You are wrong about this, there are literally right now huge arguments going on and legal battles likely to start soon over the fact that ‘AI’ generated content is effectively a giant plagiarism/synthesis machine, as the models are nearly always trained on /massive/ swaths of content that include /many/ copyrighted works, as well as stuff that was simply never given express permission to be used in such a way.
Valve, for example, has officially taken a side, a few days ago stating in a policy update that you are not allowed to publish a game with ‘AI’ gen art, dialogue, or code, unless you can prove the training set for the ‘AI’ did not contain any source material you do not have the rights to use in a for profit manner.
That’s not what Valve’s policy said at all. It basically says you have to promise you aren’t infringing and disclose how it’s used so customers can make their own decisions.
What a complete load of shit you’re spouting. Corps covering their asses (and profit inflow) have nothing to do with changes to or crafting of legislation/laws. In fact, much of the time, said corps simply opt for the fine rather than compliance. Valve (and WotC, etc., FYI) are simply pandering to their target markets’ current sentiment, and you regurgitating it as legal precedent borders on propagandist idiocy.
tl;dr: Non-experts seem to be so confidently ignorant, conversely proportionate to their expertise, even. 🤦🏽♂️
I didn’t say I was certain - just pretty sure :P That was based on what was known last year, dunno if news on that have been updated yet. I’m bound to see it on Lemmy when it does. Thank for letting me know though.
You are wrong about this, there are literally right now huge arguments going on and legal battles likely to start soon over the fact that ‘AI’ generated content is effectively a giant plagiarism/synthesis machine, as the models are nearly always trained on /massive/ swaths of content that include /many/ copyrighted works, as well as stuff that was simply never given express permission to be used in such a way.
Valve, for example, has officially taken a side, a few days ago stating in a policy update that you are not allowed to publish a game with ‘AI’ gen art, dialogue, or code, unless you can prove the training set for the ‘AI’ did not contain any source material you do not have the rights to use in a for profit manner.
You should check out this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF. The EFF is a digital rights group who recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone.
Mainly:
and
And Valve has officially taken the opposite side of what you said, Valve will now allow the vast majority of games AI-generated content on Steam where it didn’t before.
That’s not what Valve’s policy said at all. It basically says you have to promise you aren’t infringing and disclose how it’s used so customers can make their own decisions.
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/detail/3862463747997849619
It’s basically the most conservative fence-sitting position they could have picked.
What a complete load of shit you’re spouting. Corps covering their asses (and profit inflow) have nothing to do with changes to or crafting of legislation/laws. In fact, much of the time, said corps simply opt for the fine rather than compliance. Valve (and WotC, etc., FYI) are simply pandering to their target markets’ current sentiment, and you regurgitating it as legal precedent borders on propagandist idiocy.
tl;dr: Non-experts seem to be so confidently ignorant, conversely proportionate to their expertise, even. 🤦🏽♂️
I didn’t say I was certain - just pretty sure :P That was based on what was known last year, dunno if news on that have been updated yet. I’m bound to see it on Lemmy when it does. Thank for letting me know though.
This person is so wrong it’s basically misinformation.
You mean @vexikron, I assume?
Yeah.