steam selling AI art, how to handle it?

[DUCK]

as steam doesn't only sell AI games, but also "AI art books" which imo shouldn't be allowed since its "not their art" if everything included is AI generated/taken by others.

or at least have a warning for such, or give users more about blocking or give some sort of "trustworthiness" on creators that spam such content or other content on the steam store.

[HikariLight]

If a developer pays the $100 to put their game on Steam, Steam has no reason to turn them away unless something Illegal is involved and using AI art in a game is not Illegal.

[blunus]

Originally posted by DUCK:

as steam doesn't only sell AI games, but also "AI art books" which imo shouldn't be allowed since its "not their art" if everything included is AI generated/taken by others.

or at least have a warning for such, or give users more about blocking or give some sort of "trustworthiness" on creators that spam such content or other content on the steam store.

https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/detail/3862463747997849619

[DUCK]

a bit older statement or stance in that post, and since "adult content" seems to be "allowed", unless they meant around "real humans"?


also would like to know if others agree with selling "ONLY AI generated content".
then having the blocking to "warnings" around some content.

[Ducks on Fire]

I think that if a product is AI generated it should be marked as such. Selling AI generated content as art is quite misleading. However if it is properly labeled as such then I think it should be allowed. Now as for selling other peoples art/work that's a copyright issue, but that's up to the owner of the copyright to take action.

[RPG Gamer Man]

It happens more than you think. The problem is when people do not report their using AI to do stuff like writing and artwork. It happens quite a bit that people either forget to post this info, or pass it off on their own.

https://futurism.com/fantasy-novel-ai-prompt-copy-style

[Ben Lubar]

Originally posted by DUCK:

a bit older statement or stance in that post, and since "adult content" seems to be "allowed", unless they meant around "real humans"?


also would like to know if others agree with selling "ONLY AI generated content".
then having the blocking to "warnings" around some content.

The restriction about generative AI in games with adult content is that it cannot be performed "live".

Sexually explicit imagery of real people isn't allowed on Steam, regardless of whether it was passed through some algorithm or not.

[Jackie Paper]

No one is making you buy it. Some people enjoy AI art. Better get used to it, 20 years from now close to everything will be done with AI.

[( ( < < <2🤖1> > > ) )]

whats the difference between AI art and a game that has realistic
digital physics like earth wind and fire and water...
and humans and animals plants solar systems with computer generated
movements....

AI will make somethings cheaper and faster... just like the car industry copied
human movement to make robot automation to make cars cheaper and faster...

labels and choice... is that what this is about...

[wesnef]

Originally posted by ( ( < < <🤖> > > ) ):

whats the difference between AI art and a game that has realistic
digital physics like earth wind and fire and water...

AI art doesn't have to be 'realistic', so that has no bearing.

The main issues people have are: 1) if the AI is "trained" on copyrighted materials, the stuff it's making can be considered plagiarism and/or infringement; and 2) using AI to make your assets is putting real artists out of work.

[( ( < < <2🤖1> > > ) )]

Originally posted by wesnef:

Originally posted by ( ( < < <🤖> > > ) ):

whats the difference between AI art and a game that has realistic
digital physics like earth wind and fire and water...

AI art doesn't have to be 'realistic', so that has no bearing.

The main issues people have are: 1) if the AI is "trained" on copyrighted materials, the stuff it's making can be considered plagiarism and/or infringement; and 2) using AI to make your assets is putting real artists out of work.

ok... copyright material... thanks...

there is copyright that has been given approval to be used...
so i would say a lot of artists if they want work will have to
sign agreements of work that can be used for AI in the future...

doesnt seem like it will be to difficult to throw in a couple of
shapes and make it look like something that isnt copyright... right...

a bit like how they remake movies... again and again..

and seems
we can do whatever after 70 years or so when the copyright ends...
was there any good stuff back in 1930s and beyond..

[FOXDUDE69]

I love AI art.

What's the problem?

[wesnef]

Originally posted by FOXDUDE69:

I love AI art.

What's the problem?

It's cheating, it's automated trash, it's destroying the GPU industry (because Nvidia would rather produce & sell $10k AI cards than gamer cards), it's a massive waste of electricity (see: giant megawatt/gigawatt AI server farms), etc. . .

[Ducks on Fire]

Originally posted by FOXDUDE69:

I love AI art.

What's the problem?

It depends on your definition of "art", but for a lot of us it's not art at all. It's entirely devoid of creativity and meaning. When someone creates a work of art it's an expression of human creativity.

AI generated content is just a cheap imitation. It's entirely meaningless. It may look nice, but there is never any reason to consider it any more than that. It's every corporate logo attempting to copy the design of more successful ones, it's movie sequels, reboots, and remakes crapped out to make a quick buck; it's tracing over other peoples art, copying their stories, or flat out just taking credit for someone else's original work taken to the inevitable extreme. It's nothing more than a product put out so that people will spend money on it to get a brief rush of satisfaction that will lead them to consume more and more to continue to get that rush. But this time without even requiring skill or creativity to make. It has the potential to be a flood that drowns out the art made by people who spent time developing their creativity, honing their skill, and genuinely trying to share what's in their own minds with the rest of us.

Look at it this way, when see a cave painting made 20,000 years ago you see something that some person made. We'll never know anything about that person or what they point of the painting was. Maybe it was a purely creative expression, maybe it had some practical purpose, but the fact that it was made by a person and is an expression of that person's mind and thoughts means something.

And finally in the end AI content is doomed to stagnate unless there is a plentiful pool of artists creating more art for it to take from since that's all current "AI" does. It can't actually be creative. It has to be feed from actual human output in order to generate content. And I put "AI" in quotes here because there isn't any actual intelligence behind it. One day we may very well create a true AI but that day will also bring some serious ethical issues that are far greater than whether what it creates is art.

[Kargor]

On the other hand, what's the problem?

In general, AI is crappy -- so, reviews will be complaining. If, on the other hand, the result is actually good... then there's no problem.

There have ALWAYS been bad games. Just keep applying the same judgement as always, and don't bother with the tools that have been used: the same paintbrush can paint good and bad pictures.

[Spawn of Totoro]

While AI Art/content can't be copyrighted, it is highly debatable if it violates other's copyright or not, as it is seen as being transformative in nature, so falls in a (currently) legal grey area such as fair use.

I have no issues buying a game with AI generated content, provided that content is well done and issues fixed by the developer, same as have issues with non-AI content, provide it is also of quality work.

The rest I really don't see as my business and leave it up to the legal systems out there to figure out.