3 ms·
This just creates a moral hazard to not disclose the use of any AI-generated assets, which is something other creative industries have already learnt the hard w
by minimaxir 3y ago
This just creates a moral hazard to not disclose the use of any AI-generated assets, which is something other creative industries have already learnt the hard way.
Recent text-to-image models have improved enough such that it's possible to get realistic, not-Midjourney-dreaminess in the generations with a modicium of effort, so banning obviously-AI-generated images is shortsighted and unsustainable.
- bob1029 3y ago> This just creates a moral hazard to not disclose the use of any AI-generated assets The whole space is somewhat amusing to me. what is the bigger moral hazard: Openly disclosing everything about your content pipeline and getting your team's efforts shitcanned, or keeping everything private unless a court order shows up?
- ethbr0 3y agoSo, the OpenAI model?
- candiddevmike 3y agoAnd GitHub Copilot
- Kiro 3y agoThat's OpenAI.
- minimaxir 3y agoIt has been widely speculated that the primary reason OpenAI never disclosed the full training dataset for GPT-3 or GPT-4 was to avoid potential legal backlash.
- mr_coleman 3y agoI prefer to think of it as the Uber/AirBnB model. Just do illegal things so much that you clog the enforcement mechanisms. Then it becomes such an unreasonable burden that they change the laws in your favor.
- __loam 3y agoClassic VC bullshit.
- namaria 3y agoNo one is being protected from consequences of risky behavior. Moral hazard doesn't apply.
- BlueTemplar 3y agoShortsighted, unsustainable... but still the best thing for the company to do meanwhile in a very uncertain situation ?
- pavon 3y agoThat strategy didn't work well for the submitter. Steam is rather stingy in allowing resubmissions, so the better strategy is to make your best effort to comply with the terms on the first try.
- HlessClaudesman 3y agoAlso just creates an incentive to just lie about what AI model / training data you used , how could anyone possibly prove your deception? What would an satisfy an audit trail that no tainted AI data have made it into a digital image? It would involve a chain of attribution per fraction of a pixel through all it's past iterations.
- minimaxir 3y ago> It would involve a chain of attribution per fraction of a pixel through all it's past iterations. Which wouldn't be sufficient since, as stated many times before, the diffusion process most text-to-image AIs use is not collaging.
- meheleventyone 3y agoValve isn't worried about you lying they just want your attestation so if someone tries to sue them they can redirect them to you and if they think it's worthwhile sue you themselves for lying and breaching the contract. In the same way they want you to attest to owning rights to all the IP in the products you put on their platform. It's just IP ownership around AI content is murky right now so gets treated as a special case.
- hot_gril 3y ago> This just creates a moral hazard to not disclose the use of any AI-generated assets, which is something other creative industries have already learnt the hard way. This has been the legal street smarts for a while and doesn't seem like a big development to me. As usual, you don't admit or allude to anything. It's like when I'd write code and say no I've never even visited StackOverflow.