Games

32671 readers

633 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Tim Sweeney says Epic Games Store is open to devs using generative AI (www.gamedeveloper.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reading it again in context, your response is at best completely misunderstanding what is being said.

They are not "insulting indie developers by insinuating they’re not real devs and have no right to exist.". They are saying that developers who rely on AI models should compensate the artists whose works trained that model. The model itself can only exist through processing artists' copyrighted works.

As much as you talk of defending the little guy from corporate dominance, it doesn't seem like you are considering the position of game artists, or any other small artists.

Just as that article does, frankly. Not only it seems entirely unconcerned with the realities of artists in a world where AI can replace them, its defense of scraping as "analytical" doesn't seem very sound when the entire purpose is to create derivative works. Lets not forget that law exists, ideally, to protect people. Any argument that alteration to the law would make it worse tends to treat AI as equivalent to human, which it is not and it shouldn't be treated as such.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are not “insulting indie developers by insinuating they’re not real devs and have no right to exist.”. They are saying that developers who rely on AI models should compensate the artists whose works trained that model. The model itself can only exist through processing artists’ copyrighted works.

This is what I meant.

Just as that article does, frankly. Not only it seems entirely unconcerned with the realities of artists in a world where AI can replace them, its defense of scraping as “analytical” doesn’t seem very sound when the entire purpose is to create derivative works. Lets not forget that law exists, ideally, to protect people. Any argument that alteration to the law would make it worse tends to treat AI as equivalent to human, which it is not and it shouldn’t be treated as such.

Derivative works doesn't mean what you think it does. You should read the article again because I don't think you took it all in. These are tools made by humans for humans to use. Restricting these models is restricting the rights of the people that use and train them. Mega-corporations will have their own models, no matter the price. What we say and do here will only affect our ability to catch up and stay competitive. And no one is trying to treat AI as equivalent to humans. Humans using machines have always been the copyright holders of any qualifying work they create. AI works are human works. AI can't be authors or hold copyright.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, our legal definitions simply haven't been made with a consideration towards advances in technology. It is made for a world that has printing presses and photocopiers, not for one where people can and do selectively feed one artists' works into AI without their permission to generate works that are non-identical but clearly intended to be equivalent to that artist's work. There is no other way to call that but derivative.

But while the overall result is more ambiguous as more works are used for training and the prompt doesn't rely on one particular artist, it's much in the same way that a large enough tragedy is a statistic. It's fueled by massive amounts of copyright infringement. The humans who prepared these tools in this way didn't have the right to do it as they did.

That said, this insistence that the only way to be competitive with corporations using AIs is to use AI is questionable. You said your previous comment responded to me but it didn't actually. Why is it that AI would make it or break ot for indie developers that can make do without the massive production teams and expensive tools that AAA studios have? Why is this what would drive them out when all the other advantages AAA studios have didn't? I find it very unlikely that the personal craftsmanship in indie works will cease to be appealing.

Besides, AI could be ethically trained by using works in the Public Domain and Creative Commons. So it's not even like the only options are being complicit to ripping off artists or being cut off from this tool.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you're replying to me in two different comments. Let's try to consolidate this.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

True. I just responded to the other one but if you want to continue, we can do it here.