Literal Porn Games Popping Up On Steam

[MrPeery]

I am utterly disgusted.

While browsing Steam's Discovery Queue, hoping to enjoy a gaming experience and farm some cards, I was shocked to come across blatant pornography. This is unacceptable and appalling. How can such content be allowed on a platform frequented by people of all ages, including children?

Steam prides itself as a gaming haven, yet here we are, exposed to explicit and inappropriate content without warning. This is a serious breach of trust and decency. How many more users need to be subjected to this haram filth before Steam implements a robust filtering system?

This isn't just about personal preference; it's about protecting our community's integrity and the innocence of all gamers.

[Max]

Escrito originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Escrito originalmente por '"{`@xMaxrayx%n%:{code:Reborn}"':

its not stealing its fair use, and its how most artist do their work as part of study they are going to "download" other works.

If I try to paint "Starry Night" by Van Gogh as practice at an art academy, that's not going to bother anybody. If I would try to SELL that piece of work (not that I would) ... that's plagiarism. That IS NOT fair use. Sure, using AI art to experiment and get some concept ideas is fine... but making money out of collages made from stolen assets? That's a FAR cry from fair use.

I'm against AI in art. Art is a process of personal expression. We can't call what AI created art to begin with. The AI has no personality to express, thus all it can do is cobble together pieces from works created by humans. And that's not art.

"painting over it" where used by artist and no was talk badly to them, oh don't forget the tracing methods used from years and no one complained about it, unless if you are do it 100%.

collages made from stolen assets? That's a FAR cry from fair use.

no , they aren't collages they are like this
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/1*NpQ282NJdOfxUsYlwLJplA.png

I'm against AI in art. Art is a process of personal expression.

why ,we should care about "expression" you know how much drama in tweeter with artists community ? oh lets don't about racism or beauty stranded, agenda , political ...etc

also a lot of art are just random or just try mimic realistic tree and flowers, there isn't any expression there.

[The nameless Gamer]

Escrito originalmente por '"{`@xMaxrayx%n%:{code:Reborn}"':

Escrito originalmente por The nameless Commander:

If I try to paint "Starry Night" by Van Gogh as practice at an art academy, that's not going to bother anybody. If I would try to SELL that piece of work (not that I would) ... that's plagiarism. That IS NOT fair use. Sure, using AI art to experiment and get some concept ideas is fine... but making money out of collages made from stolen assets? That's a FAR cry from fair use.

I'm against AI in art. Art is a process of personal expression. We can't call what AI created art to begin with. The AI has no personality to express, thus all it can do is cobble together pieces from works created by humans. And that's not art.

"painting over it" where used by artist and no was talk badly to them, oh don't forget the tracing methods used from years and no one complained about it, unless if you are do it 100%.

collages made from stolen assets? That's a FAR cry from fair use.

no , they aren't collages they are like this
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/1*NpQ282NJdOfxUsYlwLJplA.png

I'm against AI in art. Art is a process of personal expression.

why ,we should care about "expression" you know how much drama in tweeter with artists community ? oh lets don't about racism or beauty stranded, agenda , political ...etc

also a lot of art are just random or just try mimic realistic tree and flowers, there isn't any expression there.

I am talking about acclaimed artists akin to Vincent Van Gogh, Francisco Goya, Claude Monet as well as their modern equivalents. My definition of art comes from what the old masters made. I am talking about expression THROUGH the paintings, poetry, novels... not banter and rants on social media.

Art is art only when the creation is ORIGINAL and made with the person's own efforts and creativity.

[Scott, President of Dominos]

Escrito originalmente por SlowMango:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Ouch.

Bingo. Hoisted by their own petard?

See for yourself.

???

I didn’t even write that post. The ♥♥♥♥ are you talking about?

EDIT: I didn’t even post in that thread.

Am I missing something here?

[Boblin the Goblin]

Escrito originalmente por Makise Kurisu:

Escrito originalmente por SlowMango:

See for yourself.

???

I didn’t even write that post. The ♥♥♥♥ are you talking about?

EDIT: I didn’t even post in that thread.

Am I missing something here?

Oh ♥♥♥♥, you're right.

That user's name was similar to yours before it reverted back to the numbers. My bad.

[Tito Shivan]

Escrito originalmente por '"{`@xMaxrayx%n%:{code:Reborn}"':

literary bad prompt, "screenshot" "trailer" oh well "16.9"

Don't blame it on the prompt.

[Max]

Escrito originalmente por Tito Shivan:

Escrito originalmente por '"{`@xMaxrayx%n%:{code:Reborn}"':

literary bad prompt, "screenshot" "trailer" oh well "16.9"

Don't blame it on the prompt.

You can do the same with brush tho? Also prompt are heavily linked to "models", so every models can use deffrent way of text-taging on training process , so every models have deffrent prompt policy.

Also what's next write "hevc" and "mp4" on prompt? Oh maybe add "blue-ray"

Almost these text tag are auto-genrated from webpage no one going to describe it by human input per images because the model hass like 9999999 images.

[Max]

Escrito originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Escrito originalmente por '"{`@xMaxrayx%n%:{code:Reborn}"':

"painting over it" where used by artist and no was talk badly to them, oh don't forget the tracing methods used from years and no one complained about it, unless if you are do it 100%.



no , they aren't collages they are like this
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/1*NpQ282NJdOfxUsYlwLJplA.png



why ,we should care about "expression" you know how much drama in tweeter with artists community ? oh lets don't about racism or beauty stranded, agenda , political ...etc

also a lot of art are just random or just try mimic realistic tree and flowers, there isn't any expression there.

I am talking about acclaimed artists akin to Vincent Van Gogh, Francisco Goya, Claude Monet as well as their modern equivalents. My definition of art comes from what the old masters made. I am talking about expression THROUGH the paintings, poetry, novels... not banter and rants on social media.

Art is art only when the creation is ORIGINAL and made with the person's own efforts and creativity.

Sure but some of artists cummuinty will say oh that XYZ artists was overrated and so on.

Also ,some of theses old artists have heavy impact from the religion which I'm not interested on them.

Art is art only when the creation is ORIGINAL and made with the person's own efforts and creativity

Nothing original almost all arts are just inspired from outside with the artist style to new one.

Which what Ai do, take from internet and make new things, but a lot of err and dumb mistake will happend because it's a computer on the end, you can see it as new way of automation.

and made with the person's own efforts and creativity

Why this should for art? The food and vigtables aren't made by "hard work"

[The nameless Gamer]

Escrito originalmente por '"{`@xMaxrayx%n%:{code:Reborn}"':

and made with the person's own efforts and creativity

Why this should for art? The food and vigtables aren't made by "hard work"

What do food and vegetables have to do with it? Art is only art if the artists made the entire work themselves. It's not art if it copies or takes parts from other paintings, novels, poems, theater plays... Art is something with a PERSONAL touch. Sure, you can do art inspired by other works or paint the same motif, but it has to carry a personal note. Art should be unique. And like I said, the AI has no personality to express. The artists expresses themselves THROUGH paintings, writing, photography... Michelangelo made the David sculpture himself. Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa himself. Giovanni Boccacio wrote the "Decameron" himself. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was INSPIRED by the folkbook "Historia von Dr. Johann Fausten" but "Faust" is still his original creation, as he wrote something distinctly different. He merely used the motif of the pact with the devil, but his main character was different from his source of inspiration as was the whole plot. Goethe loosely based "Faust" on the "Historia..." his writing is its own thing more than enough to be called a work of art.

[D. Flame]

Escrito originalmente por '"{`@xMaxrayx%n%:{code:Reborn}"':

and made with the person's own efforts and creativity

Why this should for art? The food and vigtables aren't made by "hard work"

Try asking farmers if food is grown without hard work.

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Escrito originalmente por '"{`@xMaxrayx%n%:{code:Reborn}"':

Why this should for art? The food and vigtables aren't made by "hard work"

What do food and vegetables have to do with it? Art is only art if the artists made the entire work themselves. It's not art if it copies or takes parts from other paintings, novels, poems, theater plays... Art is something with a PERSONAL touch. Sure, you can do art inspired by other works or paint the same motif, but it has to carry a personal note. Art should be unique. And like I said, the AI has no personality to express. The artists expresses themselves THROUGH paintings, writing, photography... Michelangelo made the David sculpture himself. Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa himself. Giovanni Boccacio wrote the "Decameron" himself. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was INSPIRED by the folkbook "Historia von Dr. Johann Fausten" but "Faust" is still his original creation, as he wrote something distinctly different. He merely used the motif of the pact with the devil, but his main character was different from his source of inspiration as was the whole plot. Goethe loosely based "Faust" on the "Historia..." his writing is its own thing more than enough to be called a work of art.

You're rather wrong there.

Art can absolutely be created from other previous creations.

Collage, for example.

Or how about in the music sphere? When samplers became a thing, you trying to tell me the likes of Liam Howlett of the Prodigy wasn't making art with his early records made COMPLETELY based on samples of other works?

The legal definition for art is likely better.

And that does not say this, but it does say that something not created by a human can't be art.

Case in point - the famous monkey self portrait. Or at least not fair to say it isn't art but rather it can't be copyrighted as an artistic work.

[The nameless Gamer]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Escrito originalmente por The nameless Commander:

What do food and vegetables have to do with it? Art is only art if the artists made the entire work themselves. It's not art if it copies or takes parts from other paintings, novels, poems, theater plays... Art is something with a PERSONAL touch. Sure, you can do art inspired by other works or paint the same motif, but it has to carry a personal note. Art should be unique. And like I said, the AI has no personality to express. The artists expresses themselves THROUGH paintings, writing, photography... Michelangelo made the David sculpture himself. Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa himself. Giovanni Boccacio wrote the "Decameron" himself. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was INSPIRED by the folkbook "Historia von Dr. Johann Fausten" but "Faust" is still his original creation, as he wrote something distinctly different. He merely used the motif of the pact with the devil, but his main character was different from his source of inspiration as was the whole plot. Goethe loosely based "Faust" on the "Historia..." his writing is its own thing more than enough to be called a work of art.

You're rather wrong there.

Art can absolutely be created from other previous creations.

Collage, for example.

Or how about in the music sphere? When samplers became a thing, you trying to tell me the likes of Liam Howlett of the Prodigy wasn't making art with his early records made COMPLETELY based on samples of other works?

The legal definition for art is likely better.

And that does not say this, but it does say that something not created by a human can't be art.

Case in point - the famous monkey self portrait. Or at least not fair to say it isn't art but rather it can't be copyrighted as an artistic work.

I am not familiar with Liam Howlett at all and insufficiently with The Prodigy (since I'm a rock and metal fan, a genre where the personal expression matters a LOT). Sampling and collage can still fall under the category of original work, because despite using PIECES of other assets, they are still a form of personal expression as a whole. As long as the piece of work ultimately expresses the maker themselves, it is art, to me at least. I'm more trying to dispute that AI, something without personality, can create any form of art. It's not what is being used, it's the personal expression that makes a work of art a work of art. Whether it is a collage or samples made into a whole... but what can't be missing is the artist's own personal mark.

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

You're rather wrong there.

Art can absolutely be created from other previous creations.

Collage, for example.

Or how about in the music sphere? When samplers became a thing, you trying to tell me the likes of Liam Howlett of the Prodigy wasn't making art with his early records made COMPLETELY based on samples of other works?

The legal definition for art is likely better.

And that does not say this, but it does say that something not created by a human can't be art.

Case in point - the famous monkey self portrait. Or at least not fair to say it isn't art but rather it can't be copyrighted as an artistic work.

I am not familiar with Liam Howlett at all and insufficiently with The Prodigy (since I'm a rock and metal fan, a genre where the personal expression matters a LOT). Sampling and collage can still fall under the category of original work, because despite using PIECES of other assets, they are still a form of personal expression as a whole. As long as the piece of work ultimately expresses the maker themselves, it is art, to me at least. I'm more trying to dispute that AI, something without personality, can create any form of art. It's not what is being used, it's the personal expression that makes a work of art a work of art. Whether it is a collage or samples made into a whole... but what can't be missing is the artist's own personal mark.

Oh I get at what you're saying. I'm just describing that perhaps YOUR personal opinion isn't as clear as you think it is.

Which is why I metnioed the legal situation, because it's pretty good.

The fact that anything created by something non-human CANNOT be copyrighted is a fair start.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the famous monkey self portrait but it's a quite famous case that was a test case afaik.

It involves a nature photographer who was working on taking photos of certain monkeys in their natural habitat. I can't remember offhand if he dropped a camera or left it there deliberately, but in any case, a monkey ended up picking it up playing around and taking a neat flawless perfect self portarit in the camera.

Once he got hold of it, he made a fair bit of fame from it as it was such a cool ♥♥♥♥.

But here's the kicker - he didn't create it - the monkey did. So I think it was the WWF got involved (or some other animal rights group) and tried to argue the point that all proceeds should go to the monkey or towards their upkeep/habitat or whatever.

They lost because it was determined that only a human can have copyrighted artwork.

Maybe that's a better more dictinct way to frame it because under your remit, it's not so clear cut?

[The nameless Gamer]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Escrito originalmente por The nameless Commander:

I am not familiar with Liam Howlett at all and insufficiently with The Prodigy (since I'm a rock and metal fan, a genre where the personal expression matters a LOT). Sampling and collage can still fall under the category of original work, because despite using PIECES of other assets, they are still a form of personal expression as a whole. As long as the piece of work ultimately expresses the maker themselves, it is art, to me at least. I'm more trying to dispute that AI, something without personality, can create any form of art. It's not what is being used, it's the personal expression that makes a work of art a work of art. Whether it is a collage or samples made into a whole... but what can't be missing is the artist's own personal mark.

Oh I get at what you're saying. I'm just describing that perhaps YOUR personal opinion isn't as clear as you think it is.

Which is why I metnioed the legal situation, because it's pretty good.

The fact that anything created by something non-human CANNOT be copyrighted is a fair start.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the famous monkey self portrait but it's a quite famous case that was a test case afaik.

It involves a nature photographer who was working on taking photos of certain monkeys in their natural habitat. I can't remember offhand if he dropped a camera or left it there deliberately, but in any case, a monkey ended up picking it up playing around and taking a neat flawless perfect self portarit in the camera.

Once he got hold of it, he made a fair bit of fame from it as it was such a cool ♥♥♥♥.

But here's the kicker - he didn't create it - the monkey did. So I think it was the WWF got involved (or some other animal rights group) and tried to argue the point that all proceeds should go to the monkey or towards their upkeep/habitat or whatever.

They lost because it was determined that only a human can have copyrighted artwork.

Maybe that's a better more dictinct way to frame it because under your remit, it's not so clear cut?

Ah, I see. Well, no argument from me there. I'll admit to not know much about copyright laws (since whatever drawing I'm doing is 100% for non-profit use) so I might be a poor discussion partner for legal affairs. Are your concerns that humans might try to copyright works they created using the AI? Or am I misinterpreting something?

[D. Flame]

Escrito originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Oh I get at what you're saying. I'm just describing that perhaps YOUR personal opinion isn't as clear as you think it is.

Which is why I metnioed the legal situation, because it's pretty good.

The fact that anything created by something non-human CANNOT be copyrighted is a fair start.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the famous monkey self portrait but it's a quite famous case that was a test case afaik.

It involves a nature photographer who was working on taking photos of certain monkeys in their natural habitat. I can't remember offhand if he dropped a camera or left it there deliberately, but in any case, a monkey ended up picking it up playing around and taking a neat flawless perfect self portarit in the camera.

Once he got hold of it, he made a fair bit of fame from it as it was such a cool ♥♥♥♥.

But here's the kicker - he didn't create it - the monkey did. So I think it was the WWF got involved (or some other animal rights group) and tried to argue the point that all proceeds should go to the monkey or towards their upkeep/habitat or whatever.

They lost because it was determined that only a human can have copyrighted artwork.

Maybe that's a better more dictinct way to frame it because under your remit, it's not so clear cut?

Ah, I see. Well, no argument from me there. I'll admit to not know much about copyright laws (since whatever drawing I'm doing is 100% for non-profit use) so I might be a poor discussion partner for legal affairs. Are your concerns that humans might try to copyright works they created using the AI? Or am I misinterpreting something?

Humans have already tried that. The have repeatedly hid the fact that the works that they are taking credit for were created by a machine, rather than themselves.

[The nameless Gamer]

Escrito originalmente por D. Flame:

Escrito originalmente por The nameless Commander:

Ah, I see. Well, no argument from me there. I'll admit to not know much about copyright laws (since whatever drawing I'm doing is 100% for non-profit use) so I might be a poor discussion partner for legal affairs. Are your concerns that humans might try to copyright works they created using the AI? Or am I misinterpreting something?

Humans have already tried that. The have repeatedly hid the fact that the works that they are taking credit for were created by a machine, rather than themselves.

That is definitely concerning. I guess art-savvy people can still spot elaborate attempts to pass AI-generated content (not counting the abominable hands and VERY generic faces AI tends to churn out) as their own work and as art. Right now, AI is mostly bumbling around and generating pictures which can be identified as not man-made even by laymen but over time it could change... not for the better. It would completely trivialize art and make it something worthless. I hope that at worst I won't live to see that happen and at best that it'll never happen.