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

  • esc27@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not that AI should be treated with the same rights and dignity a person, but is this not a sort of double standard? I mean, do they publish games with art made by humans who learned from works the human artists did not own?

    • WytchStar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      Based on the language from Valve, it sounds more like legal protection for themselves than a judgment from an ethical perspective.

      Your question isn’t a bad one, but the battleground over copyright ownership probably isn’t one they’re weighing in on here.

    • Ragnell@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      If a human artist learned by copying paintings, they still create original work. An AI simply copies.

      • GunnarRunnar@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, algorithmically copying one’s style with out permission isn’t the same thing as a human mirroring art. It’s not a skill.

        You can create art with AI for sure but it’s nothing but a tool (at least for now). And it’s unethical to use art without permission in this context where it literally algorithmically copies the material.

        • deafboy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          When somebody uses a ML model to generate content, the skill is not their goal. The end result is.

        • minimar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t copy from a single artist. It’s an amalgamation of a bunch of different artists’ work. That’s literally the entire concept of a model.

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

        Describe the criteria you use to determine whether something is “creation”.

    • esc27@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think I’m starting to understand… If I go to an art gallery that allows photos, take some photos, and share them with a friend who is learning to be an artist, that seems to be generally ok and does not feel unethical. But if I take those photos to an underground sweatshop and use it to train a thousand people who are mass producing art for corporate use, that seems wrong.

      If I think of the AI as a human analog, then I have trouble seeing the problem with it learning from the same resources as humans, but if I see it as a factory then I see the problem.

      • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        And that’s why the companies behind these algorithms are so intent on selling the lie that it’s “revolutionary human-like artificial intelligence” and not just a plagiarism algorithm regurgitating a mashup of the work it was fed.

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean, do they publish games with art made by humans who learned from works the human artists did not own?

      You know plagiarism is a word right? Artists/Writers still strive to have a style unique to themselves…