3 ms·

Avoiding legal and ethical issues. This stuff was made by a bunch of real people, and people still get their name in movie and game credits even if they got a p

Avoiding legal and ethical issues. This stuff was made by a bunch of real people, and people still get their name in movie and game credits even if they got a paycheck from it. Microsoft shamelessly vacuuming up proprietary content didn't change the norms of the way people get credited in these mediums. It's sad to see how thoughtlessly so many people using generative AI disregard the models' source material as "data" while the models (and therefore their creators) almost always get prominently credited for putting in a tiny fraction of the effort. The dubious ethical defense against crediting source works— that models learn about media the same way humans do and adapt it to suit their purposes— is obliterated when it is trained on one work to reproduce that work. That this is equated to generating an image on Midjourney it's a blatant example of a common practice— people want to get credit for other people's work, but when it's time to take responsibility the way a human artist would have to, "The machine did it! It's not my responsibility!"

woah 2y ago
The point of this paper is to demonstrate a method of training an AI to output interactive game footage. They could have trained it for similar results with DOOM videos. Presumably the footage they trained on was OK to train on (I don't think a video of someone playing a video game is copyrighted by the video game's author), but they could have used a variety of other games.
- stared 2y ago
  Algorithms trained on DOOM, or using DOOM as a showcase, mention DOOM.
- rodiger 2y ago
  Surprisingly, Nintendo has a long history of copyright-striking videos of folks playing their games. https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/16/nintendo-enforces-copyright-on-youtube-lets-plays https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/16/nintendo-enforces-co...
FeepingCreature 2y ago
Do you really think this would be materially different if they used Minetest? To be frank, nothing in Minecraft as a game (rather than the code) deserves intellectual property protection; it copies games that came before and was copied by games that came after. It is an excellent, well-designed implementation of a very basic concept.
- chefandy 2y ago
  > nothing in Minecraft as a game (rather than the code) deserves intellectual property protection > excellent, well-designed implementation And there we see the problem laid bare. Excellent designs that are well-executed are not worthless facets of the real product. As we can see from Minecraft's success, that is the real product. People play video games for the experience, not to execute some logical construct a formal proof showing that it's fun. The reason that this demo uses Minecraft as opposed to a Minecraft knockoff is because Minecraft is better, and they are capitalizing on that. Even if that game is based on a well-worn concept, the many varied design problems you solve when making a game are harder than development, which is why damn near every game that starts open source is a knockoff of something other people already designed. It's not Mojang was some marketing powerhouse that knocked infiniminer off it's perch without merit.
  - FeepingCreature 2y ago
    > And there we see the problem laid bare. Excellent designs that are well-executed are not worthless facets of the real product. As we can see from Minecraft's success, that is the real product. Which is why I said "as a game, rather than the code", specifically. My whole point is that the elements which were assembled into it are not the valuable part! I mean, what is Minecraft? Mine blocks, craft items. Fight skeletons, spiders, zombies and exploding zombies. The end boss is a dragon. It's Generic The Game. The thing that the AI is training on is the thing without value - the look. Mojang gave that away in the billions of stream-hours, to their benefit.
    - chefandy 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

woah 2y ago

The point of this paper is to demonstrate a method of training an AI to output interactive game footage. They could have trained it for similar results with DOOM videos. Presumably the footage they trained on was OK to train on (I don't think a video of someone playing a video game is copyrighted by the video game's author), but they could have used a variety of other games.

stared 2y ago
Algorithms trained on DOOM, or using DOOM as a showcase, mention DOOM.
rodiger 2y ago
Surprisingly, Nintendo has a long history of copyright-striking videos of folks playing their games. https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/16/nintendo-enforces-copyright-on-youtube-lets-plays https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/16/nintendo-enforces-co...

FeepingCreature 2y ago

Do you really think this would be materially different if they used Minetest? To be frank, nothing in Minecraft as a game (rather than the code) deserves intellectual property protection; it copies games that came before and was copied by games that came after. It is an excellent, well-designed implementation of a very basic concept.

chefandy 2y ago
> nothing in Minecraft as a game (rather than the code) deserves intellectual property protection > excellent, well-designed implementation And there we see the problem laid bare. Excellent designs that are well-executed are not worthless facets of the real product. As we can see from Minecraft's success, that is the real product. People play video games for the experience, not to execute some logical construct a formal proof showing that it's fun. The reason that this demo uses Minecraft as opposed to a Minecraft knockoff is because Minecraft is better, and they are capitalizing on that. Even if that game is based on a well-worn concept, the many varied design problems you solve when making a game are harder than development, which is why damn near every game that starts open source is a knockoff of something other people already designed. It's not Mojang was some marketing powerhouse that knocked infiniminer off it's perch without merit.
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  > And there we see the problem laid bare. Excellent designs that are well-executed are not worthless facets of the real product. As we can see from Minecraft's success, that is the real product. Which is why I said "as a game, rather than the code", specifically. My whole point is that the elements which were assembled into it are not the valuable part! I mean, what is Minecraft? Mine blocks, craft items. Fight skeletons, spiders, zombies and exploding zombies. The end boss is a dragon. It's Generic The Game. The thing that the AI is training on is the thing without value - the look. Mojang gave that away in the billions of stream-hours, to their benefit.
  - chefandy 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]