5 ms·
fnord already mentioned this, but to repeat: the situation with AI is the same as with other assets - Valve has no guarantee a developer didn't infringe copyrig
by SenAnder 3y ago
fnord already mentioned this, but to repeat: the situation with AI is the same as with other assets - Valve has no guarantee a developer didn't infringe copyright in taking some other model/texture/audio, tweaked it a bit, and put it in their game.
Edit for reply/clarification: "it's more likely" - I'm not speculating on the internal politics at Valve. Just stating the fact that, regardless of if assets are AI-generated or not, Valve cannot be certain they don't infringe copyright. In this respect, AI-generated assets with assurance the model wasn't trained on copyrighted works, are no worse than traditional ones.
- chii 3y agoit's more likely that there's an anti-ai evangelist on the team doing these reviews, and they are responsible for causing these issues (and using the legal turmoil surrounding AI copyright to hide their bias). they know that because steam is such a large store, they can influence the direction of the game dev community and set a norm that they prefer to see.
- maxbond 3y agoWhy is that more likely?
- chii 3y agobecause the copyright infringement of art assets were never a big deal and would only surface when complaints are sent to steam about certain games that copied assets. So why all of a sudden, that ai generated assets would get such attention?
- maxbond 3y agoBecause it's well established how copyright works with human-authored assets and unsettled how copyright works with generative AI, and corporations are allergic to uncertainty and liability? Along with the risk that they'll get overwhelmed with low quality submissions like eg Clarkesworld? Given that in the past that have been very reticent about taking down games (eg see [1][2]), I don't find it likely that they have an "anti AI" stance. I personally would need to see like, a blog post or some other statement to that effect in order to buy that hypothesis. [1] https://www.thegamer.com/valve-gabe-newells-libertarian-steam-no-banned-games/ https://www.thegamer.com/valve-gabe-newells-libertarian-stea... This is summarizing reporting from People Make Games: [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9aCwCKgkLo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9aCwCKgkLo [48m]
- chii 3y agoLet me make it more clear, i am not saying valve's corporate stance is an anti-ai one. I am making up a conspiracy theory that there's staffer at valve who is anti-ai on the review team, and they are using their position as a reviewer to push an anti-ai agenda under the guise of (potential) copyright infringement. My only evidence is that the pre-existing reviews of games don't put heavy emphasis on proof of copyright. Nothing should've changed whether the production of the game's assets came from ai generation, or human generation, because the reviewer should be neutral and unbiased.
- maxbond 3y agoWell. Okay. I personally don't believe in conspiracies when there's an alternative explanation that doesn't really seem to have significant problems with it (corporations are hypocritical all the time) and when there's no real evidence of a conspiracy. If there were like, leaked emails or something I would reconsider, but until that time I don't see why I would prefer that hypothesis.
- maxbond 3y agoI also responded to it. > 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. As in, there's no reason not to give the benefit of the doubt to a traditional asset, but it's not yet understood how copyright works with a generative asset. Am I missing something?
- SenAnder 3y ago> it's not yet understood how copyright works with a generative asset. Except if you have the rights to all the works used to train your AI model. In that case, there is no risk that you are infringing.