109

Xbox Slammed For AI-Generated Art Promoting Indie Games (kotaku.com)

submitted 8 months ago by simple@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca 76 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Fuckin' SSSLLAAmmMMMMmEeeDddd, dude!

Like a trashcan lid to the head!

[-] million@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

How will they survive such a thorough slamming?

I can’t wait until we are on the other side of the slammed. I am sure it will be replaced by an equally annoying word choice.

[-] Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca 10 points 8 months ago

NEWS SITE CLAMWHOLLOPED FOR USING OLD, ANNOYING VERB

[-] Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 74 points 8 months ago

Always downvote slammed articles

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

@pregnenolone has been Slamming slammed articles!

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 43 points 8 months ago

SLAMMMED!

[-] buzziebee@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago

I hate this trend of saying "SLAMMED", or "HOUNDED", or "ATTACKED" etc in news articles where the stories are just "a couple of people with a dozen followers between them posted slightly negative tweets about topic xyz".

My parents were bitching about how Adele was "HAMMERED" online because she said "I am proud to be a woman" or something. Turns out it was just two complete nobodies tweeting about how that's trans exclusionary or something with 1 heart each.

[-] wolfshadowheart@slrpnk.net 6 points 8 months ago

Buzzibee absolutely DISMANTLING article headlines! More above!

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

It's just so they can still write an article even though nothing really happened

[-] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 1 points 8 months ago

AFAIK it comes from tabloid headlines needing less words to fit on newsprint and remember it 30 years ago (it was just a stupid sounding then). I have no idea why it's made the translation to online news in recent years

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 1 points 8 months ago

I'm looking forward to the day when someone legitimately goes ham on someone else, profanity, yelling, the whole 9 yards, and the articles are all like, "so-and-so somewhat disagrees on such-and-such".

[-] alienanimals@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago

Gosh, I pray they're not using Photoshop as well! Won't someone think of the children??

[-] kaboom36@ani.social 6 points 8 months ago

Photoshop still requires human creative input and isn't built on a foundation of theft

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago

This is why we need a rule that if you incorporate your logo into AI art, your logo becomes public domain.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

This is technically already legal precedence in USA, copyright requires human expression and without sufficient human creative control in ML generated works they're effectively public domain

Edit: why downvotes?

https://www.96layers.ai/p/why-ai-generated-content-cant-be

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Yes, for the imagery itself, but their logo is still under trademark. What I’m saying is if you put your logo on AI generated imagery and release it to the public, you no longer own a trademark for your logo.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 4 points 8 months ago

That's not how courts are going to treat it. Public domain (lack of) licensing is not "infectious". Instead you can just cut out the trademark and reuse ML images because under current legal precedence they're in public domain but the trademark isn't

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I understand that. I’m saying I want to change that.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 4 points 8 months ago

Good luck with that

[-] danielbln@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Because... why?

[-] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

I'm guessing so the maintainers of the AI don't have to worry about copyright when it uses the logo somewhere unexpected. But I'm curious what OP says.

[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

They have their own Bing Image Creator. Obviously they'd prefer to use their own tool instead of hiring artists. Everyone with two working brain cells saw this coming. (I'm not defending it, it was just obvious the day Bing Image Creator was launched.)

[-] I_Has_A_Hat@startrek.website 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.

[-] Snowcano@startrek.website 9 points 8 months ago

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.”

[-] sirfancy@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca -2 points 8 months ago

A billion dollar company.....

They also saw a problem since they deleted it

[-] CorrodedCranium@leminal.space 13 points 8 months ago

I really don't care one way or the other. I think AI being used is an inevitability. I think it would only really be relevant if Microsoft had a policy against AI being used in games for things like asset generation for example.

[-] Primarily0617@kbin.social 32 points 8 months ago

gods am i glad microsoft didn't have to dip into their literal trillion dollar valuation to pay independent artists any money at all to advertise the independent developers they're so gleeful to take credit for

[-] clearleaf@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

It wouldn't be an independent artist it would be a marketing company

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Yeah or an artist they already have on salary. This was just less work for someone already working for them.

It doesn't matter if you all don't like ai art. It's not going away and it will only continue to be more prevalent.

You should embrace it. I say this as someone who has a ton of debt from art school still. Resistance is futile.

[-] CorrodedCranium@leminal.space 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I'm not defending Microsoft. They're a soulless corporation releasing an ad around a holiday where a lot of people have time off and recently received gift cards and spending cash. I don't think them paying for an artist one time when they hope to use AI for a majority of their throwaway adverts really matters.