> "When AI first came out in 2022, we'd already started on the game. It was just a new tool, we tried it, and we didn't like it at all. It felt wrong." I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. I'm pretty hardcore anti-AI these days, but when it was just hitting the masses and it was the shiny new toy, I was ignorant about the specifics and tried it out here and there. So this specifically resonates with me. > Broche then drew a line in the sand. He mused that it would be hard to predict how AI might be used in the gaming industry in the future, and declared, "But everything will be made by humans, by us." I hope they stick to their word on this, but only time will tell in that regard.

Not a single line in your comment offers anything that machine generation, which is not at all human creative work, falls under fair use.

By data aggregators, I strictly mean websites like Reddit, Shutterstock, deviant Art, etc. giving them the keys would bring up the cost of building a state of the art model so that any open sourcing would be literally impossible. These models already cost in the low millions to develop. Take video generation for instance, almost all the data is owned by YouTube and Hollywood. Google wanted to charge 300$ a month to use it but instead, we have free models that can run on high end consumer hardware. Scraping has been accepted for a long time and making it illegal would be disastrous. It would make the entry price for any kind of computer vision software or search engine incredibly high, not just gen AI. I'd love to have laws that forced everything made with public data to be open source but that is *not* what copyright companies, AI companies and the media are pushing for. They don't want to help artists, they want to help themselves. They want to be able to dictate the price of entry which suits them and the big AI companies as well. I'm all for laws to regulate data centers and manufacturing, but again, that's not what is being pushed for. Most anti-AI peeps seem the be helping the enemy a lot more then they realize.

It uses the content in a different way for a different purpose. The part I highlighted above applies to it? Do you expect copyright laws to mention every single type of transformative work acceptable? You are being purposely ignorant.

> Do you expect copyright laws to mention every single type of transformative work acceptable? You are being purposely ignorant. I asked nicely to provide a quote that machine generation is also covered that you couldn't provide and now feels the need to lash out. And yes, I absolutely expect that machine generation is explicitly mentioned for the simple fact that right now machine generated anything is not copyrightable at all. A computer isn't smart, a computer isn't creative. It's output doesn't pass the [threshold of originality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality), as such there is no creative transformation happening, as there is with reinterpretations of songs. What is copyrightable are the works that served as training set, therefore there absolutely has to be an explicit mention somewhere that machine generated works do not simply pass the original copyright into the generated work, just like how a human writes source code and the compiled executable is still the human author's work.

> Nature is healing. Nah, they're lying. They'll just cover their tracks better in the future.

Humans aren't machines, dummy

>But Gen AI is modeled after the way the brain works, This planet is doomed

>In the Office’s view, training a generative AI foundation model on a large and diverse dataset will often be transformative. The process converts a massive collection of training examples into a statistical model that can generate a wide range of outputs across a diverse array of new situations. It is hard to compare individual works in the training data—for example, copies of The Big Sleep in various languages—with a resulting language model capable of translating emails, correcting grammar, or answering natural language questions about 20th-century literature, without perceiving a transformation. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf You can read the whole doc. The part above is cherry picked. I haven't read through the whole thing but at a glance, the doc basically explains how it depends. If the model is trained specifically to output one piece content, it wouldn't be acceptable. The waters are muddy but holy fuck does taking the copyright juggernauts side sound bloody stupid.

GenAI is a glorified Markov Chain. Nothing more. It is a stochastic parrot. It does not think, it is not capable of creating novel new works, and it is incapable of the emotion necessary to be expressive. All it can do is ingest content and replicate it. This is not the same as a human seeing someone’s work and being inspired by it to create something uniquely their own in response.

“Everyone uses it” is just such a dumb argument. I don’t use it, I’ve never committed any code written by genAI. My colleagues don’t use it. Many, many people choose not to use it.

I never claimed that Gen AI has consciousness, or that what they produce has emotions behind it, so I'm not sure why you're focusing on that. I'm specifically talking about the argument that AI is bad because trains on copyrighted material without consent from the artist, which is functionally no different than humans doing the exact same thing. This isn't me defending AI, this is me saying this one specific argument against it is stupid.

My entire post was a rebuttal of the “functionally no different than humans doing the same thing”. Humans take inspiration and use it to express themselves uniquely, genAI just steals and replicates. They are in no way “doing the exact same thing”.

So your entire argument is semantics. Gen AI does more than just replicating existing works. You're not going to get the same result with the same prompt; each result will be unique. And I'd argue that the person writing the prompt is the one providing the inspiration to get the software to express what's in their head.

You are 1000% correct. I've been yelled at/criticized a few times by people who clearly can't differentiate between the types of "ai".

The worst are those people that think they are artists because they typed in a prompt. It's delusional!

Just to point out, LLMs are genAI. Lots of code editors provide code suggestions similar to autocorrect/text suggestions using AI. Strictly I doubt any game is made without AI. Not to say it can't be deliberately avoided, but given the lack of opposition to GPT and LLMs I don't see it being considered for avoidance in the same way as art. So Awards with constraints on "any AI usage in development" probably disqualifies most modern games.

I didn't mean it in the literal sense but if it makes you happy, we can pretend that whenever someone says "everyone" they mean it literally.

Dude, go touch grass, please. This is embarrassing.

I mean, it's a tool. You can use a hammer to smash someone's skull in or you can use it to put some nail on a wall. If you see it used like that, it's shitty developers, the AI is not to blame. Don't get me wrong, I do have coworkers who use it like this and it sucks. One literally told to next time tell Copilot directly what to fix when I'm doing a review. But overall it helps if you know how and most importantly when to use it.