Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The game is fantastic, and its a small dev team. If they were able to cut costs and improve development time by using AI art, so what?
I don't see it as unethical at all, sorry.
These tools are here to stay, you're going to need to get over it.
Also, as of August, it seems that in the US, It's not possible to copy write AI art so I'm not entirely confident the tools are here to stay.
"Devaluing the work of artists." What exactly does that mean? There are guys on Artstation and Deviant who showcase how they incorporate AI into their workflow.
Why shouldn't these same artists have these tools available to their workflow?
Yes, it is impossible to copyright raw, unedited generated AI art "by itself." However, that's clearly not what anyone serious is trying to do - at least not with the current crop of tools.
People didn't think sound was "here to stay" in movies at one time either (I'm not even kidding, look it up). The internet was once thought to be a novelty, and calculators were once deemed "the instruments of the lazy."
How'd that work out?
On productivity alone, there is now a wide demand for generative AI tools, both in the realms of art and business workflow. Which major company is going to be the first to ban their employees from processing data with AI? Or using AI to conduct menial tasks?
Even if you're right and it's totally unethical, there is a global AI Arms Race going on "right now," both among governments and businesses, and there is no putting this genie back in the bottle.
Yeah, and Search Engines were totally a fad.
Because let's say the devs pop in and say "No, AI wasn't used." How do you know whether they're telling the truth or not?
These AI-witch hunts are beyond stupid.
I'd really love to know why AI witch hunts are so stupid when theft is a core concern over the matter. Steam has a policy against hosting games made with AI art and it's not for an arbitrary reason.
You mean the same AI detection tools that thought the US Constitution was written by AI?
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/why-ai-detectors-think-the-us-constitution-was-written-by-ai/
Or the same AI detection tools that accused innocent students of cheating?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/01/chatgpt-cheating-detection-turnitin/
The success of artists does not hinge on trying to bury a technology that has already permeated the public anymore than the success of musicians in the late 1990s and early 2000s depended on outlawing streaming. Or are you of the opinion that Tower Records should somehow become our primary source of music again?
The most successful artists today are going to be those who improve their art and increase their productivity by incorporating AI into their workflow.
Theft of work isn't a new concept but irresponsible use of AI streamlines it. Personally I would like to be able to trust an artist or studio is presenting work that firmly belongs to them. AI can obfuscate that entirely except under certain and very controlled circumstances. An artist employed at Revolution Industry ( or any company) who plagiarised artwork would endanger that studio and their product. Why then is it acceptable to use AI generation ( again assuming they are not using AI trained only on materials they produced in house and therefore own ) if it's well understood that it could be using artwork that never belonged to them?
Prior to AI being available artists needed to be careful in what materials they used in their works, no matter how abstract, in order to minimise any chance being accused of stealing from other artists or studios. AI can easily strip the artist of being able to know what and where generated materials come from.
I can only offer an anecdotal example ( I'm sure that's not worth much to you but it does fall within plausibility) from my time working as a 3d artist years ago, I've seen a coworker disciplined and put on probation for lifting hi res textures sold by a third party company that they weren't authorised to use. They chose to use materials they weren't legally entitled to and suffered consequences for it. It was an active choice on their part, was it wrong for them to be punished for using stolen material?
Imagine then they used AI to generate the texture for them using an assortment of materials scraped from the internet that they may not have authorisation to use and present their work as entirely their own. What implications does that have for the artist or subsequently the studio if it's proven they used stolen assets? Should the use of AI protect the artist or studio in such a case since they perhaps weren't aware that they were using assets that were stolen?
it's murky as hell and you would be correct that companies are doing their best to be on the forefront of the technology being discussed but I wouldn't place bets AI generation employed in a silky smooth and consequence free fashion. Again there is a reason why Steam is disallowing games with AI generated art and it should be closely scrutinised.
I'm not arguing for regression. I'm arguing for responsible and regulated use. And if Revolution Industries used AI for their art work, I am saying they should declare it.
AI doesn't need to be unethical in its application but apparently few people care about such things.
Just to play devil's advocate, one might say that labeling such use as unethical would be calling ANY artwork "inspired" by another source, freely available or not, unethical.
Is making a game about airships, at it's essence, a theft of previous airship-centered creations? Is crafting orchestral music with a computer a slap in the face to real-life orchestras?
The whole conversation is sliding along a gradient of what one considers proprietary. And at the moment, legally, if AI programs can "see" your work (ie it's available publicly online), they can take "inspiration" from it.
The argument of synthetic classical music isn't even part of this conversation really. I'm not arguing against technology, just the methods of employment. But if someone note for note copies an orchestral piece not in public domain but uses a digital suite to produce it, the may find themselves in hot water and rightfully so. Litigation of copied music is pretty easy to look up online.
AI cannot be inspired. It learns from what ever is presented from it and makes modifications, usually though it doesn't modify the source materials well enough and does become very questionable in matters of plagiarism.
does AI actually do this? letters rearranged into word, words rearranged into sentences, sentences rearranged into books, pixels rearranged into digital images, etc..
from how far does "copy"-right reach pertaining to "ownership" of pixel arrangement?
edit : case in point, if someone writes a script that will randomize the pixels of the 1000x1000 image, given enough time and randomness, it could generate EVERY single possible arrangement of pixels.