17 ms·

The problem is the op did resubmit the game without AI, but was still rejected for the same reason: I explained exactly how this worked and that there was no A

The problem is the op did resubmit the game without AI, but was still rejected for the same reason: I explained exactly how this worked and that there was no AI-content directly in the build, and even since then issued a new build without this mod ability just to be super safe. [...] Then, today, I randomly received an email that my app has been retired with a generic 'your game contains AI' response.

maxbond 3y ago
See the comment from /u/kvxdev talking about how they had a similar experience and were eventually able to get their game accepted. https://old.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/167iied/the_game_ive_spent_35_years_and_my_savings_on_has/jyqwwz5/ https://old.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/167iied/the_game_i...
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Interestingly the offer to train a model with only open material to avoid copyright issues wasn’t sufficient. It seems to be a general “AI bad, no AI for you” unthinking knee jerk. I’m worried Valve will strangle what I think is the most exciting use of AI - artist trained models generating NPC content, lore, and procedural game content to create rogue like RPG of arbitrary complexity.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    I doubt it's unthinking. Valve hews pretty Libertarian, historically they've been very reluctant to ban even egregious games. If they're disallowing something it's probably because they don't feel they have any other option (presumably because they feel they'll expose themselves to legal liability and jeopardize quality of the platform). My guess would be that they can't verify what AI you used, at least without investing the kind of resources required to actually make case by case decisions. I'm not saying this is your position, this is somewhat tangential, but I am confused why I seem to hear from people that both AI is a force of nature and companies stand in it's way at their peril, but also that it's a delicate flower and that any kind of management may strangle it in the crib. To be clear I know you aren't making both claims, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it does feel like it's coming from the same general community of people. And I'm perplexed by that. But yeah, I would also be interested to play and perhaps developing games like that. If someone is developing a game like that and they wants to hire a backend dev with experience integrating with models in a realtime context, shoot me an email. (I'm half kidding, I don't expect someone like that to happen to be in this particular thread, but only half.)
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      Yes I’m sure their original rationale is thought out, but reading the Reddit threads attached of the various developers trying to navigate the policy doesn’t give faith that there’s thought going on in application. How do they verify copyright material isn’t in static assets? I can’t imagine it’s very thorough. I imagine most of it is based on attestation. Regarding your question, I don’t share those views but can understand how they exist simultaneously. With an open hand, like was afforded internet and technologies, it could shape the world in hard to imagine ways as did the internet. However like the early internet it could have been strangled in the crib through knee jerk regulation and prohibitions. I think AI model builders and hosters want safe harbor similar to content hosters and providers allowing the end use of the technology to be regulated but the providers to be allowed to operate on a best effort basis. For instance the copyright question here is strangling any game that uses a generative model. A reasonable legal outcome is that it’s fair use to incorporate copyright material, but the output must not violate copyrights.
  - hombre_fatal 3y ago
    If Valve had no good way to verify that the model is trained on open data then allowing those models is the same as allowing all AI. Doesn’t seem like a knee jerk.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      I’m dubious they need more than an affidavit from the publisher and developer attesting their model was trained without copyright material. The publisher and developer are the ones directly liable for copyright infringement. Valve does it’s own verification of game content and that combined with a legal declaration from the publisher should be enough to insulate valve. I’d note they also have no way to reasonably unpack all game assets, visual, text, and audio, and verify there’s no copyright material. To my memory there are several cases of video game publishers including copyright violating assets. It seems like a copout to take on faith a no copyright violation attestation for static content but not on models.
      - maxbond 3y ago
        Steam is a publisher, no? (ETA: I guess they're not necessarily the publisher. From Wikipedia: "Initially, Valve was required to be the publisher for these games since they had sole access to Steam's database and engine, but with the introduction of the Steamworks SDK in May 2008, anyone could integrate Steam into their game without Valve's direct involvement."). I'm sure you're right that's all they would need to win a lawsuit, but they would probably prefer to avoid one altogether. Or at least not to be the first publisher sued. There's no reason to suspect a generic asset is infringing on it's face, but for models trained on the open internet it's an entirely unanswered question.
        fnordpiglet 3y ago
        Except in some of the linked Reddit threads the game authors explicitly said they would train models with curated content that’s under their control and open in license, which is not the open internet. Indiscriminate crawler trained models are one thing, but models trained by the game developer directly should be handled differently. In that case they actually are the same as a generic asset, as they were assembled and curated by the game developer with an understanding of copyright compliance. But there are cases where they didn’t - particularly with audio.
  - professoretc 3y ago
    Caves of Qud already has in-game books generated by the old Markov chain technique, with the model trained on who-knows-what. It's on Steam, for now...
    - hgs3 3y ago
      Call of Duty is using AI now too [1]. I think it's interesting to wonder what Valve would say about games using AI exclusively server side. They cannot control (or know) what technologies a developer uses on their personal game servers. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37370934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37370934

maxbond 3y ago

See the comment from /u/kvxdev talking about how they had a similar experience and were eventually able to get their game accepted. https://old.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/167iied/the_game_ive_spent_35_years_and_my_savings_on_has/jyqwwz5/ https://old.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/167iied/the_game_i...

fnordpiglet 3y ago
Interestingly the offer to train a model with only open material to avoid copyright issues wasn’t sufficient. It seems to be a general “AI bad, no AI for you” unthinking knee jerk. I’m worried Valve will strangle what I think is the most exciting use of AI - artist trained models generating NPC content, lore, and procedural game content to create rogue like RPG of arbitrary complexity.
- maxbond 3y ago
  I doubt it's unthinking. Valve hews pretty Libertarian, historically they've been very reluctant to ban even egregious games. If they're disallowing something it's probably because they don't feel they have any other option (presumably because they feel they'll expose themselves to legal liability and jeopardize quality of the platform). My guess would be that they can't verify what AI you used, at least without investing the kind of resources required to actually make case by case decisions. I'm not saying this is your position, this is somewhat tangential, but I am confused why I seem to hear from people that both AI is a force of nature and companies stand in it's way at their peril, but also that it's a delicate flower and that any kind of management may strangle it in the crib. To be clear I know you aren't making both claims, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it does feel like it's coming from the same general community of people. And I'm perplexed by that. But yeah, I would also be interested to play and perhaps developing games like that. If someone is developing a game like that and they wants to hire a backend dev with experience integrating with models in a realtime context, shoot me an email. (I'm half kidding, I don't expect someone like that to happen to be in this particular thread, but only half.)
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Yes I’m sure their original rationale is thought out, but reading the Reddit threads attached of the various developers trying to navigate the policy doesn’t give faith that there’s thought going on in application. How do they verify copyright material isn’t in static assets? I can’t imagine it’s very thorough. I imagine most of it is based on attestation. Regarding your question, I don’t share those views but can understand how they exist simultaneously. With an open hand, like was afforded internet and technologies, it could shape the world in hard to imagine ways as did the internet. However like the early internet it could have been strangled in the crib through knee jerk regulation and prohibitions. I think AI model builders and hosters want safe harbor similar to content hosters and providers allowing the end use of the technology to be regulated but the providers to be allowed to operate on a best effort basis. For instance the copyright question here is strangling any game that uses a generative model. A reasonable legal outcome is that it’s fair use to incorporate copyright material, but the output must not violate copyrights.
- hombre_fatal 3y ago
  If Valve had no good way to verify that the model is trained on open data then allowing those models is the same as allowing all AI. Doesn’t seem like a knee jerk.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    I’m dubious they need more than an affidavit from the publisher and developer attesting their model was trained without copyright material. The publisher and developer are the ones directly liable for copyright infringement. Valve does it’s own verification of game content and that combined with a legal declaration from the publisher should be enough to insulate valve. I’d note they also have no way to reasonably unpack all game assets, visual, text, and audio, and verify there’s no copyright material. To my memory there are several cases of video game publishers including copyright violating assets. It seems like a copout to take on faith a no copyright violation attestation for static content but not on models.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      Steam is a publisher, no? (ETA: I guess they're not necessarily the publisher. From Wikipedia: "Initially, Valve was required to be the publisher for these games since they had sole access to Steam's database and engine, but with the introduction of the Steamworks SDK in May 2008, anyone could integrate Steam into their game without Valve's direct involvement."). I'm sure you're right that's all they would need to win a lawsuit, but they would probably prefer to avoid one altogether. Or at least not to be the first publisher sued. There's no reason to suspect a generic asset is infringing on it's face, but for models trained on the open internet it's an entirely unanswered question.
      - fnordpiglet 3y ago
        Except in some of the linked Reddit threads the game authors explicitly said they would train models with curated content that’s under their control and open in license, which is not the open internet. Indiscriminate crawler trained models are one thing, but models trained by the game developer directly should be handled differently. In that case they actually are the same as a generic asset, as they were assembled and curated by the game developer with an understanding of copyright compliance. But there are cases where they didn’t - particularly with audio.
- professoretc 3y ago
  Caves of Qud already has in-game books generated by the old Markov chain technique, with the model trained on who-knows-what. It's on Steam, for now...
  - hgs3 3y ago
    Call of Duty is using AI now too [1]. I think it's interesting to wonder what Valve would say about games using AI exclusively server side. They cannot control (or know) what technologies a developer uses on their personal game servers. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37370934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37370934