▲ 629 ▼ Indie game developers have a new sales pitch: being ‘AI free’ (www.theverge.com) submitted 5 days ago by GolfFoxtrotLima@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world 50 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/39280394
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 48 points 5 days ago (10 children) Why would I pay them for something they didn’t do? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] Grimy@lemmy.world -17 points 5 days ago (9 children) I pay for games I enjoy playing personally but you do you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 29 points 5 days ago (7 children) I pay for games instead of pirating because I believe that the people that worked on a game deserve to be compensated for their work. If these people are using generative AI that was trained with images obtained without the consent of the creators (and right now it's very unlikely they are using ethically-trained generators), they are not paying the artists that helped create their images. Why should I pay for the game then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 4 days ago (6 children) Yes, because the AI generated the game in a bubble, with no direction by a person. It's just constantly spitting out games of its own volition with no input from people. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 days ago (5 children) You misread what I said. If a game creator is using an LLM that was trained with art obtained without consent, that is, the artists were not compensated for that use, why should I compensate that game creator? They don't value the works of others, so I won't value theirs either permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 4 days ago (4 children) No artist's work is being directly used. It's like arguing that artists owe Disney or Studio Ghibli money if they learned from watching their animations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago (1 child) But the artist was supposed to pay in some form to watch these animations because they are not in the public domain permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 days ago Agreed. That's why I believe that all business applications of AI should be taxed, and those funds redistributed to the populace. Everyone conceivably contributed, therefore everyone should benefit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 days ago (1 child) Right, instead ALL artists work are being directly used to train the models. And no, it’s not like if another human person took inspiration from those artists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 0 points 2 days ago Isn't it? That's one opinion, sure. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 15 points 5 days ago Do you work for Anthropic or something? Lmao I’m sure I would enjoy playing GTA6, I really want to play it, but I’ll be abstaining because of Rockstar’s union busting bullshit, the exorbitant price, and the fact that you don’t even get a real physical game for the insane amount they’re asking. As far as I know they didn’t use any AI, but that’s not the point. The point is that some things are more important than a game, regardless of how enjoyable it might be. Things like class solidarity, artistic integrity, and other elements of real life. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Grimy@lemmy.world -17 points 5 days ago (9 children) I pay for games I enjoy playing personally but you do you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 29 points 5 days ago (7 children) I pay for games instead of pirating because I believe that the people that worked on a game deserve to be compensated for their work. If these people are using generative AI that was trained with images obtained without the consent of the creators (and right now it's very unlikely they are using ethically-trained generators), they are not paying the artists that helped create their images. Why should I pay for the game then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 4 days ago (6 children) Yes, because the AI generated the game in a bubble, with no direction by a person. It's just constantly spitting out games of its own volition with no input from people. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 days ago (5 children) You misread what I said. If a game creator is using an LLM that was trained with art obtained without consent, that is, the artists were not compensated for that use, why should I compensate that game creator? They don't value the works of others, so I won't value theirs either permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 4 days ago (4 children) No artist's work is being directly used. It's like arguing that artists owe Disney or Studio Ghibli money if they learned from watching their animations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago (1 child) But the artist was supposed to pay in some form to watch these animations because they are not in the public domain permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 days ago Agreed. That's why I believe that all business applications of AI should be taxed, and those funds redistributed to the populace. Everyone conceivably contributed, therefore everyone should benefit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 days ago (1 child) Right, instead ALL artists work are being directly used to train the models. And no, it’s not like if another human person took inspiration from those artists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 0 points 2 days ago Isn't it? That's one opinion, sure. permalink fedilink source parent [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 15 points 5 days ago Do you work for Anthropic or something? Lmao I’m sure I would enjoy playing GTA6, I really want to play it, but I’ll be abstaining because of Rockstar’s union busting bullshit, the exorbitant price, and the fact that you don’t even get a real physical game for the insane amount they’re asking. As far as I know they didn’t use any AI, but that’s not the point. The point is that some things are more important than a game, regardless of how enjoyable it might be. Things like class solidarity, artistic integrity, and other elements of real life. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 29 points 5 days ago (7 children) I pay for games instead of pirating because I believe that the people that worked on a game deserve to be compensated for their work. If these people are using generative AI that was trained with images obtained without the consent of the creators (and right now it's very unlikely they are using ethically-trained generators), they are not paying the artists that helped create their images. Why should I pay for the game then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 4 days ago (6 children) Yes, because the AI generated the game in a bubble, with no direction by a person. It's just constantly spitting out games of its own volition with no input from people. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 days ago (5 children) You misread what I said. If a game creator is using an LLM that was trained with art obtained without consent, that is, the artists were not compensated for that use, why should I compensate that game creator? They don't value the works of others, so I won't value theirs either permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 4 days ago (4 children) No artist's work is being directly used. It's like arguing that artists owe Disney or Studio Ghibli money if they learned from watching their animations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago (1 child) But the artist was supposed to pay in some form to watch these animations because they are not in the public domain permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 days ago Agreed. That's why I believe that all business applications of AI should be taxed, and those funds redistributed to the populace. Everyone conceivably contributed, therefore everyone should benefit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 days ago (1 child) Right, instead ALL artists work are being directly used to train the models. And no, it’s not like if another human person took inspiration from those artists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 0 points 2 days ago Isn't it? That's one opinion, sure. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 4 days ago (6 children) Yes, because the AI generated the game in a bubble, with no direction by a person. It's just constantly spitting out games of its own volition with no input from people. /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 days ago (5 children) You misread what I said. If a game creator is using an LLM that was trained with art obtained without consent, that is, the artists were not compensated for that use, why should I compensate that game creator? They don't value the works of others, so I won't value theirs either permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 4 days ago (4 children) No artist's work is being directly used. It's like arguing that artists owe Disney or Studio Ghibli money if they learned from watching their animations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago (1 child) But the artist was supposed to pay in some form to watch these animations because they are not in the public domain permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 days ago Agreed. That's why I believe that all business applications of AI should be taxed, and those funds redistributed to the populace. Everyone conceivably contributed, therefore everyone should benefit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 days ago (1 child) Right, instead ALL artists work are being directly used to train the models. And no, it’s not like if another human person took inspiration from those artists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 0 points 2 days ago Isn't it? That's one opinion, sure. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 days ago (5 children) You misread what I said. If a game creator is using an LLM that was trained with art obtained without consent, that is, the artists were not compensated for that use, why should I compensate that game creator? They don't value the works of others, so I won't value theirs either permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 4 days ago (4 children) No artist's work is being directly used. It's like arguing that artists owe Disney or Studio Ghibli money if they learned from watching their animations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago (1 child) But the artist was supposed to pay in some form to watch these animations because they are not in the public domain permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 days ago Agreed. That's why I believe that all business applications of AI should be taxed, and those funds redistributed to the populace. Everyone conceivably contributed, therefore everyone should benefit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 days ago (1 child) Right, instead ALL artists work are being directly used to train the models. And no, it’s not like if another human person took inspiration from those artists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 0 points 2 days ago Isn't it? That's one opinion, sure. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 4 days ago (4 children) No artist's work is being directly used. It's like arguing that artists owe Disney or Studio Ghibli money if they learned from watching their animations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago (1 child) But the artist was supposed to pay in some form to watch these animations because they are not in the public domain permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 days ago Agreed. That's why I believe that all business applications of AI should be taxed, and those funds redistributed to the populace. Everyone conceivably contributed, therefore everyone should benefit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 days ago (1 child) Right, instead ALL artists work are being directly used to train the models. And no, it’s not like if another human person took inspiration from those artists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 0 points 2 days ago Isn't it? That's one opinion, sure. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago (1 child) But the artist was supposed to pay in some form to watch these animations because they are not in the public domain permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 days ago Agreed. That's why I believe that all business applications of AI should be taxed, and those funds redistributed to the populace. Everyone conceivably contributed, therefore everyone should benefit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 days ago Agreed. That's why I believe that all business applications of AI should be taxed, and those funds redistributed to the populace. Everyone conceivably contributed, therefore everyone should benefit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 days ago (1 child) Right, instead ALL artists work are being directly used to train the models. And no, it’s not like if another human person took inspiration from those artists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 0 points 2 days ago Isn't it? That's one opinion, sure. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 0 points 2 days ago Isn't it? That's one opinion, sure. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 15 points 5 days ago Do you work for Anthropic or something? Lmao I’m sure I would enjoy playing GTA6, I really want to play it, but I’ll be abstaining because of Rockstar’s union busting bullshit, the exorbitant price, and the fact that you don’t even get a real physical game for the insane amount they’re asking. As far as I know they didn’t use any AI, but that’s not the point. The point is that some things are more important than a game, regardless of how enjoyable it might be. Things like class solidarity, artistic integrity, and other elements of real life. permalink fedilink source parent