PC Gaming

154 readers

2 users here now

Discuss Games, Hardware and News on PC Gaming **Discord** https://discord.gg/4bxJgkY **Mastodon** https://cupoftea.social **Donate** https://ko-fi.com/cupofteasocial **Wiki** https://www.pcgamingwiki.com

founded 2 years ago

167

Valve appear to be not willing to publish games with AI generated content (reddit.adminforge.de)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

105 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Valve quietly not publishing games that contain AI generated content if the submitters can't prove they own the rights to the assets the AI was trained on

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

whether or not AI generated content is “new content” is a philosophical debate that doesn’t matter

It clearly does matter if valve is rejecting games because their art was generated by an AI.

Generative AI will push productivity to all time highs by an order of magnitude and wages will not have increased by the same, enabling a faster rate of wealth transfer to corporations and the top percentage of shareholders.

You think generative AI will be more advantageous to big corporations, versus smaller operations? How does that track?

I didn’t answer your question because it was vague and shows a lack of understanding of both how AI generates content

You have no idea what my skillset is, and I am passingly familiar with the concepts of machine learning. But my question, as I already noted, was more like "why do you think this phrase doesn't also apply to humans?". Which I already clarified, and you still haven't answered.

If a person is in the art/media-for-hire business, they're going to be in a rough spot in the very near future because a computer program will likely replace them. Just like self-driving cars-- the technology doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than humans. For cars, we're a little ways away from that; for art, that time is arguably right now.

[+] Steeve 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you don’t see that as a problem then this conversation isn’t worth having and your views are unimportant.

My views only matter if they align with yours? This is a pretty ignorant way to go through life.

In any event, I guess it depends on what you mean by:

this has the potential to severely displace skilled individuals, and not just artists

If, by "displace" you mean they can't get paid to do something they used to get paid to do, then no, I do not see that as a problem. That's just how technological progress works.

However, if by displace you mean "they end up destitute on the streets", then yes, I do see that as a problem. A problem that should be solved by something that disconnects the need to work with the ability to live comfortably-- something like a UBI, not by trying to hold back technological progress to artificially keep those jobs in demand.

So, does my view matter?

[+] Steeve 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How bad do you feel when your phone calls are routed without a human making the connections? How terrible do you feel when your refrigerator makes ice for you for essentially free, instead of having to pay someone to get it to your door?

This is not a new thing, and it's draconian to suggest that technology be held back to keep people artificially in demand.

Your silly stance on this reminds me of an equally silly quote from the late great Douglas Adams:

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

[+] Steeve 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The principle doesn't change. Yes, your stance is silly. So silly that I'm guessing you're financially impacted in some way.