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

  • Demigod787@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let the market decide. If Valve doesn’t provide them a sales avenue, another party will. Many don’t comprehend yet is that AI generation is entirely user-driven. Without hundreds of refinements, you would only receive the most generic output. As for copyright infringement, what exactly is being violated here? When we use material X or Y to generate an original output Z, how does that infringe upon any rights? It doesn’t. Rather, it highlights that people need to adapt and evolve. The sooner this realization sets in, the better. The calligraphers and and book artisans went through this ordeal so will they.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So instead we have Valve deciding what games are permitted to go to market and which aren’t? That seems like something that benefits those already at the top to me.

        • Pelicanen@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Valve deciding which games they host on their own platform? Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They have such a grip on the market that their decisions fall closer to the “at all” side of things. There are other places to publish, sure, but Steam is king.

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who is the “unfettered capitalist” in this case? The artist whose artwork was used as training data without permission? Valve? It’s a nice soundbite, but I’m not sure how you are applying it in this case.

        • effingjoe@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The artist whose artwork was used as training data without permission?

          Are you suggesting that an artist retains the right to prevent their art from being used to train someone on art? No artist has ever created anything in a vacuum. This whole line of reasoning is ridiculous, imo.

          • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, that’s fine - just as we understand it.

            Your stance against unfettered capitalism is that - if I make some art and aomeone puts it online, some multibillion dollar games house should be able to grab it and use it in their game for free.

            I can feel the capitalists quaking in their boots already. I’m sure the Reddit admins agree with you.

            • effingjoe@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              if I make some art and aomeone puts it online, some multibillion dollar games house should be able to grab it and use it in their game for free

              Is that what you think we’re talking about, directly copying artwork? There’s already laws for that, regardless of who or what creates the art. What is concerning people is that AI can be trained on other people’s art and then told to create new art. It’s not a copy, it’s a new thing, but it used old stuff to come up with the new stuff. (humans do this too)

              I’m sure the Reddit admins agree with you.

              I don’t even know what this means.

              Edit: I don’t know if this needs to be said but I am not the original person you replied to.

              • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Is that what you think we’re talking about, directly copying artwork?

                What I was trying to talk about is what the commenter meant by “unfettered capitalism has not, and will not work except for those already at the top.” - it wasn’t clear how it related to this story - but we seem to have gone off at tangent.

                AI can be trained on other people’s art and then told to create new art. It’s not a copy, it’s a new thing, but it used old stuff to come up with the new stuff.

                Yes. It is entirely dependent on the old stuff. We have laws for that too, in terms of licences for derivative works.

                • effingjoe@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  unfettered capitalism has not, and will not work except for those already at the top

                  My guess is that they saw the phrase “let the market decide” and took that to mean “unfettered capitalism”. But yeah, sorry about the tanget I’ve dragged you into, haha.

                  We have laws for that too, in terms of licences for derivative works

                  but they’re not derivative works, at least not in how I understand the term. They’re entirely new works.

          • Steeve@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not someone, AI. It takes years to train a person, it takes years to train a person, much less to train AI, and if that content is sold it’s more akin to something selling tracings of someone else’s work.

            This isn’t “being influenced” by someone else’s work here, it’s directly used to generate new content.

            • effingjoe@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Not someone, AI.

              I am old enough to remember when “X, but on the internet” was considered a new and novel thing-- turns out that it isn’t. X, but with AI is no different than X. Training a person and training an AI do not need different laws.

              It takes years to train a person, it takes years to train a person, much less to train AI

              Most people, and so what? You think an artist gets different rights depending on how fast someone can learn their style?

              if that content is sold it’s more akin to something selling tracings of someone else’s work.

              Only if it’s an exact copy, which would already be covered by current laws. This would be more like when people create art in the style of other art. Like, for a made up example, if someone drew the stranger things characters in the style of the Simpsons.

              it’s directly used to generate new content.

              What does this even mean?

              Edit: Sorry about all those typos!

              • Steeve@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                it’s directly used to generate new content.

                What does this even mean?

                Sounds like you might not know enough about how AI generation actually works to have this conversation, especially if your response to the nuances around the difference between human generated and AI generated content is just “so what?”

                • effingjoe@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I can’t help but notice you didn’t answer the question. My question was more like “How is this different than when a human learns to make art”? It’s to directly generate new content, is it not?

                  • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You noticed that, did you? If I ask a small child to draw a picture of a sunflower - and they have never seen a picture of a sunflower, but they are sitting in a field of sunflowers - is it your contention that they would be unable, because they’ve never seen a picture?

                    Because I think the small child will manage it. And the AI with no training data won’t.

                    But yes, to answer your broader question, I think it is reasonable to have legislation around automated or large scale processes that don’t pertain to something an individual can do. Which is why there is regulation around robocalling, sending spam and photocopying and selling books.

                  • Steeve@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    No, AI has no creativity. Everything generated by AI is a probabilistic interpretation of inputs and training data. It’s purely mathematics, there’s no emotion or actual thought put into it. But frankly, whether or not AI generated content is “new content” is a philosophical debate that doesn’t matter while AI has the potential to displace more jobs and create more wealth inequality than ever before, and I don’t necessarily mean in the “robots took my job” sense. Generative AI will push productivity to all time highs by an order of magnitude and wages will not have increased by the same, enabling a faster rate of wealth transfer to corporations and the top percentage of shareholders.

                    I didn’t answer your question because it was vague and shows a lack of understanding of both how AI generates content and the future problems AI presents as long as it’s controlled by the wealthy and corporations.

    • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As for copyright infringement, what exactly is being violated here?

      Intellectual property of the original art creators? OP says “unlicensed”, if you take any piece of art someone else created, and you use it to make your own stuff without their authorization, you’re committing a crime.

      Rather, it highlights that people need to adapt and evolve.

      And risk being sued? Valve is right in being wary of this, especially since there’s no real regulation about it.

      Let’s have regulations first, then we can tell people to adapt.

      • effingjoe@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        if you take any piece of art someone else created, and you use it to make your own stuff without their authorization, you’re committing a crime.

        This is not accurate. No art is made in a vacuum; all artists are influenced by other art. That’s even before we bring in fair use, which may or may not apply depending on specifics.

        Copyright does not restrict who/what can be trained on copyrighted works. That’s just not a real thing. It’s becoming an issue because AI is rapidly becoming “good enough” that human artists are worried they will be replaced, so they’re scrambling to find a way to hold back technology. This happens every time a new technology is used in reference to media. Every. Single. Time. It never works.

        • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly, that’s the problem.

          human artists are worried they will be replaced

          The problem is plagiarism, easy to control when humans do it, not so much when AIs are involved, that’s why we need regulations.

          • effingjoe@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            What do you think counts as plagiarism, in this context? If I draw a picture of the stranger things characters in the style of the simpsons, have I plagiarized anything?

    • Chariotwheel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Valve is part of the market, that they can decide what can be and can’t be on their plattform is part of the market deciding.