I’m not going to even consider playing again till more comes out about it. Diablo is grindy by design and I have no interest in going through the grind until I know that there is going to be a good return on that effort.
How would they credit the artists? Generative AI is trained on thousands and millions of images and data points from equally numerous artists. He might as well say, “I give credit to humanity.”
I only consume art from people born of mute mothers isolated from society during their pregnancy and then born into sensory deprivation chambers.
It is the only way to ensure proper pure art as all other artists are simply rehashing prior work.
Doubled down on the “yea were not gonna credit artist’s our AI stole from”. What a supreme douche
I don’t think it’s as simple as all that. Artists look at other artists’ work when they’re learning, for ideas, for methods of doing stuff, etc. Good artists probably have looked at a ton of other artwork, they don’t just form their skills in a vacuum. Do they need to credit all the artists they “stole from”?
In the article, the company made a point about not using AI models specifically trained on a smaller set of works (or some artist’s individual works). Doing something like that would be a lot easier to argue that it’s stealing: but the same would be true if a human artist carefully studied another person’s work and tried to emulate their style/ideas. I think there’s a difference between that an “learning” (or learning) for a large body of work and not emulating any specific artist, company, individual works, etc.
Obviously it’s something that needs to be handled fairly carefully, but that can be true with human artists too.
I swear I’m old enough to remember this exact same fucking debate when digital tools started becoming popular.
It is, simply put, a new tool.
It’s also not the one and done magic button people who’ve never used shit think it is.
The knee-jerk reaction of hating on every art made with AI, is dangerous.
You’re free to like it or not, but it’s already out of the hat.
Big companies will have the ressources to train their own model.
I for one would rather have it in the public domain rather than only available to big corps.
I wouldn't call myself a "good artist" at all, and I've never released anything, I just make music for myself. Most of the music I make starts with my shamelessly lifting a melody, chord progression, rhythm, sound, or something else, from some song I've heard. Then I'll modify it slightly, add my own elements elsewhere, modify the thing I "stole" again, etc, and by the time I've finished, you probably wouldn't even be able to tell where I "stole" from because I've iterated on it so much.
AI models are exactly the same. And, personally, I'm pretty good at separating the creative process from the end result when it comes to consuming/appreciating art. There are songs, paintings, films, etc, where the creative process is fascinating to me but I don't enjoy the art itself. There are pieces of art made by sex offenders, criminals and generally terrible people - people who I refuse to support financially in any way - but that doesn't mean my appreciation for the art is lessened. I'll lose respect for an artist as a person if I find out their work is ghostwritten, but I won't lose my appreciation for the work. So if AI can create art I find evocative, I'll appreciate that, too.
But ultimately, I don't expect to see much art created solely by AI that I enjoy. AI is a fantastic tool, and it can lead to some amazing results when someone gives it the right prompts and edits/curates its output in the right way. And it can be used for inspiration, and to create a foundation that artists can jump off, much like I do with my "stealing" when I'm writing music. But if someone gives an AI a simple prompt, they tend to get a fairly derivative result - one that'll feel especially derivative as we see "raw output" from AIs more often and become more accustomed to their artistic voice. I'm not concerned at all about people telling an AI to "write me a song about love" replacing the complex prog musicians I enjoy, and I'm not worried about crappy AI-generated games replacing the lovingly crafted experiences I enjoy either.
Artists who look at art are processing it in a relatable, human way. An AI doesnt look at art. A human tells the AI to find art and plug it in, knowing that work is copyrighted and not available for someone else’s commercial project to develop an AI.
That’s not how AI art works. You can’t tell it to find art and plug it in. It doesn’t have the capability to store or copy existing artworks. It only contains the matrix of vectors which contain concepts. Concepts cannot be copyrighted.
Kind of. The AI doesn’t go out and find/do anything, people include images in its training data though. So it’s the human that’s finding the art and plugging it in — most likely through automated processes that just scrape massive amounts of images and add them to the corpus used for training.
It doesn’t have the capability to store or copy existing artworks. It only contains the matrix of vectors which contain concepts.
Sorry, this is wrong. You definitely can train AI to produce works that are very nearly a direct copy. How “original” works created by the AI are is going to depend on the size of the corpus it got trained on. If you train the AI (or put a lot of weight on) training for just a couple works from one specific artist or something like that it’s going to output stuff that’s very similar. If you train the AI on 1,000,000 images from all different artists, the output isn’t really going to resemble any specific artist’s style or work.
That’s why the company emphasized they weren’t training the AI to replicate a specific artist’s (or design company, etc) works.
As a general statement: No, I am not. You’re making an over specific scenario to make it true. Sure, if I take 1 image and train a model just on that one image, it’ll make that exact same image. But that’s no different than me just pressing copy and paste on a single image file. The latter does the job whole lot better too. This entire counter argument is nothing more than being pedantic.
Furthermore, if I’m making such specific instructions to the AI, then I am the one who’s replicating the art. It doesn’t matter if I use a pencil to trace out the existing art, using photoshop, or creating a specific AI model. I am the one who’s doing that.
You didn’t qualify what you said originally. It either has the capability or not: you said it didn’t, it actually does.
You’re making an over specific scenario to make it true.
Not really. It isn’t that far-fetched that a company would see an artist they’d like to use but also not want to pay that artist’s fees so they train an AI on the artist’s portfolio and can churn out very similar artwork. Training it on one or two images is obviously contrived, but a situation like what I just mentioned is very plausible.
This entire counter argument is nothing more than being pedantic.
So this isn’t true. What you said isn’t accurate with the literal interpretation and it doesn’t work with the more general interpretation either. The person higher in the thread called it stealing: in that case it wasn’t, but AI models do have the capability to do what most people would probably call “stealing” or infringing on the artist’s rights. I think recognizing that distinction is important.
Furthermore, if I’m making such specific instructions to the AI, then I am the one who’s replicating the art.
Yes, that’s kind of the point. A lot of people (me included) would be comfortable calling doing that sort of thing stealing or plagiarism. That’s why the company in OP took pains to say they weren’t doing that.
Artists who look at art are processing it in a relatable, human way.
Yeah, sure. But there’s nothing that says “it’s not stealing if you do it in a relatable, human way”. Stealing doesn’t have anything to do with that.
knowing that work is copyrighted and not available for someone else’s commercial project to develop an AI.
And it is available for someone else’s commercial project to develop a human artist? Basically, the “an AI” part is still irrelevant to. If the works are out there where it’s possible to view them, then it’s possible for both humans and AIs to acquire them and use them for training. I don’t think “theft” is a good argument against it.
But there are probably others. I can think of a few.
I just want fucking humans paid for their work, why do you tech nerds have to innovate new ways to lick the boots of capital every few years? Let the capitalists make aeguments why AI should own all of our work, for free, rights be damned, and then profit off of it, and sell that back to us as a product. Let them do that. They don’t need your help.
That’s a problem whether or not we’re talking about AI.
why do you tech nerds have to innovate new ways to lick the boots of capital every few years?
That’s really not how it works. “Tech nerds” aren’t licking the boots of capitalists, capitalists just try to exploit any tech for maximum advantage. What are the tech nerds supposed to do, just stop all scientific and technological progress?
why AI should own all of our work, for free, rights be damned,
AI doesn’t “own your work” any more than a human artist who learned from it does. You don’t like the end result, but you also don’t seem to know how to come up with a coherent argument against the process of getting there. Like I mentioned, there are better arguments against it than “it’s stealing”, “it’s violating our rights” because those have some serious issues.
That’s over. Just let it go. It’s never going back in the bottle and artists will never see a penny from ai that trained their art. It’s not fair but life isn’t fair.
I can hardly think of a better example of “the lady doth protest too much” than the responses that would get fired back at Anita. Completely unable to mask just how close to home the criticism hit them.
Ohhh dammit. Of course. Man that sucks. Thank you for clarifying!
I was hoping they would make gold cheaper because that’s really all that I need. But of course they tack on every other thing and then raise prices even more.
As a rental service game pass is great. But at regular price it is too much for me. I’m gona miss converting 3 years of gold to ultimate, though, lol. I’ll be going back to the cheapest tier when I run out.
Seems interesting, I hadn’t heard of this before. She seems to have to imagine an image of a thing to get the control to register, like a cricket jumping to make her character jump, which actually seems more difficult than just playing with a physical controller or keyboard/mouse, since I don’t think I actually “think” about making those sorts of movements. It seems like it would be cumbersome having to imagine the movement everytime, but maybe it becomes 2nd nature for her while she’s playing like this.
I wonder if there could be a feedback loop on something like it too where if you see your character walking then they’ll continually walk because you’re actively seeing/imagining it?
I mean, a small part of me dislikes the lost potential for satire. Dead Rising was always an over-the-top franchise, and Frank always came off as a kind of “wants to be taken seriously, but often finds himself selling candid shots of celebrities to tabloids to get by” kind of photographer. But the presentation was too serious and felt ultimately creepy, rather than being funny or coming off as social commentary.
I do think the sleaze is an integral side to Frank’s character that should stay or he would be a lot less interesting. I don’t think anything in the article actually demonstrates that they are changing his character despite the headline. If I recall correctly, Off the Record also included the mechanic even though Frank was not the protagonist so perhaps it was never meant to reflect on his character and was just there to reward the player for being kind of gross.
Yeah I thought that was part of Frank’s character? He’s a has been that never was that reluctantly finds himself becoming a hero.
In the second game, he’s shown to be moreso a sleazeball, as he’s basically making a living selling the rights to his story and starring in a survival game show.
How? You’re removing something who is from the OG. The thing they’re remastering. So how can it be a remaster? Looks like Capcom playing a word game with remaster and remake. This is a remaster so it’s okay we remove stuff.
When movies are remastered a lot of times undesirable parts of it (vhs tracking lines, static, film scratches and the like) are removed. Same as when songs are remastered and they take out mistakes on the original recording. Hell, look at the amout of stuff that was changed with the “special edition” remasters of the Star Wars OT. In each case things are removed or changed, but it is still a remaster.
You asked how stuff can be removed from a remaster and still be called a remaster. I explained how that can be so.
The Special Edition in particular is relevant because Lucas changed things based on decisions he made later. Removing the Erotica bonus is equivalent to making Jabba a CG slug in his scene in A New Hope rather than a human gangster, as he was originally envisioned (yes the scene was cut from the theatrical release but the footage of human Jabba still exists). It’s a change in artistic vision that the creators want reflected in their new definitive version.
With any luck Capcom won’t pull a Lucas and make it nearly impossible to get the original version if someone wants to play it warts and all.
Hal’s argument sounds more like pedentry about what a remaster is vs what a remake is, and I would have to agree that this game sounds like a complete remake, and not simply a remastering of the original with what has been detailed about it.
Deadlock sounds like the name of a no-budget indie horror game that would release on Steam for a dollar. Not a big budget Apexwatch or Overlegends or…whatever you call this style of game.
Wikipedia says that Overwatch and Apex Legends are each part of the “Hero Shooter” genre (boy does that sound like an uninteresting genre). I’m guessing there are greater subdivisions of play structure that matches what you’re describing, but it all sounds like an uninteresting blend of character based FPS, like multiplayer Borderlands. I guess that’s where modern gaming is, though, since these really took off after 2016, which is solidly after my “hardcore gaming” days were mostly over.
That applies too, but it’s orthogonal to game structure. MOBAs also tend to be character based and you can add it to basically any game (eg. card based rogues like Slay the Spire).
But there are also lots of battle royales without characters (like PUBG or Fortnite) and team deathmatch without characters like CS.
Leave it to microsoft to join the party years late with a product that completely misses the point of what makes the original to their copy actually popular
polygon.com
Ważne