Did I ask for this feature? No. But I do think it’s neat!
Procedural generation though. Infinite replay value with actual graphics or voiceover? Fuck yeah. Great roguelites will use genai and that’s awesome.
We’d still like the option to opt out of that mess, though. I’m not sold on the quality nor the ethics yet.
The ethics based on Intellectual Property? Quality, sure, but ethics?
Full disclosure: I’m a geek from the days of newsgroups and Geocities. I watched the rise and fall of things like Napster. And I watched IP-law get more and more restrictive. But what is “intellectual property” really? You’re effectively taking an idea and saying “this is mine, I made this first, therefore I own it”.
Around 1996, when I was 12, I thought it’d be really cool to have a small laptop that laid flat and you could hold in your hands. The designs I drew up VERY closely resembled a Blackberry. Blackberry came out a few years later. If I had filed the right paperwork, at 12, should I be able to stop them? I sincerely doubt they were spying on the drawings I made on the back of my homework. Should you get to stifle innovation just because you had the first brainfart? I don’t think so.
But okay, let’s say you’re only thinking about artistic works. Again, you’re gonna have repetition. This came out in 1995. This came out in 2008.
So what’s the issue with AI; it was trained on “copyrighted” material? K, well so were you. Are folks upset because creators didn’t get paid every time an AI reviewed their copyrighted works? Well, are they similarly upset about folks who check a book or movie out of the library? Not so much…because that’s normalized (though would NEVER go over in today’s hyper-corporate nonsense world). Okay, so are folks upset that generative works can resemble the style or “essence” of the original work? Lol, see the Jill Sobule/Katy Perry comparison above, also consider “Fair Use” and the likely transformative nature involved as well.
This isn’t an “ethics” issue…it’s an issue of disrupting existing channels for corporate power within a world sliding more and more into a dystopia of corporate fascism.
Who are you arguing against? What’s this rant supposed to teach me? You don’t like copyright? Fine, tell me with one sentence - not a wall of text.
I’m a one man Indie making a game. It’s a management/strategy game and I want to add some depth to some of the pawns you control in the game by having a portrait for each and actual voices saying things and there are quite a lot of possible such pawns so that means quite lot of portraits and voices saying lines.
If I use generative AI I can do it at the cost of my time and some electricity for my PC, if I don’t it would cost $$$ so wouldn’t be able to have those elements because that’s not just one or two portraits and voices.
Apparently if I use AI for it that makes me and my micro-company a big bad corporation.
I would much rather play a game with text-only dialog and limited art assets than a game with AI generated narration or visual assets.
If you’re making it for profit, and using public resources (like GenAI trained on all the commons), then the game itself should be in the commons as well. (You can still sell it or request donations though) I support the GenAI in FOSS, but for-profit closed-source games should respect their own ideals (copyrights)
A person working to make profit might not actually believe in copyrights. Nor hold any ideological kinship with the system they exist in.
Further, virtually all resources to do anything originated in “the commons” and the sort of person who’s trying to produce a game as their means of making money probably are just trying to get away from a miserable 9 to 5 (or not live under a bridge).
People who work and give away their shit for free are good people, but they are also usually people who are financially comfortable already. Its not right to dictate what resources some individual game dev is trying to use to make a living off their work.
I disagree with all three paragraphs.
Perhaps you could elaborate on why?
Firstly, if they don’t believe in copyright, they shouldn’t be advocating for copyright, i.e. don’t base your whole business model hypocrisy. “Copyright for ther but not for me”.
The second paragraph has a vaguely defined “resources”. I assume you mean that people learning art looks at existing art as a way to get better and produce new art. I don’t think this should be in the same category as copying art from “commons”. I do believe generative AI to be copying rather than learning, unlike humans.
The third paragraph tries to put a class barrier on good morals. Let’s assume that is true. I’d argue that anyone that has the time and money to start their own venture into game development also is quite “comfortable” and should therefore be measured by the same stick.
As to that assumption: Most open source is created by people in their spare time. They mostly have full time jobs to do as well, the collaboration is done for fun or as a calling to do good for the world.
First, thanks for elaborating. I welcome the challenge to my views, but now I need to counter.
they shouldn’t be advocating for copyright, i.e. don’t base your whole business model hypocrisy. “Copyright for ther but not for me”.
I never suggested that they are advocating for copyright. Utilizing the rules of a system to get ahead doesn’t mean you actively advocate for it. That said, I somewhat agree, if a small indie dev was using gen AI and then however gets litigious over people pirating their game that indicates a ruthlessness that is significantly unpalatable and I certainly would not support them. I’d view them as extremely petty and stupid to the point that the potential hypocrisy almost comes second to me though.
I do believe generative AI to be copying rather than learning, unlike humans.
I don’t see a difference. There is nothing intrinsically special about a human’s learning methods that can’t be replicated by computer systems. Even if the current generative AI methodologies wasn’t exactly the same process, that is immaterial. If I created a humanoid robot that learned to physically paint based on paintings I showed it, would that be merely “copying” instead of learning?
What if they came out with neurological enhancement implants to human brains that sped up the process of humans learning how to do art to the point that they also could trivially replicate other artist’s styles?
The difference is purely in economic consequences. In both of my questioning examples producing art becomes economically trivial, that’s the problem. The meta-physical question of whether its “art” or whether only humans are truly creative is all cope and gibberish.
The third paragraph tries to put a class barrier on good morals. Let’s assume that is true. I’d argue that anyone that has the time and money to start their own venture into game development also is quite “comfortable” and should therefore be measured by the same stick.
This is all relative/subjective and I largely just disagree. I think this is an easy position to hold if you’ve already “made it” so to speak. It comes off as someone rich tut tuting someone poorer than them for “taking shortcuts” and saying “Look, you have a computer, smart phone, a microwave! You should be happy with what you have and just work harder if you want more.”
“Good morals” is also extremely subjective. When it comes to meta-ethics, I only care about consequences, not about the virtue of individuals. Virtue only matters in my personal relationships.
Most open source is created by people in their spare time. They mostly have full time jobs to do as well, the collaboration is done for fun or as a calling to do good for the world.
Having spare time and energy to contribute to open source is a privilege in today’s society regardless of how it is achieved. You can argue that in our time of abundance this should not be the case but unfortunately it is.
Again though, I don’t view this as a negative on the part of people who contribute to open source. I strongly support such people and hope at some point I’ve reached a point in my life that I can do the same.
Same here. Everyone complaining about AI in game development have no idea how hard indie devs have it. We desperately want to make a quality product and work our asses off doing so. We’re working full time jobs for ‘The Man’ to fund it out of pocket, so every cent saved by using AI Gen is value being added elsewhere. Building games is really freakin’ hard folks. The dream is to have a studio of artist making content, but that’s literally impossible given my pay grade. It’s truly a shame to see the gaming community rally against tooling that helps us indie devs make our dream a reality.
And the artists can just go fuck themselves then I guess?
The sad part is, one day in the (far) future, when real AI (not LLMs) are an actual thing, and they could code great games from scratch, there would be so much bad animosity towards AI by then that they’ll probably never see their games played.
I like human created art because it’s created by humans. If AI generated the greatest song, image, or video game i would not care—i don’t want it.
I like human created art because it’s created by humans. If AI generated the greatest song, image, or video game i would not care—i don’t want it.
Your opinion seems prejudicial, focusing on the creator of the art, and not the art itself.
Well to be fair, i don’t like art made by humans that are assholes either.
Though i dont agree that ai is inherently equal to those human assholes. Especially since for most of the important use cases (ie not spamming ai slop all over galleries online), an artist is usually the one influencing the ai tools, not the other way around.
Well to be fair, i don’t like art made by humans that are assholes either.
🤔 Fair enough, I’ll allow it. lol! 🙂
Though i dont agree that ai is inherently equal to those human assholes. Especially since for most of the important use cases (ie not spamming ai slop all over galleries online), an artist is usually the one influencing the ai tools, not the other way around.
Actually I’d agree with this. Right now we’re in the infancy of “AI” (note the quotes). I was speaking towards a future when true AI has been created, and the artist is the tool as well, and those AI beings start creating art on their own. Would decades/generations of anti-“AI” prejudice make it a hard climb for real AI to have their art seen as just art, and not a fake human “AI” creation.
Your comment seems loaded with purposefully inflammatory language intended to align AI with groups of actual real people who experience prejudice in the real world instead of corporations who have a vested interest in not paying artists, and brother, as a trans person, it makes you look like a real silly goose.
Your comment seems loaded with purposefully inflammatory language
Pointing out that someone justifies if they like something or not by who made it, vs by judging the item being made itself, is inflammatory?
as a trans person, it makes you look like a real silly goose.
I remember back in the 80’s where people were hating on a Top 40 song because it was made by a group who’s singer was gay, and thought that was very wrong, that the song itself should be judged on its own merits, and not by who was singing it.
Weird how those lessons learned fade away, needing to be learned again.
AI isn’t human. Stop pretending it is. AI takes advantage of humans. Your argument is invalid.
I did mention previously about “in the future”, some day, not today. LLMs are not AI, at least the kind of AI that I’m talking about.
But even taking your point, do we let a human always keep a job that an AI can do much for efficiently? What job protections should humans have from AIs? And for that matter, what job protections should humans have today, right now, regardless of AI? (For the record, I support Unions.)
We all need to figure this out, right now, as corporations are salavating at the though of an AI that can replace a human being’s job.
No amount of passage of time is going to make AI human. You all suggesting that in the future AI will have feelings and emotions and will care that people are prejudiced against it. You are arguing against a hypothetical that you have created in your head and isn’t necessarily going to be a reality.
Arguably the point of having machines do the work for us is that they’re NOT sentient.
Arguably the point of having machines do the work for us is that they’re NOT sentient.
Is it? Or is it for companies to not have to pay out salaries so they increase profits for AI-generated work, regardless if the AI is sentient or not?
Clearly. Sentience would imply some sense of internal thought or self awareness, an ability to feel something …so LLMs are better since they’re just machines. Though I’m sure they’d have no qualms with driving slaves.
I’m not talking about sentience per se, but how any “AI” would think, lookups (LLMs), vs synthesized on-the-fly thinking (mimicing the human brain’s procesing).
