Unity top leaders selling stock before the announcement
they proposing “special” deal to not get the per install fee applied if the devs opt in to use only Unity’s advertising plaform in order to kill competition.
I can’t wait till the threats turn into promises. I’m so sick and fucking tired of the “elites” getting away with doing whatever they want. I’m hungry; let’s eat.
If it’s own employees are giving death threats, chances are high that it’s aiming up. Unless their CEO is threatening to kill those below him to save a buck?
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.
Man I miss destiny but I can’t play it cause Bungie are paranoid blaming the wrong group (Linux users) as hackers so blocked us from using it, and even if I could I wouldn’t play it out of principle because of what they’ve done to it. It still has the best shooting out of any game I’ve played, but the stuff you shoot at isn’t interesting anymore
Looked at the store, man how much do you have to spend to get the content? $100 for light fall and the battle pass, then $30 for Gjallahorn, then another $30 for some other dungeon and new supers and then $100 more for the new expansion. That’s $260, it’s cheaper to pay for Final Fantasy XIV monthly and get a $60 expansion for a year. That’s not including all the past dlc either
We at Red Hook know something about madness… Much like Darkest Dungeon, game development is a dynamic and challenging effort where tough choices must be made using imperfect information. Making and releasing a game is an uncertain endeavor, with treasures never guaranteed. But that uncertainty should lie in the marketplace, not with fundamental business terms around which a project was built. We believe Unity has made a grave misstep in introducing a poorly thought out fee mechanic and then compounded that threefold by making it apply to games that have already been released. We are sympathetic to the idea that companies must sometimes change how they operate, but these changes should be carefully planned, communicated, and enacted in such a way that partners may choose whether they wish to accept these new rules for their next projects. We built Darkest Dungeon using Unity, and a large part ofour decision to do so was the relative cost certainty around the license and subscription model. We’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on licenses, and far more than that in engaging Unity to help us with parts of deve lopment. It is hard for us to imagine building another game with Unity unless we know we are protected from the possibility of massive changes to how we pay for that technology being introduced at the whims of executive management. Part of game development is knowing when a mechanic is not working and then having the courage to swallowyour ego and undo the mistake. We call on Unity to recant this blunder.
(used Google’s text detection to copy/paste, so may not be perfect)
We at Red Hook know something about madness… Much like Darkest Dungeon, game development is a dynamic and challenging effort where tough choices must be made using imperfect information. Making and releasing a game is an uncertain endeavor, with treasures never guaranteed. But that uncertainty should lie in the marketplace, not with fundamental business terms around which a project was built. We believe Unity has made a grave misstep in introducing a poorly thought out fee mechanic and then compounded that threefold by making it apply to games that have already been released We are sympathetic to the idea that companies must sometimes change how they operate, but these changes should be carefully planned, communicated, and enacted in such a way that partners may choose whether they wish to accept these new rules for their next projects. We built Darkest Dungeon I using Unity, and a large part of our decision to do so was the relative cost certainty around the license and subscription model. We’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on licenses, and far more than that in engaging Unity to help us with parts of development. It is hard for us to imagine building another game with Unity unless we know we are protected from the possibility of massive changes to how we pay for that technology being introduced at the whims of executive management. Part of game development is knowing when a mechanic is not working and then having the courage to swallow your ego and undo the mistake. We call on Unity to recant this blunder. Red Hook
ETA: Ah, shit sorry I didn’t see someone else had already posted
Porting to PC isn’t minimal effort. It takes a lot of dev time to optimize and make it run well on the wide variety of PC hardware, not to mention the additional PC specific technologies like DLSS that often get implemented. First game had quite a few performance issues at launch that were ironed out over the span of several months.
The point isn’t that it’s quite literally free. It’s a figure of speech.
Between taking a game you’ve already completed and is already popular and reworking it to sell to a brand new audience… versus creating a new AAA title, which one is more expensive?
that were ironed out over the span of several months
It still runs like garbage on my 13700K and 3060Ti, depending on the area. Sometimes, High settings are fine, but way too often I have to drop down to “Original” to get somewhat acceptable FPS (>40) at 1440p with Balanced DLSS. Am I doing something wrong, or was it just even worse at launch?
When I was looking to start learning game dev last year, the Unity CEO made the controversial remarks he did like a week into my journey and gave me a reason to switch lol
I remember I picked this game up to replay it for a few bucks on steam. I had no idea how bad the PC version was. I must of replayed it 3-5x back in the day on Xbox. I couldn’t believe how broken and unplayable it was on PC.
Well, one is a linear, turn-based, 3rd person party cRPG.
The other is open world, real-time, 1st person with optional followers, sandbox action-RPG with space shooter elements.
Utterly different animals and any comparison is as invalid as comparing BG3 to Elite, DCS or RaceRoom. I've no interest at all in BG3 because turn-based party RPG-s are not really my jam. And I've never cared much about story-telling, either. I like good worldbuilding, sandboxing, looting, crafting, trying different builds, doing whatever the hell I like at any moment while completely forgetting that something called "main quest" exists, getting technical and modding the crap out of a game and this is where Bethesda shines.
Generally the term cRPG is used for specifically tabletop RPG-s adapted to digital realm. Action RPG-s take those classical RPG concepts and adapt them to a first- or third-person action game—basically Doom with leveling systems.
It is kinda sad given the legacy of the show, it almost made it to 30 and was the place of so many big industry moments (good and bad). Things have become more spread out now across GamesCom, PAXs, TGS, GDC, Develop and the many I’m forgetting.
I can get the argument that we really don’t need much of an in-person event given that stuff can be streamed instantly around the world now, we don’t need to rely on people setting up cameras in front of TVs to show off noisy gameplay footage, but the fact that so many others shows still exist proves that there is a want for in-person events.
E3’s death kinda came about because it got chipped away from all sides. There were better places for industry deal making to be done (GDC), Big publishers peeled off to do their own thing, and the expensive mark up that hit the other companies no longer appealed as they could get what they needed from PAX and GamesCom.
I’m gonna give the devs the benefit of the doubt and say maybe they don’t want to ship compressed textures by default since plenty of people will need them to play on ultra settings, but a modder can cater to the smaller, dedicated fanbase on the steam deck. but idk I’m not a dev
Nah they didn’t axe it, they just really limited development. You can still buy and play the game and it’s alright. Frankly if it wasn’t for the battle Royale mode no one would be talking about Fortnite today, I played the testing from before BR mode and it wasn’t that cool.
games
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.