Slop is trained on the work of the people it is now able to drown out with cheap imitations. That is why it is controversial.
Imagine AIs start winning the gaming tournaments and humans no longer are even in the running for prize money or placement on leaderboards. Would that be fucked up?
Because AI usage is complicated. AI has been in Photoshop for a long time, as an example. Where does the line get drawn? Everyone has different opinions on this, including consumers. So either Valve would have to make a clear definition, or they would let publishers decide for themselves, which is basically irrelevant to most consumers.
It’s not complicated. If you used a generative AI tool to make the game, it should require a label, period.
In your example, there is a clear and obvious difference between using traditional drawing tools and using the AI features.
Should there be distinguishing labels for different types of use (art vs code vs music vs writing etc)? Probably, but if you don’t want the label, get good and don’t use those tools. It’s not hard. Game devs were making amazing stuff before these tools became available.
I guarantee if you ask artists and programmers across studios, even indie studios, they would also have very different definitions from you.
No one has cared in the past if artists used Photoshop’s content aware fill, which is a form of generative AI, and that has been out for a long time now, like 6 years or so.
I don’t think it should be surprising that people started caring about it more after it got shoved in their faces for a few years and a ludicrous portion of the world’s economy got tied up in it
I don’t disagree. My original point still stands though, this is pretty nuanced. There are tons of hard-working skilled artists that use AI, even gen AI, to increase productivity.
Content Aware Fill only started incorporating genai about a year ago. With that option on, it’s much more effective at large-scale removal than before, but the use is pretty similar.
I do not understand why this is even controversial.
Slop is trained on the work of the people it is now able to drown out with cheap imitations. That is why it is controversial.
Imagine AIs start winning the gaming tournaments and humans no longer are even in the running for prize money or placement on leaderboards. Would that be fucked up?
I mean requiring AI labels should not be controversial. That seems like a no-brainer.
Anyone arguing against transparency in advertising and consumer choice is always doing something sketchy.
Because AI usage is complicated. AI has been in Photoshop for a long time, as an example. Where does the line get drawn? Everyone has different opinions on this, including consumers. So either Valve would have to make a clear definition, or they would let publishers decide for themselves, which is basically irrelevant to most consumers.
It’s not complicated. If you used a generative AI tool to make the game, it should require a label, period.
In your example, there is a clear and obvious difference between using traditional drawing tools and using the AI features.
Should there be distinguishing labels for different types of use (art vs code vs music vs writing etc)? Probably, but if you don’t want the label, get good and don’t use those tools. It’s not hard. Game devs were making amazing stuff before these tools became available.
I guarantee if you ask artists and programmers across studios, even indie studios, they would also have very different definitions from you.
No one has cared in the past if artists used Photoshop’s content aware fill, which is a form of generative AI, and that has been out for a long time now, like 6 years or so.
I don’t think it should be surprising that people started caring about it more after it got shoved in their faces for a few years and a ludicrous portion of the world’s economy got tied up in it
I don’t disagree. My original point still stands though, this is pretty nuanced. There are tons of hard-working skilled artists that use AI, even gen AI, to increase productivity.
Content Aware Fill only started incorporating genai about a year ago. With that option on, it’s much more effective at large-scale removal than before, but the use is pretty similar.
Exactly my point. It’s nuanced, because it doesn’t really make sense to draw the line based on what the underlying tech is.
Because people that can’t do the job for real think AI doing it for them is the same thing, and they don’t want to feel bad about their lack of skill.