Comment on Tim Sweeney says Epic Games Store is open to devs using generative AI

• CIWS-30@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  It'll prevent indie artists from having their work plagiarized over and over without payment from indie "devs" who honestly shouldn't have the right to exist as "developers" if they can't afford to actually hire artists and such.

  It'd be one thing if they made an agreement to get assets from artists for cheap or for free as a favor, but just plain putting them all out of business permanently by letting a machine steal their work forever is another thing entirely.

  source

  • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I disagree, for several reasons. First off, you’you’re trying to paint developers who use generative AI plagiarizing other’s work without supporting that claim with any evidence. Then you go on to further and start insulting indie developers by insinuating they’re not real devs and have no right to exist. These personal attacks conveniently don’t address any merits or drawbacks of using generative AI. You should judge them based on their products, not budget or resources.

    You end it all off by arguing a slippery slope of catastrophic consequences without evidence or reasoning for this can even happen. Not only that, but you predict that using generative AI to create content will “put them all out of business permanently by letting a machine steal their work forever”(without a shred of evidence as to how this is even stealing). Without you realizing it, this rule could turn Steam into a corpo-only playground by giving them exclusive use of the most powerful cutting edge tools that can save thousands of staff hours, saving only them wads of cash and a leg up on learning how to use these tools to enhance their work, discover new forms of expression, or to challenge the boundaries of art.

    Your comment is elitist and doesn’t reflect the reality or generative AI in game development, and misunderstands our rights to give IP holders more power over creatives than they deserve. I suggest you do some more research and open your mind to the possibilities of generative AI, instead of dismissing it as a threat or a cheat. AI training isn’t and use isn’t only for mega-corporations. We can already train our own open source models, so we should let people put up barriers that will keep out all but the ultra-wealthy.

    I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, who’s a senior staff attorney at the EFF, a digital rights group, who recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone. I’d like to hear your thoughts.

    source

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Reading it again in context, your response is at best completely misunderstanding what is being said.

      They are not “insulting indie developers by insinuating they’re not real devs and have no right to exist.”. They are saying that developers who rely on AI models should compensate the artists whose works trained that model. The model itself can only exist through processing artists’ copyrighted works.

      As much as you talk of defending the little guy from corporate dominance, it doesn’t seem like you are considering the position of game artists, or any other small artists.

      Just as that article does, frankly. Not only it seems entirely unconcerned with the realities of artists in a world where AI can replace them, its defense of scraping as “analytical” doesn’t seem very sound when the entire purpose is to create derivative works. Lets not forget that law exists, ideally, to protect people. Any argument that alteration to the law would make it worse tends to treat AI as equivalent to human, which it is not and it shouldn’t be treated as such.

      source

      • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        They are not “insulting indie developers by insinuating they’re not real devs and have no right to exist.”. They are saying that developers who rely on AI models should compensate the artists whose works trained that model. The model itself can only exist through processing artists’ copyrighted works.

        This is what I meant.

        Just as that article does, frankly. Not only it seems entirely unconcerned with the realities of artists in a world where AI can replace them, its defense of scraping as “analytical” doesn’t seem very sound when the entire purpose is to create derivative works. Lets not forget that law exists, ideally, to protect people. Any argument that alteration to the law would make it worse tends to treat AI as equivalent to human, which it is not and it shouldn’t be treated as such.

        Derivative works doesn’t mean what you think it does. You should read the article again because I don’t think you took it all in. These are tools made by humans for humans to use. Restricting these models is restricting the rights of the people that use and train them. Mega-corporations will have their own models, no matter the price. What we say and do here will only affect our ability to catch up and stay competitive. And no one is trying to treat AI as equivalent to humans. Humans using machines have always been the copyright holders of any qualifying work they create. AI works are human works. AI can’t be authors or hold copyright.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Indie games have been able to compete just fine without generative AI, even though in average AAA games already are much more grandiose productions.

  source

  • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    See my latest comment. Part of it addresses what you said.

    source

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Your comment doesn’t address what I said in any way whatsoever. Especially as far as respecting indie developers go.

      To restate it, indie developers already manage to find success even though AAA studios already have a massive advantage in production. If they don’t have access to generative AI, that’s only going to keep things as they already are.

      Keep in mind, above everything else, what draws people towards indie games is the developers’ vision. While AAA studios can resort to have hyper-realistc, intricately rendered graphics, orchestral music and hundreds of thousands of lines of text, indie games still manage to find their appeal through simple visuals, more personal music and writing. The personal touch and daring vision gives them an appeal that most corporate productions fail to capture. Frankly, your insinuation that access to AI is going to make it or break it for them, that if not for that they are all but doomed to be replaced by corporate AI driven works, doesn’t seem to value the work that they already do.

      source

      • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Big developers don’t have to just increase the scope of their games, they could just as easily make many small teams that can each work on their own smaller games. You appear to have a very narrow view of what generative AI can do for game development. You assume it isn’t good for creating the types of things that makes indie games appealing, rather you can only create cold corporate schlock with it. It can also help with simple visuals, personal music, and writing (this link is possibly NSFW). You can also create with it procedural content, landscapes, dungeons, quests, and characters in your style.

        Generative AI can help indie developers save time and money, increase their scope and variety, and give them the time to experiment with new ideas and genres. They can also reach a wider audience, by helping with content in different languages and cultures. They could also help collaborate with other developers, artists, and players, by sharing and remixing content.

        I think you’re missing the point of generative AI. You are ignoring the fact that generative AI isn’t a monolithic entity, but a diverse, evolving field of research and practice.

        source

        • -> View More Comments