AI this, AI that - you can't go anywhere without something trying to force AI on you. Usually a company trying to get you to buy into what they've wasted billions on. So indie devs have begun fighting back with their No Gen AI Seal.
“AI” is just very advanced procedural generation. There’s been games that used image diffusion in the past too, just in a far smaller and limited scale (such as a single creature, like the pokemon with the spinning eyes
To me, what makes the difference is whether or not it’s trained on other people’s shit. The distinction between AI and an algorithm is pretty arbitrary, but I wouldn’t consider, for example, procedural generation via the wave function collapse algorithm to have the same moral implications as selling something using what most people would call AI-generated content.
And if you train an open source model yourself so it can generate content specifically on work you’ve created? Or are you against certain Linux devices too?
I don’t have a problem with games creating their own models trained only on things they created. I believe charging money for anything using assets generated by a model trained on data they didn’t have the rights to should be illegal. If a model is trained on data that they do own the the rights to, but didn’t create, that’s a weird gray area where I think it shouldn’t be illegal to sell its results, but you should have to disclose that you used it.
Procedural generation is generative, but it ain’t AI. It especially has nothing in common with the exploitative practices of genAI training.
It makes decisions.
It generates content.
It doesn’t make decisions, but neither does Gen AI. Not sure if you’re doubly wrong or half right.
But it’s not Gen AI.
By this logic, literally any code is genAI.
Has a branch statement? It makes decisions. Displays something on the screen, even by stdout? Generated content.
As I touched on previously, those aren’t the qualities that make people opposed to AI. But have fun arguing dictionary definitions.
“AI” is just very advanced procedural generation. There’s been games that used image diffusion in the past too, just in a far smaller and limited scale (such as a single creature, like the pokemon with the spinning eyes
To me, what makes the difference is whether or not it’s trained on other people’s shit. The distinction between AI and an algorithm is pretty arbitrary, but I wouldn’t consider, for example, procedural generation via the wave function collapse algorithm to have the same moral implications as selling something using what most people would call AI-generated content.
And if you train an open source model yourself so it can generate content specifically on work you’ve created? Or are you against certain Linux devices too?
I don’t have a problem with games creating their own models trained only on things they created. I believe charging money for anything using assets generated by a model trained on data they didn’t have the rights to should be illegal. If a model is trained on data that they do own the the rights to, but didn’t create, that’s a weird gray area where I think it shouldn’t be illegal to sell its results, but you should have to disclose that you used it.