3 ms·

Because it's well established how copyright works with human-authored assets and unsettled how copyright works with generative AI, and corporations are allergic

Because 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 ago
Let 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 ago
  Well. 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.

chii 3y ago

Let 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 ago
Well. 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.