So it's safe to assume all code generation was trained on GPL code from GitHub and therefore the game code is derived work of GPL code and therefore under GPL itself? So decompilation and cracking is fine?

The anti-AI people will be forced to use it due to capitalism. They'll be pissing against the wind if they didn't.

Have you seen the pro-AI crowd? The most insane people currently in the tech world.

Not everyone, and it probably multiplies review time 10 fold. Makes maintenance horrible. It doesn't save time, just moves it and makes devs dumber and unable to justify coding choices the AI generates.

We’re pushed to use AI a lot at our job and man is it awful. I’d say maybe 20-30% of the time it does okay, the other 70% is split between it just making shit up, or saying that it’s done something it hasn’t.

I guess it's easy to win an argument if you put extreme views in everyone's mouth and argue against that. I doubt anyone thinks AI has more value then human made. Most are just being pragmatic, knowing that AI isn't going away and most indie teams don't have the budget for a dedicated texture guy. There is simply more to gain then to lose, and applauding copyright companies and data aggregators doesn't solve the issues but just gives a handful of companies a monopoly when they push legislation with the help of your fervent support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use

An unethically developed tool that's burning the planet faster with the ultimate goal of starving the working class out of society. Inb4 alarmism lol tell me the fucking lie if you can.

Do human artists usually get consent before training on content freely available on the Internet? There are plenty of reasons to hate on AI, but this reason is just being pissed that a silicon brain did it instead of a carbon one.

Nature is healing.

The fact that you’re comparing human artists to slop machines is really sad. There is no “silicone brain” making any of this stuff. I think you should take a few minutes and learn how this stuff works before making these comparisons.

I feel there is nutjobs on both sides tbh.

Right, because computers don't use silicone. But Gen AI is modeled after the way the brain works, so maybe **you** need to learn how it works before arguing against a comparison.

Wow thank you for this comment. It helps detail your level of knowledge on this subject, which is very helpful to myself and others. There is nothing else to discuss here on my end.

AI companies are the biggest data aggregator though and they indiscriminately scrape literally everything. I am personally completely against copyright and patent law specifically. But sometimes, like in this case, they can be necessary tools. There are probably better ways to protect against AI but none that are recognized in our current framework of how society functions. AI companies are literally stealing everything ever posted online, cause they couldn't exist without all the data, and then selling it back to people in form of tools while destroying the environment in the process with increasingly gigantic and powerhungry data centers. While also destroying the tech consumer market in the process by buying up components or straight up component producers and taking them off the consumer market.

Please quote me the line where this covers machine generation as well? I'd love to sell Google translated Harry Potter books for being transformative work. Maybe I can transform the lastest movie releases to MKV and sell those.

Not really. We just have to wait long enough for either enough disasters to occur that the crowd successfully rejects it; or the current crop of workers will be so unable to accomplish simple tasks without it, the rest of us will just move up the ladder past you. They'll ask ChatGPT, "how to spreadsheet.", because they just can't remember since use of LLMs has been creating cognitive decline in users. Those of us who use our brains, rather than the stolen knowledge and hallucinated regurgitation of a blind database, will be the drivers in the work force.

>transformative use or transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a *different manner or for a different purpose from the original*, and thus does not infringe its holder's copyright. You can use a book to train an AI model, you can't sell a translation just because you used AI to translate it. These are two different things. Collage is transformative, and it uses copyrighted pictures to make completely new works of art. It's the same principle.

I'm in an entirely different industry than the topic at hand here, but my boss is really keen on ChatGPT and whatnot. Every problem that comes up, he's like "have you asked AI yet?" We have very expensive machines, which are maintained (ideally) by people who literally go to school to learn how to. We had an issue with a machine the other day and the same ol' question came up, "have you asked AI yet?" He took a photo of the alarm screen and fed it to ChatGPT. It spit out a huge reply and he forwarded it to me and told me to try it out. Literally the first troubleshooting step ChatGPT gave was nonsense and did not apply to our specific machine and our specific set-up and our specific use-case.

Alrighty, so generative AI works by giving it training data and it transforms that data and then generates something based on a prompt and how that prompt is related to the training data it has. That's not functionally different from how commissioned human artists work. They train on publicly available works, their brain transforms and stores that data and uses it to generate a work based on a prompt. They even often directly use a reference work to generate their own without permission from the original artist. Like I said, there are tons of valid criticisms against Gen AI, but this criticism just boils down to "AI bad because it's not a human exploiting other's work."