As always, when Steam does one thing, Epic does the opposite.
But still, Steam doesn’t forbid all AI content. It requires developers to have rights over the content on which it was trained, which seems logical.
And impractical, because that effectively eliminates all popular models I believe
Man this is one legal mess we’re going to have to iron out as a society. I see both sides, obviously a creator doesn’t want their work to be utilized in a way they don’t approve…on the other hand we severely limit ourselves on AI development if we don’t use the collective work of society as a whole. And policing may be a LOT harder than people realize…taking that too far while it protects authors and creatives may ultimately mean falling behind in this area to competitive countries.
For games, at least it kind of makes sense to want to use a model that doesn’t have things trained from libraries or television/movies. You don’t want to be talking to an NPC in a Star Wars game that keeps referencing Harry Potter as an example lol…might be a little immersion breaking haha.
But also, AI usage could bring development a step forward. Indie devs may be able to produce AAA quality experiences on their normal budget, or conversely hobbyist may be able to create Indie-level games.
I see AI bringing us potentially marrying a lot of silos of entertainment in the future. We may move beyond movies, TV shows, gaming into more collective “experiences” that combine the best aspects of all of these mediums.
Idk what the answer is but it’s going to be interesting to see how it plays out.
I wonder if there are AI models based on Public Domain, and how would that fare under their rule.
There’s one model but it’s not the greatest quality at the moment, not to undermine that it’s an amazing project
Yeah, I was wondering that too. AFAIK not right now, but probably is just a matter of time.
It really just requires a single step of indirection. Instead of indie dev using AI directly, they pay Joe’s Asset Shack for their assets which may or may not be generated.
If you train on AI generated art, you get bad results.
Can you explain how that seems logical? It makes it impossible for anyone but the mega-rich to use. AAA developers alone will be able to reap the benefits of generative AI and outcompete indie devs who can’t afford models that meet these ridiculous restrictions.
It’ll prevent indie artists from having their work plagiarized over and over without payment from indie “devs” who honestly shouldn’t have the right to exist as “developers” if they can’t afford to actually hire artists and such.
It’d be one thing if they made an agreement to get assets from artists for cheap or for free as a favor, but just plain putting them all out of business permanently by letting a machine steal their work forever is another thing entirely.
I disagree, for several reasons. First off, you’you’re trying to paint developers who use generative AI plagiarizing other’s work without supporting that claim with any evidence. Then you go on to further and start insulting indie developers by insinuating they’re not real devs and have no right to exist. These personal attacks conveniently don’t address any merits or drawbacks of using generative AI. You should judge them based on their products, not budget or resources.
You end it all off by arguing a slippery slope of catastrophic consequences without evidence or reasoning for this can even happen. Not only that, but you predict that using generative AI to create content will “put them all out of business permanently by letting a machine steal their work forever”(without a shred of evidence as to how this is even stealing). Without you realizing it, this rule could turn Steam into a corpo-only playground by giving them exclusive use of the most powerful cutting edge tools that can save thousands of staff hours, saving only them wads of cash but also giving them a leg up on learning how to use these tools to enhance their work, discover new forms of expression, or to challenge the boundaries of art.
Your comment is elitist and doesn’t reflect the reality or generative AI in game development, and misunderstands our rights to give IP holders more power over creatives than they deserve. I suggest you do some more research and open your mind to the possibilities of generative AI, instead of dismissing it as a threat or a cheat. AI training and use isn’t only for mega-corporations. We can already train our own open source models, so we shouldn’t let people put up barriers that will keep out all but the ultra-wealthy.
I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, who’s a senior staff attorney at the EFF, a digital rights group, who recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone. I’d like to hear your thoughts.
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.
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.
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.
I think you’re replying to me in two different comments. Let’s try to consolidate this.
Indie games have been able to compete just fine without generative AI, even though in average AAA games already are much more grandiose productions.
See my latest comment. Part of it addresses what you said.
Your comment doesn’t address what I said in any way whatsoever. Especially as far as respecting indie developers go.
To restate it, indie developers already manage to find success even though AAA studios already have a massive advantage in production. If they don’t have access to generative AI, that’s only going to keep things as they already are.
Keep in mind, above everything else, what draws people towards indie games is the developers’ vision. While AAA studios can resort to have hyper-realistc, intricately rendered graphics, orchestral music and hundreds of thousands of lines of text, indie games still manage to find their appeal through simple visuals, more personal music and writing. The personal touch and daring vision gives them an appeal that most corporate productions fail to capture. Frankly, your insinuation that access to AI is going to make it or break it for them, that if not for that they are all but doomed to be replaced by corporate AI driven works, doesn’t seem to value the work that they already do.
Big developers don’t have to just increase the scope of their games, they could just as easily make many small teams that can each work on their own smaller games. You appear to have a very narrow view of what generative AI can do for game development. You assume it isn’t good for creating the types of things that makes indie games appealing, rather you can only create cold corporate schlock with it. It can also help with simple visuals, personal music, and writing (this link is possibly NSFW). You can also create with it procedural content, landscapes, dungeons, quests, and characters in your style.
Generative AI can help indie developers save time and money, increase their scope and variety, and give them the time to experiment with new ideas and genres. They can also reach a wider audience, by helping with content in different languages and cultures. They could also help collaborate with other developers, artists, and players, by sharing and remixing content.
I think you’re missing the point of generative AI. You are ignoring the fact that generative AI isn’t a monolithic entity, but a diverse, evolving field of research and practice.
Big developers don’t have to just increase the scope of their games, they could just as easily make many small teams that can each work on their own smaller games.
There was never anything stopping them from doing that without AI. They don’t do it because their executives and investors want the large Return on Investment that they can only get with big blockbusters. They don’t care to take over the indie scene because it’s often focused on titles that are niche and risky.
Even if you are correct about the capabilities of AI, and to be clear I do believe you are mostly correct, it’s an overstatement to talk of it as if it will replace all other disciplines. It’s almost like saying there is no more purpose for drawing now that we have photography, and nobody can thrive if not for photography. Even if AI is widely adopted there will still be plenty of space for works made without it.
Really, I’m not entirely opposed to AI but the mindset here is definitely one I cannot gel with, one that making more, larger, faster art is more worthwhile than making it yourself. Even if AI could make whole characters and settings in someone’s style, the people working on it often want to make it themselves. An AI can’t condense all your inspirations and personality and the meaning you would put into a work for you. AI does not even truly understand what it does, it’s only providing a statistics-based output. Even the best, most complex, most truly intelligent AI imaginable is not replacement for an artist, because it isn’t that artist.
Ultimately AI still seems to serve better to expansive games that need to be filled with a lot of content than small works of passion.
There was never anything stopping them from doing that without AI. They don’t do it because their executives and investors want the large Return on Investment that they can only get with big blockbusters. They don’t care to take over the indie scene because it’s often focused on titles that are niche and risky.
There’s a possibility the profit margins could just get that juicy. You could have a skeleton crew work on a game for a shorter amount of time and get it out there making money.
Really, I’m not entirely opposed to AI but the mindset here is definitely one I cannot gel with, one that making more, larger, faster art is more worthwhile than making it yourself. Even if AI could make whole characters and settings in someone’s style, the people working on it often want to make it themselves. An AI can’t condense all your inspirations and personality and the meaning you would put into a work for you. AI does not even truly understand what it does, it’s only providing a statistics-based output. Even the best, most complex, most truly intelligent AI imaginable is not replacement for an artist, because it isn’t that artist.
AI can’t create anything itself, it’s a tool to help artists create explore, expedite, and improve. An AI can’t condense all of your inspirations and personality and meaning in the same way a drawing tablet can’t. It’s all in how you use it. You can infuse it with your learned experiences at training, guidance, inference, and post-processing to make it more closely adhere to your statistics.
Ultimately AI still seems to serve better to expansive games that need to be filled with a lot of content than small works of passion.
We’ve been talking about indie game devs this whole time, but we haven’t even touched on amateur games devs. For small scale, I think this is where we’ll see the biggest impact. People with fewer or no skills might get the helping hand they need to fill the gaps in their knowledge and get started.
Common Tim Sweeney L
This is actually ultra rare Tim Sweeney W.
No need to act like it’s breaking copyright laws when in it’s current state it’s not even defined.
Tim Sweeney ok with garbage games polluting the Epic Games storefront.
deleted by creator
Steam doesn’t pay for exclusives.
At least then there’ll be more than just the stuff they bought on there.
Typical pick-me energy from Sweeny here.
Let’s see how fast EGS has to deal with AI copyright infringement.
I doubt they will. Their merchant contact very likely stipulates that publishers are responsible for any copyright issues in their product.
At this point it feels like Tim Sweeney is a generative AI which has been exclusively trained on taking a data set from Steam’s and Gabe’s decisions and inverting them. And that’s it.
As always when steam does one thing, epic always does the opposite.
deleted by creator
so a rule against it would be effectively pointless anyway
if it’s a rule then it’s something you can enforce. you might not be able to stop it entirely, but you can kick something off if it’s discovered
Removed by mod
I’m with Tim Sweeney here - why restrict creativity with arbitrary restrictions like that? We already have some amazing 1-person games, how many more we’d have with this immense productivity boost? I’m excited for more games even if that means more trash out there, I have the brain power to sift through it if it means another Stardew Valley.
The problem is more that generative AI is trained on the actual work done by other, actual people. And we have no legal framework so far how those people should get paid in turn.
Plus, let’s not for a moment imagine that Sweeney is saying this out of a firmly held personal belief. He’s entirely based on his reactionary stance to Steam. Steam goes against generative AI -> Sweeney is in favor of it. If Steam would say they’re against eating live babies, you can sure as hell bet he’d sing praises for that, too.
I agree with both your statement about AI training and Sweeney. However, I do believe there is a legitimate argument for using generative AI in game development, and I therefore also think Sweeney has a legitimate point, even if he’s doing it as a reaction to Steam.
Something oft acknowledged as okay in art (or any creative endeavor) is inspiration. Legally, we can really go even further, saying that copying is okay as long as the thing being copied is sufficiently transformed into something that can be considered new. Say, for example, different artists’ versions of a character such as Pikachu. We might be able to recognize them all as Pikachu, but also acknowledge that they’re all unique and obviously the creation of one particular artist.
Why is this process a problem when it’s done with technology? I, as a human, didn’t get permission from someone else to transform their work. It’s okay when I do it, but not when it’s done algorithmically? Why?
I think this is a legitimate question that has valid arguments either way, but it’s a question that needs to be answered, and I don’t think a blanket response of “it’s bad because it’s stealing other people’s work” is appropriate. If the model is very bad and clearly spits out exact replicas of the inputs, that’s obviously a bad thing, just as it would be equally bad if I traced someone else’s work. But what about the models that don’t do that, and spit out unique works never seen before? Not all models are equal in this sense.
Why is everyone have to be paid for everything? The real dillema is wether AI is learning or is it remixing and the science is on the side of learning while all grifters on the side of remixing. All of these lawsuits like the gettyimages one are for profit. They are grifting off this and people so blindly fall for this propaganda thinking they are protecting “the little guy” when big majority of world’s copyright is owned by mega corporations. Fuck that.
I wonder if you would be so adamant to defend AI if it could copy your work, and even your exact style by prompting your public name. I am going to bet on no
I’m a software engineer and AI can already do a lot of my programming and it’s great! Most of my software is FOSS - so your bet is very wrong.
If somehow AI kills programming and puts me out of job then that’s great! I’ll find another job and we’ll be living in objectively better world because code is suddenly infinitely more accessible and powerful :)
So, to me this protectionism thought process is very alien. Especially when it comes to something relatively meaningless as entertainment.
When you chose a FOSS license you explicitly say that you are ok with derivatives of your work. These artists never distributed their work under a license where they allowed AI to be trained on it and make derivatives of it.
AI is far from replacing programmers. It can replace some simple boilerplate, but is nowhere near understanding the logic behind applications. So you simply say this knowing you are safe for tens of years more.
Because it is copyright laundering, which is ilegal. We are just too early in the tech to have it established. But see cases open against Microsoft’s Copilot.
I’m surprised people here on open source, free software project are defending copyright so fiercly. AI is learning not copying and even if you disagree - fuck copyright and fuck protectionism. There’s so much shit to do in this world and we’re back to “looms will end the world” nonsense. The propaganda machine is rolling hard on this one.
Open source software has specifically devoted much of its efforts to ensuring it never breaches those copyrights.
They might look at Oracle SQL DB and say “Damn, that looks so useful and well-written. Well, I guess we could copy its codebase and pretend we wrote it ourselves…but it’s probably safer to re-implement it from scratch.” Then you get alternatives like MySQL.
That’s a fast example that probably ignores extended history of database wars, but you get the idea.
Dude the whole foss movement was founded by one dude who hated copyright. It’s even called copyleft. Lol
deleted by creator
Neither does AI. It’s learning from art the same way I learn from Microsoft’s office when I make Libreoffice.
You dont seem to know what you are talking about, or are dissingenous.
Copyright is the tool that allows to enforce GPL. The same with other free and open source licenses.
You seem to be leaning towards “permissive” libertarian licenses like MIT and BSD. Those don’t care much about the end users (I got your code, now fuck off I can do whatever I want with the modifications, including never sharing them back and making the whole thing closed source).
But for GPL and licenses that protect the rights of developers (including the right to ask follow-up developers to keep the code open for the benefit of users and developers), copyright laws are the tool that enforces that.
The term “copyleft” is just a meme.
You seem to be awfully ignorant of the history and I suggest you get back to it. Copyleft and free software is fundamentally anti copyright. Copyleft and GPL is legal play against copyright because guess what - we don’t have the power to change the entire legal framework. I’ve been foss dev for over 20 years now so might as well fuck off lol
