109
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
109 points (70.7% liked)
Games
32364 readers
1383 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The art and images that image AI's are based off of, are stolen. They diffuse them as a legal loop hole. That's the main issue. I want to see AI pushed forward, but not when they're scraping data and not crediting artists. The amount of data required for an image AI is crazy; we have to figure out a way of legally and respectfully requiring that data.
Text AI's are marginally better, because a lot of the data acquired was opt in. It was just people talking. There is the issue with them ripping books, though.
It does make it different by virtue of sheer scale and efficiency.
A single human artist, no matter how good and fast they are, could ever singlehandedly damage the livelihoods of millions of other human artists. But a machine can. That's a meaningful distinction.
Granted, your point is valid in its purest sense. If we lived in a world where everyone could benefit from AI art without the real-world downsides, I'd agree with you, full stop. But we do, and those ramifications matter.
I think basically every industry has been dealing with automation for 100 years now. Art is only unique (imo) in that they've been avoiding it for awhile. That's why I only ride in vehicles where every part is hand made and assembled.
We're far past the era of cottage industries. We live in a world that exists because of automation. Be angry at the game (capitalism), not the players.
It’s tone deaf as fuck. From the article: “If you can’t hire an artist to do advertising, I highly doubt you’ll do it with independent developers.”
This is the only point that matters. Even if AI is here to stay, that's fine, you just don't use it when specifically highlighting the demographic most threatened by its usage. The post was just a bad business decision; they should have known how it could come across. It's their job to know that kinda stuff before hitting Post.
If an independent developer is threatened by AI, then they're using it wrong.
From a development standpoint, it is so nice if you are someone who is good at coding but bad at art to be able to use AI to help with the visual design of the game. It's easy to say "just hire an artist" when so many indie devs are literally one-person operations who can barely afford rent, let alone wages for an artist.
A billion dollar company.....
They also saw a problem since they deleted it