Use of generative AI for the game's splash image

[drh]

Really?

[Slavyk_FR]

And what is the problem with it?

[SvfferCatboy]

I'm pretty sure the use of AI is banned on steam. weather you agree with it or not, it should probably be removed before it gets the game delisted. I understand using it as a solo dev to just get something out there but at this point it'd be more beneficial to just use an in game screenshot and not risk the backlash/getting delisted

[Indoril Nerevar]

Originally posted by Stinboi:

Originally posted by Slavyk:

And what is the problem with it?

nothing, just some people pretending to care and jump on the "we hate AI train", its a small trend atm.

Exploitation and theft is not acceptable. You can't just steal billions of images and data from internet just to make more money from unpaid labour. If you are not going to add something to the table, shut your dirty ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ mouth. This is a very serious problem and I'm glad people are talking about it

Also ''small hate train atm'' Artists are fightning for their rights and lives right now and it's going to get worse and worse. Learn how to be a decent human being.

[Indoril Nerevar]

Originally posted by Stinboi:

Originally posted by High Chancellor Ocato:

Exploitation and theft is not acceptable. You can't just steal billions of images and data from internet just to make more money from unpaid labour. If you are not going to add something to the table, shut your dirty ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ mouth. This is a very serious problem and I'm glad people are talking about it

its gonne be more and more common, and a few people complaining isnt gonne stop AI devolepment. technology is a good thing and its good that we still can go further with it.

Originally posted by High Chancellor Ocato:

Also ''small hate train atm'' Artists are fightning for their rights and lives right now and it's going to get worse and worse. Learn how to be a decent human being.

so i guess you only use hand made furnitures? how many furniture makers didnt lost their job to machinery? and i`m sure you dont use a computer, that was death to many peoples jobs aswell

so why are artists more important then everyone els? its not about been a decent human, its about understanding that the world are still in devolepment,

I feel for the artists and can understand how it feels, but they need to adapt, like many other before them.

my reaction is becouse im just so tired of people like you using every little chance you got to whine about it.

Computer development or automation didn't built on stolen labour. Without stolen artworks generative AI can't do ♥♥♥♥. It's literally a parasite. It's not sentient and it's not technological development. Also few people? I don't know about that. People become more and more aware of what's going on and nobody wants this parasitic technology. Only sociopaths like you keep telling people to adapt or die.

Also art is about human touch and human connection. Art is the last thing people want to automate. Because it's not about pretty pictures. Art was there even before civilizations. This will ruin human society if we don't stop this

[resonance]

Yeah because every time someone does anything, it is always original and never built from the experiences of those who came before ever. riiiight.

When they built those machine to make the cars, they had people who have no knowledge of car manufacturing program them. They didn't want to use all the info built up from the people who had been doing it manually all that time after all.

Or when artists make a new song or piece, they have to start from scratch entirely and create new instruments or tools and absolutely must have NEVER seen another piece of art or heard any music to be allowed to make something.

Everything is based off learning from the past, and AI is no different. It looks at other artwork to understand how things are done. You call it stealing, but how is it any different from you looking at any painting and taking inspiration from that. Should you be ostracized for going to a museum and then painting your own picture because you were inspired by what you saw?

Stolen? No. It did not go into anyone's private files and take them without permission. All images used are on the internet where anyone can see them. I can look at them and learn techniques to draw and do the same thing, but will you say I am stealing from them?

They are mad because AI is just better at their jobs than they are, and since they are now the ones on the cusp of replacement, they are trying to get whatever money and sympathy they can.

[Indoril Nerevar]

Originally posted by resonance:

Yeah because every time someone does anything, it is always original and never built from the experiences of those who came before ever. riiiight.

When they built those machine to make the cars, they had people who have no knowledge of car manufacturing program them. They didn't want to use all the info built up from the people who had been doing it manually all that time after all.

Or when artists make a new song or piece, they have to start from scratch entirely and create new instruments or tools and absolutely must have NEVER seen another piece of art or heard any music to be allowed to make something.

Everything is based off learning from the past, and AI is no different. It looks at other artwork to understand how things are done. You call it stealing, but how is it any different from you looking at any painting and taking inspiration from that. Should you be ostracized for going to a museum and then painting your own picture because you were inspired by what you saw?

Stolen? No. It did not go into anyone's private files and take them without permission. All images used are on the internet where anyone can see them. I can look at them and learn techniques to draw and do the same thing, but will you say I am stealing from them?

They are mad because AI is just better at their jobs than they are, and since they are now the ones on the cusp of replacement, they are trying to get whatever money and sympathy they can.

Because humans don't need billions of stolen artwork to make a artwork. Inspiration is much of a different thing. All you need is a pen and a paper. No it doesn't look at other artworks. It's not sentient. If you really believe it's sentient, you are a crazy person. Without the stolen data generative AI can't do ♥♥♥♥ and even companies are not trying to hide it anymore.
When someone shares their artwork on a public website, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. When I park my car outside of my house, it doesn't mean you can break in and drive away. What the ♥♥♥♥ is wrong with you. When someone post a photo of themselves online it doesn't mean you can take it and do whatever you want with it. Because they also train their AI with photos too. Learn about what consent is. If you are not tracing the artwork or stealing it, you can do whatever you want. Inspiration and theft is not the same thing

Originally posted by Stinboi:

its not stolen, its inspired by other images and stuff it has collected data from and create something new, same as we humans do in about everything we create, whats the different?

sociopaths?? wow

Bro who is telling you guys these lies? Please inform yourself. Generative AI is not sentient. It can't dream like a human. You are so delusional, if you lived in medieval ages some random ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ priest would sell you a land from heaven and you will happily pay for it.
It built on stolen labour and nobody gave their CONSENT to train their data. Please learn what consent is and stop sucking multi billion dolar companies ♥♥♥♥♥

[Marble]

Originally posted by Jaywasaleo:

I'm pretty sure the use of AI is banned on steam. weather you agree with it or not, it should probably be removed before it gets the game delisted. I understand using it as a solo dev to just get something out there but at this point it'd be more beneficial to just use an in game screenshot and not risk the backlash/getting delisted

the use of AI is NOT banned on steam and your source of info is incorrect.

Their policies regarding AI can be found online, easily.


To both paraphrase and shorten it though,

Developers can in fact use AI to generate imagery and assets, but only if they can 100% prove the algorithm used was trained by them, with their own source materials made by them.

It's also possible and very easy to generate art and other assets without stealing work from others. Most developers and 3d artists are familiar with NOAI tags. because of NOAI tags it's pretty difficult to steal art without being sued rather abruptly.

Bunch of people here who have never made art, content, or games, complaining about ai that doesnt affect them, using false information and opinions.


y'all need to chill tf out.

[resonance]

Originally posted by High Chancellor Ocato:

Because humans don't need billions of stolen artwork to make a artwork. Inspiration is much of a different thing. All you need is a pen and a paper. No it doesn't look at other artworks. It's not sentient. If you really believe it's sentient, you are a crazy person. Without the stolen data generative AI can't do ♥♥♥♥ and even companies are not trying to hide it anymore.
When someone shares their artwork on a public website, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. When I park my car outside of my house, it doesn't mean you can break in and drive away. What the ♥♥♥♥ is wrong with you. When someone post a photo of themselves online it doesn't mean you can take it and do whatever you want with it. Because they also train their AI with photos too. Learn about what consent is. If you are not tracing the artwork or stealing it, you can do whatever you want. Inspiration and theft is not the same thing

How do you think it learns? By looking at other artwork! Or do you believe that it is simply storing these 'stolen' pictures in its database, and the cutting and pasting different elements together to make a picture? We'll take the stock boy from this picture and the clerk from this picture and paste it on to this other picture of a generic supermarket and boom! AI picture? No. It examines every picture and is told what they are and then extrapolates and learns. Same thing you do.

You say, I can just grab a pen and paper? But how can I draw unless I look at things and learn what they are and how they work? Can a born-blind guy draw a forest, or the sun, or a night sky without help? You look at things and you learn from them and you copy them and modify them! The only difference with an AI is that it can not 'see' on its own. It needs those pictures to see the world. Also, posting anything in a public domain is granting permission to view it. You are literally putting it up for view.

As for your horribly flawed car analogy, the AI is not displaying the other person picture as its own, it is merely learning from it to create its own. So back to your car, it would be like you park your car on the street and I see it and draw a picture of it, and you come out screaming like a madman to call the police because I am 'stealing' your car.

[Marble]

Originally posted by resonance:

Originally posted by High Chancellor Ocato:

Because humans don't need billions of stolen artwork to make a artwork. Inspiration is much of a different thing. All you need is a pen and a paper. No it doesn't look at other artworks. It's not sentient. If you really believe it's sentient, you are a crazy person. Without the stolen data generative AI can't do ♥♥♥♥ and even companies are not trying to hide it anymore.
When someone shares their artwork on a public website, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. When I park my car outside of my house, it doesn't mean you can break in and drive away. What the ♥♥♥♥ is wrong with you. When someone post a photo of themselves online it doesn't mean you can take it and do whatever you want with it. Because they also train their AI with photos too. Learn about what consent is. If you are not tracing the artwork or stealing it, you can do whatever you want. Inspiration and theft is not the same thing

How do you think it learns? By looking at other artwork! Or do you believe that it is simply storing these 'stolen' pictures in its database, and the cutting and pasting different elements together to make a picture? We'll take the stock boy from this picture and the clerk from this picture and paste it on to this other picture of a generic supermarket and boom! AI picture? No. It examines every picture and is told what they are and then extrapolates and learns. Same thing you do.

You say, I can just grab a pen and paper? But how can I draw unless I look at things and learn what how they work? Can a born-blind guy draw a forest, or the sun, or a night sky without help? You look at things and you learn from them and you copy them and modify them! The only difference with an AI is that it can not 'see' on its own. It needs those pictures to see the world. Also, posting anything in a public domain is granting permission to view it. You are literally putting it up for view.

As for your horribly flawed car analogy, the AI is not displaying the other person picture as its own, it is merely learning from it to create its own. So back to your car, it would be like you park your car on the street and I see it and draw a picture of it, and you come out screaming like a madman to call the police because I am 'stealing' your car.

Hi. AI cannot gain access to artworks that have noAI tags attached to them. The only time it has explicit access is when the artist gives their consent, or the model is trained by the person/ people making the art.

As an artist myself, I can assure you AI doesnt have access to such things without consent. humans would be the ones stealing artwork and using it without consent and bypassing noai tags, not AI itself, because afterall. it's not sentient you dope.

If an artwork was or is stolen, blame the people stealing the art. In most, Steam can detect such stolen artwork and assets and will take games down until the problems in a game regarding artwork is resolved. They've done it quite a few times, and have no problem blocking games because of it.

[Indoril Nerevar]

Originally posted by resonance:

Originally posted by High Chancellor Ocato:

Because humans don't need billions of stolen artwork to make a artwork. Inspiration is much of a different thing. All you need is a pen and a paper. No it doesn't look at other artworks. It's not sentient. If you really believe it's sentient, you are a crazy person. Without the stolen data generative AI can't do ♥♥♥♥ and even companies are not trying to hide it anymore.
When someone shares their artwork on a public website, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. When I park my car outside of my house, it doesn't mean you can break in and drive away. What the ♥♥♥♥ is wrong with you. When someone post a photo of themselves online it doesn't mean you can take it and do whatever you want with it. Because they also train their AI with photos too. Learn about what consent is. If you are not tracing the artwork or stealing it, you can do whatever you want. Inspiration and theft is not the same thing

How do you think it learns? By looking at other artwork! Or do you believe that it is simply storing these 'stolen' pictures in its database, and the cutting and pasting different elements together to make a picture? We'll take the stock boy from this picture and the clerk from this picture and paste it on to this other picture of a generic supermarket and boom! AI picture? No. It examines every picture and is told what they are and then extrapolates and learns. Same thing you do.

You say, I can just grab a pen and paper? But how can I draw unless I look at things and learn what they are and how they work? Can a born-blind guy draw a forest, or the sun, or a night sky without help? You look at things and you learn from them and you copy them and modify them! The only difference with an AI is that it can not 'see' on its own. It needs those pictures to see the world. Also, posting anything in a public domain is granting permission to view it. You are literally putting it up for view.

As for your horribly flawed car analogy, the AI is not displaying the other person picture as its own, it is merely learning from it to create its own. So back to your car, it would be like you park your car on the street and I see it and draw a picture of it, and you come out screaming like a madman to call the police because I am 'stealing' your car.

This is why I'm calling you people sociopaths. Because you really believe AI is conscious and you are putting a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ stolen image generator at the same level of humans. It doesn't have ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ eyes and nobody GAVE THEIR CONSENT and companies didn't even asked for it. It learns same as me? There are a lot of things we don't know about human brain. What the ♥♥♥♥ are you talking about? Stop drinking Sam Altman's ♥♥♥ too much, it seems like it causes some serious brain damage
Then go and train your AI with Disney products or Nintendo products. It's public domain after all. They have their social media accounts where they share their copyrighted stuff. Let's see how it goes.
Viewing it and stealing it to train your parasitic AI is not the same thing. Without the data AI can't generate anything.

[Marble]

Originally posted by High Chancellor Ocato:

Originally posted by resonance:

How do you think it learns? By looking at other artwork! Or do you believe that it is simply storing these 'stolen' pictures in its database, and the cutting and pasting different elements together to make a picture? We'll take the stock boy from this picture and the clerk from this picture and paste it on to this other picture of a generic supermarket and boom! AI picture? No. It examines every picture and is told what they are and then extrapolates and learns. Same thing you do.

You say, I can just grab a pen and paper? But how can I draw unless I look at things and learn what they are and how they work? Can a born-blind guy draw a forest, or the sun, or a night sky without help? You look at things and you learn from them and you copy them and modify them! The only difference with an AI is that it can not 'see' on its own. It needs those pictures to see the world. Also, posting anything in a public domain is granting permission to view it. You are literally putting it up for view.

As for your horribly flawed car analogy, the AI is not displaying the other person picture as its own, it is merely learning from it to create its own. So back to your car, it would be like you park your car on the street and I see it and draw a picture of it, and you come out screaming like a madman to call the police because I am 'stealing' your car.

This is why I'm calling you people sociopaths. Because you really believe AI is conscious and you are putting a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ stolen image generator at the same level of humans. It doesn't have ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ eyes and nobody GAVE THEIR CONSENT and companies didn't even asked for it. It learns same as me? There are a lot of things we don't know about human brain. What the ♥♥♥♥ are you talking about? Stop drinking Sam Altman's ♥♥♥ too much, it seems like it causes some serious brain damage
Then go and train your AI with Disney products or Nintendo products. It's public domain after all. They have their social media accounts where they share their copyrighted stuff. Let's see how it goes.
Viewing it and stealing it to train your parasitic AI is not the same thing. Without the data AI can't generate anything.

Hello, yes artists have to give consent in order for an AI to use images to generate to content. There's hardcoded NOAI filters and all sorts in the art world.

While its true HUMANS can steal artwork, AI cannot without human input. Typically art you see used to train models, is art that has consent provided. Unlike y'all I'm not googling random ♥♥♥♥ to try make a baseless argument. I'm speaking from experience as a creator.

AI is not as convoluted as you're dreaming up. The tech has advanced for sure but anything ever stolen is done so by humans and with manual input when it comes to AI. a majority of the time consent is, or was given for generative data training though. While art can definitely be stolen, the sole perpetrator is a person, not the machine.

[Indoril Nerevar]

Originally posted by Marble:

Originally posted by High Chancellor Ocato:

This is why I'm calling you people sociopaths. Because you really believe AI is conscious and you are putting a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ stolen image generator at the same level of humans. It doesn't have ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ eyes and nobody GAVE THEIR CONSENT and companies didn't even asked for it. It learns same as me? There are a lot of things we don't know about human brain. What the ♥♥♥♥ are you talking about? Stop drinking Sam Altman's ♥♥♥ too much, it seems like it causes some serious brain damage
Then go and train your AI with Disney products or Nintendo products. It's public domain after all. They have their social media accounts where they share their copyrighted stuff. Let's see how it goes.
Viewing it and stealing it to train your parasitic AI is not the same thing. Without the data AI can't generate anything.

Hello, yes artists have to give consent in order for an AI to use images to generate to content. There's hardcoded NOAI filters and all sorts in the art world.

While its true HUMANS can steal artwork, AI cannot without human input. Typically art you see used to train models, is art that has consent provided.

GenAI can't forget. GenAI trained on stolen data. They have to built a new model if they want to make a ethical one. Also a lot of cases are ongoing. Even George R.R.Martin and New York Times sued OpenAI. Regulations are incoming. Generative AI is theft

Originally posted by Stinboi:

Originally posted by High Chancellor Ocato:

Because humans don't need billions of stolen artwork to make a artwork. Inspiration is much of a different thing. All you need is a pen and a paper. No it doesn't look at other artworks. It's not sentient. If you really believe it's sentient, you are a crazy person. Without the stolen data generative AI can't do ♥♥♥♥ and even companies are not trying to hide it anymore.
When someone shares their artwork on a public website, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. When I park my car outside of my house, it doesn't mean you can break in and drive away. What the ♥♥♥♥ is wrong with you. When someone post a photo of themselves online it doesn't mean you can take it and do whatever you want with it. Because they also train their AI with photos too. Learn about what consent is. If you are not tracing the artwork or stealing it, you can do whatever you want. Inspiration and theft is not the same thing





Bro who is telling you guys these lies? Please inform yourself. Generative AI is not sentient. It can't dream like a human. You are so delusional, if you lived in medieval ages some random ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ priest would sell you a land from heaven and you will happily pay for it.
It built on stolen labour and nobody gave their CONSENT to train their data. Please learn what consent is and stop sucking multi billion dolar companies ♥♥♥♥♥

sociopaths and delusional now? Double Wow

Stop gathering your info from social media and maybe you learn a thing or 2

Because you are literally telling other people to adapt getting their hardwork stolen by AI companies. There is no such thing as adapting to theft and AI doesn't have consciousness.

[Marble]

Originally posted by High Chancellor Ocato:

Originally posted by Marble:

Hello, yes artists have to give consent in order for an AI to use images to generate to content. There's hardcoded NOAI filters and all sorts in the art world.

While its true HUMANS can steal artwork, AI cannot without human input. Typically art you see used to train models, is art that has consent provided.

GenAI can't forget. GenAI trained on stolen data. They have to built a new model if they want to make a ethical one. Also a lot of cases are ongoing. Even George R.R.Martin and New York Times sued OpenAI. Regulations are incoming. Generative AI is theft

Originally posted by Stinboi:

sociopaths and delusional now? Double Wow

Stop gathering your info from social media and maybe you learn a thing or 2

Because you are literally telling other people to adapt getting their hardwork stolen by AI companies. There is no such thing as adapting to theft and AI doesn't have consciousness.

There are already regulations and legislation. yes there are cases where it can happen which makes up such a marginally low percentage, that it wouldn't even matter in the long term, but yet again a human is behind doing that. a majority of the time CONSENT is given. THe reason NOAI tags exists is because of past cases. if you don't create, make art, content, games, etc I can't see why you're complaining. It's very clear you're googling whatever nonsense fits your narrative.

If you were to scroll on art station right now. you could see that there's an entire part of the art and asset development community giving consent to AI training.

[Indoril Nerevar]

Originally posted by Marble:

Originally posted by High Chancellor Ocato:

GenAI can't forget. GenAI trained on stolen data. They have to built a new model if they want to make a ethical one. Also a lot of cases are ongoing. Even George R.R.Martin and New York Times sued OpenAI. Regulations are incoming. Generative AI is theft




Because you are literally telling other people to adapt getting their hardwork stolen by AI companies. There is no such thing as adapting to theft and AI doesn't have consciousness.

There are already regulations and legislation. yes there are cases where it can happen, but yet again a human is behind doing that. a majority of the time CONSENT is given. THe reason NOAI tags exists is because of past cases. if you don't create, make art, content, games, etc I can't see why you're complaining. It's very clear you're googling whatever nonsense fits your narrative.

Lmao majority of the consent is given? By who? I don't remember them asking for billions of people to give them their consent.

[Marble]

Originally posted by High Chancellor Ocato:

Originally posted by Marble:

There are already regulations and legislation. yes there are cases where it can happen, but yet again a human is behind doing that. a majority of the time CONSENT is given. THe reason NOAI tags exists is because of past cases. if you don't create, make art, content, games, etc I can't see why you're complaining. It's very clear you're googling whatever nonsense fits your narrative.

Lmao majority of the consent is given? By who? I don't remember them asking for billions of people to give them their consent.

By the artists? It's very clear you aren't one. do you know what art station, or sketchfab is? why not take a few hours to browse, and take a look at how many artists give consent to the use of AI training you can filter out artworks by whether they've consented to AI training or not. Furthermore, the no AI tag will block data training algorithms from using your works, ever. The majority, generally give consent. it's very clear based on how you speak about it you have no idea what you're talking about, and someone somewhere told you how you feel about it, and was wrong.