4 ms·

This seems utterly impossible to enforce. You really going to guarantee that your design firm didn't use AI to generate the assets?

Nursie 3y ago
So you’re in breach of contract and if it turns out later that you don’t own the copyright for what you’re distributing, valve get to plant that firmly on you.
jasonlotito 3y ago
It doesn't need to be 100%. It just needs to be a reasonable attempt. We all too often let perfect be the enemy of good. Impossible to enforce? That's not true. They did so right here. Yes, people will work around it, and some will slip through the cracks. That doesn't mean it's a useless policy with no impact.
Eji1700 3y ago
It's a CYA thing. Steam says "we don't allow AI content". Someone shoves AI content on the platform anyways. If it can be proved they violated the TOS, they then have the ability to nuke their game and stop someone from suing them. If they can't prove it, well they can't prove it and the game stays. To do otherwise opens up the door to steam having to "vet" all the AI content. So yes AI content will slip through (in massive droves) but it will be indy scene. The biggest impact here is going to be AAA devs who can't just neglect to mention they used AI at some point. This is actually the first thing that could "kill" steam or give Epic a competitive advantage. There's 0 doubt that companies like EA/Activision/whatever want to jump all over AI to make yearly releases like FIFA even cheaper, and if Epic is willing to say "come on over" we might see epic exclusivity for that reason alone, rather than the current "here's a pile of money to make up for all the sales you'll miss out on when no one remembers your game released"
- freedomben 3y ago
  If Steam (or probably more likely Steam's lawyers) is/are worried about liability, shouldn't Epic be also? The lawsuits are firing up, I wouldn't want to be the whipping boy chosen by the copyright holders to punish.
  - Eji1700 3y ago
    I would assume so, but I'm faaaar from an expert. My amateur opinion is there's too much money to be made for this to be stopped forever (we SHOULD rework copyright but we'll probably just make some dumb rule when disney decides how they want to handle it), so epic might just say "the courts will side with us eventually and the benefits are waaay too high to ignore"
Verdex 3y ago
I don't think it's really about enforcement. It's more about liability. Valve has an official position that they don't allow AI content (apparently). When the lawsuits show up they can say that they don't serve any AI content as official policy. When someone points out the AI content that they do serve, then they pull out their expert witness that testifies that their AI detection method is as good as possible and they couldn't haven been expected to do any better. Meanwhile, they're more than happy to remove anything explicitly flagged that falls through the cracks. Finally, I suspect that anyone who can prove that they're able and willing to indemnify Valve against lawsuits for AI content that their game contains will be allowed to have AI content.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > Finally, I suspect that anyone who can prove that they're able and willing to indemnify Valve against lawsuits for AI content that their game contains will be allowed to have AI content. Yes, they're quoted as saying that AI generated assets are permitted if the developer can "affirmatively confirm" they own all the IP in the training set. seems reasonable to me.
  - Verdex 3y ago
    Yeah, I saw that quoted part, although, I suspect that if I show up with a bunch of AI assets that I can prove are 100% mine, then the reviewer is likely to error on the side of Valve not being sued. Meanwhile, AAA blockbuster studio will almost definitely be given a pass with a wink and a handshake after saying, "Hey if anyone figures it out, we'll take the blame." For using assets that throw up multiple red flags.

Nursie 3y ago

So you’re in breach of contract and if it turns out later that you don’t own the copyright for what you’re distributing, valve get to plant that firmly on you.

jasonlotito 3y ago

It doesn't need to be 100%. It just needs to be a reasonable attempt. We all too often let perfect be the enemy of good. Impossible to enforce? That's not true. They did so right here. Yes, people will work around it, and some will slip through the cracks. That doesn't mean it's a useless policy with no impact.

Eji1700 3y ago

It's a CYA thing. Steam says "we don't allow AI content". Someone shoves AI content on the platform anyways. If it can be proved they violated the TOS, they then have the ability to nuke their game and stop someone from suing them. If they can't prove it, well they can't prove it and the game stays. To do otherwise opens up the door to steam having to "vet" all the AI content. So yes AI content will slip through (in massive droves) but it will be indy scene. The biggest impact here is going to be AAA devs who can't just neglect to mention they used AI at some point. This is actually the first thing that could "kill" steam or give Epic a competitive advantage. There's 0 doubt that companies like EA/Activision/whatever want to jump all over AI to make yearly releases like FIFA even cheaper, and if Epic is willing to say "come on over" we might see epic exclusivity for that reason alone, rather than the current "here's a pile of money to make up for all the sales you'll miss out on when no one remembers your game released"

freedomben 3y ago
If Steam (or probably more likely Steam's lawyers) is/are worried about liability, shouldn't Epic be also? The lawsuits are firing up, I wouldn't want to be the whipping boy chosen by the copyright holders to punish.
- Eji1700 3y ago
  I would assume so, but I'm faaaar from an expert. My amateur opinion is there's too much money to be made for this to be stopped forever (we SHOULD rework copyright but we'll probably just make some dumb rule when disney decides how they want to handle it), so epic might just say "the courts will side with us eventually and the benefits are waaay too high to ignore"

Verdex 3y ago

I don't think it's really about enforcement. It's more about liability. Valve has an official position that they don't allow AI content (apparently). When the lawsuits show up they can say that they don't serve any AI content as official policy. When someone points out the AI content that they do serve, then they pull out their expert witness that testifies that their AI detection method is as good as possible and they couldn't haven been expected to do any better. Meanwhile, they're more than happy to remove anything explicitly flagged that falls through the cracks. Finally, I suspect that anyone who can prove that they're able and willing to indemnify Valve against lawsuits for AI content that their game contains will be allowed to have AI content.

mcpackieh 3y ago
> Finally, I suspect that anyone who can prove that they're able and willing to indemnify Valve against lawsuits for AI content that their game contains will be allowed to have AI content. Yes, they're quoted as saying that AI generated assets are permitted if the developer can "affirmatively confirm" they own all the IP in the training set. seems reasonable to me.
- Verdex 3y ago
  Yeah, I saw that quoted part, although, I suspect that if I show up with a bunch of AI assets that I can prove are 100% mine, then the reviewer is likely to error on the side of Valve not being sued. Meanwhile, AAA blockbuster studio will almost definitely be given a pass with a wink and a handshake after saying, "Hey if anyone figures it out, we'll take the blame." For using assets that throw up multiple red flags.