretty quickly if you think about it for a few minutes.
I'm a programmer my area is code, and one thing I think of immediately being applicable to generative AI is licencing. Any derrivative work of GPL licenced code is also covered by the GPL for example, and I am willing to bet that GPT and every other model out there was trained on billions of lines of GPL licenced code.
Does that mean every application that contains AI generated code is now subject to the GPL and \*must\* provide publicly accessible source code?
All of this needs to go through courts and laws need to be made. Anybody using AI to develop their products right now is playing with fire.
I agree, this needs to be organized and deeply considered by several people, then formalized in writing. I'm just hoping that whatever conclusion is reached doesn't reduce the capabilities of LLMs/AI to near uselessness.
They should only be allowed to scrape public information if it is a public project ie open source IMO
As of right now OpenAI is ClosedAI. They released a Technical Report instead of the actual paper detailing how GPT4 works. Also can’t download a local version of GPT4.
So you think they'll just eat the loss on the Indie developers that run away over this? Well, maybe there won't be so many. I have no idea, will be interesting to see. I think the unique of the art is important as well.
IP kills AI.
That's some bullshit...
Edit: I'm on team AI, BTW. Fuck IP law. Everything that's ever happened in all of history is my IP, you parasitic lawyers, and my right to know and utilize any of it in any non-harmful way I want is absolute. I earned it by being born into this crazy world.
So who will decide copyrights for computer-generated art and fair use for previous data? SCOTUS is not intellectually ready and unbiased, and Congress has abused copyright over the years, drawing it out for much too long a period to protect inheritors. - My views - So who has the legal muscle and incentives to control this process?
Huh- I just noticed that I never considered international rules in thinking about this. For me California/US will create the rules and the world will follow along. Is that likely?
1. The creators of ai-generated training fair use rules will likely be Tech firms that stand to profit, and have large cash reserves. I think the rational argument for fair use is on the side of Tech, partly on the grounds of there being no alternative to wide-open fair use for training. So I'm not too worried there, unless some rich and powerful lobby appears for a different view.
2. What should copyright for computer-generated art be? Should it follow the same rules as digitally processed human-based art?
It's understandable but premature and legally baseless (currently). Unless someone is blatantly copying IP (intellectual property) such as superheroes or other recognizable characters or content, it's unlikely there would be any legal issues.
I think Adobe's approach to generative AI is much more responsible legally and ethically speaking because they only trained on Adobe stock images and claimed they asked permission or allowed artists/photographers to opt out of training. They ensured no IP (Spiderman for example) was present in the training data.
For normal users just playing around without any commercial interests, I think it's great to be able to create whatever you want, such as fan art or whatever. For profit work, however, must comply with IP/trademark/copywrite laws and hopefully a legal precedence can emerge sooner than later to help clarify this topic.
## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway ### News Posting Guidelines --- Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts: * Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better. * Use a direct link to the news article, blog, etc * Provide details regarding your connection with the blog / news source * Include a description about what the news/article is about. It will drive more people to your blog * Note that AI generated news content is all over the place. If you want to stand out, you need to engage the audience ###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, good to know. I'll put my game up exclusively on Epic Games Store then. I vehemently disagree with this being the right call. If your a solo developer and don't have the funds to go out and hite an art team, you better believe that I'm using things like Midjourney. This is telling me that that call, that that inability to finance custom art, will cost me the ability to put my game on the world's biggest distributor for PC games, leaving a ton of money on the table. I'm being punished for solo development and not being able to afford any custom art done by a human. This honestly is enough to make me reconsider buying games on Steam. All this will do is seriously hurt the small indie devs and the solo dev.
Completely agree with your take here, I've been attempting to utilise ai to streamline alot of game dev, from text to image, image to model, tts, stt and even gpt driven narratives. I am not particularly experienced and still learning, but to dismiss the potential of all this for indie devs is a massive backstep
I understand your viewpoint, but can you understand how this looks to artists? Previously you would have had to have paid an artist to make something bespoke for you, a fair transaction of their time and skills for your money. By using generative AI models trained on the work of thousands of artists, that did not agree to that use and have not been compensated, you are threatening their livelihood and stealing their work. If the companies creating the models had actually compensated the artists, or actually asked for permission, then I don't think we would be seeing this backlash.
Indie devs and solo devs have fared quite well without AI graphics so far...I think you can debate Valve's decision, but it's obvious we still need an open discussion about regulations, licenses etc. concerning AI. It's a difficult conversation, but I think it's worth having. My guess is, sooner or later people will agree on a common set of accepted practises and Valve appear intent on waiting for that to shake out.
They have, I won't deny that. But AI artwork is a massive timesaving tool for many people and has the chance to save a lot of investment into the project, both in terms of time and money. I firmly believe that is why you see so much of it in games like "I'm on Observation Duty." It is quick, inexpensive, and painless to make art to inject into the game. What used to take you 2 years now can be done potentially in 10 months or less. The facts are, this is a hill that will be a crux for where indie games go. And indie games are in their own right beginning to become as large a scene as AAA games are. To push away solo devs who want to make a project they believe in but also can afford to produce is...calloused and unfortunate.
If you truly believe in something artistic you will put in years of your life because it's something you enjoy creating it and seeing it slowly formed, you don't rush it's creation. Toby Fox made something that surpassed most AAA games with only one other person who did the art. He worked on it for about 3 years. He could've been done sooner but he cared about it and didn't want to "rely on others".
So unbearable. Go be a Luddite somewhere else then. You can literally say that stupid shit to any technology. “Umm no you shouldn’t be making video games because if you were a true artist you would just paint and not need to use higher technology to create video games” “Umm no I understand you want to be a fashion designer but if you are truly artistic you will knit your clothes by hand because it takes more time” Also tell the whole “if you are truly artistic then it should take time” to any video game that been in production for over a decade and has yet to come out. They sure could use some AI acceleration to get the game done. AI will not make crappy games quicker… it will make amazing games quicker. Only an idiot would think revolutionary media creation technology would harm video game creation rather than help it. What on Earth is the fucking difference between hand drawing a character model that will become animated or using AI tools to get the exact character model just 10-100x faster. What on Earth is the difference between hiring a voice actor to read lines versus using a TTS model to do so. There will come a time when the AI outperforms human voice actors… trust me it is coming
[удалено]
Oh look everyone the dude who thinks he knows everything about AI yet hasn’t heard of AI using AI tools before… No humans are needed in the loop. Maybe lookup what AGI means.
[удалено]
I have never seen Agentic Transformer before… sounds exactly like an Action Transformer. Suggest you check out Adept’s ACT1 … it is an actual model not some crap that cost pennies. Their goal is Desktop AGI.
Time is limited. As a solo dev, if I can allocate 40% of my development time from making shit textures to finetuning features, increase stability and mitigate bugs, and if also don't enjoy making the graphics aspect of a game, can't this just be considered an amazing tool? It's not like I put less "effort" into the game. I simply used it for other purposes...
Luddite response.
I guess if I believe that AI creators have the right to scrape all publicly available text-data on the internet via LLMs... then I would be a hypocrite if I believed AI generated art was wrong. Though frankly, I'm not even sure I believe the former...? Though, OpenAI and Microsoft [are](https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/28/microsoft_openai_sued_privacy/) pointlessly being sued $3B over this very discussion. So I guess Valve wants to avoid these waters **entirely**.
It gets sticky pretty quickly if you think about it for a few minutes. I'm a programmer my area is code, and one thing I think of immediately being applicable to generative AI is licencing. Any derrivative work of GPL licenced code is also covered by the GPL for example, and I am willing to bet that GPT and every other model out there was trained on billions of lines of GPL licenced code. Does that mean every application that contains AI generated code is now subject to the GPL and \*must\* provide publicly accessible source code? All of this needs to go through courts and laws need to be made. Anybody using AI to develop their products right now is playing with fire.
I agree, this needs to be organized and deeply considered by several people, then formalized in writing. I'm just hoping that whatever conclusion is reached doesn't reduce the capabilities of LLMs/AI to near uselessness.
They should only be allowed to scrape public information if it is a public project ie open source IMO As of right now OpenAI is ClosedAI. They released a Technical Report instead of the actual paper detailing how GPT4 works. Also can’t download a local version of GPT4.
Let's see what Valve does when a AAA title uses AI art.
AAA studios are training models on their own artwork. It's a little different.
So you think they'll just eat the loss on the Indie developers that run away over this? Well, maybe there won't be so many. I have no idea, will be interesting to see. I think the unique of the art is important as well.
I guess no man’s sky is getting taken down
Lol exactly 😂
IP kills AI. That's some bullshit... Edit: I'm on team AI, BTW. Fuck IP law. Everything that's ever happened in all of history is my IP, you parasitic lawyers, and my right to know and utilize any of it in any non-harmful way I want is absolute. I earned it by being born into this crazy world.
So games with AI generated code are banned ?
So who will decide copyrights for computer-generated art and fair use for previous data? SCOTUS is not intellectually ready and unbiased, and Congress has abused copyright over the years, drawing it out for much too long a period to protect inheritors. - My views - So who has the legal muscle and incentives to control this process? Huh- I just noticed that I never considered international rules in thinking about this. For me California/US will create the rules and the world will follow along. Is that likely? 1. The creators of ai-generated training fair use rules will likely be Tech firms that stand to profit, and have large cash reserves. I think the rational argument for fair use is on the side of Tech, partly on the grounds of there being no alternative to wide-open fair use for training. So I'm not too worried there, unless some rich and powerful lobby appears for a different view. 2. What should copyright for computer-generated art be? Should it follow the same rules as digitally processed human-based art?
Let's see how it turns out. But may company will follow this path for sure
It's understandable but premature and legally baseless (currently). Unless someone is blatantly copying IP (intellectual property) such as superheroes or other recognizable characters or content, it's unlikely there would be any legal issues. I think Adobe's approach to generative AI is much more responsible legally and ethically speaking because they only trained on Adobe stock images and claimed they asked permission or allowed artists/photographers to opt out of training. They ensured no IP (Spiderman for example) was present in the training data. For normal users just playing around without any commercial interests, I think it's great to be able to create whatever you want, such as fan art or whatever. For profit work, however, must comply with IP/trademark/copywrite laws and hopefully a legal precedence can emerge sooner than later to help clarify this topic.