AI-generated Art

[gnombat]

and thus free-to-play projects like wesnoth with no main commercial intention would benefit greaty from ai, imagine you could feed ai with thousands of 72x72 pixel art sprites (and their names etc) and then let ai generate new units. it would be perfectly possible. maybe it is even possible right now.
so every restriction that wesnoth-staff is putting on themselves, will just be to the disadvanateg of wesnoth, since the world around wesnoth will use ai. that is most sure atm.

I'm not sure exactly what your point is here, but the fact that Wesnoth is free to play is not really relevant. Games which are available for no cost still need to comply with copyright law.

[Mabuse]

Haha, no, this is very, very far from the truth. There exists no AI right now that would be good at any form of creative writing.

never said that.

but there is so much genric stuff out there anyways, this generic random stuff ai will be able to reproduce in 1 or 2 decades.
high quality stuff may be something different

beside of all that, ai that is fed with the work of all human of all times, may have much more of a pool to generate things from than a single human has.

and creativity is only one thing. the other thing is craftmanship. ai can learn the craft once you formulate it.
the creativity comes from humans, and ai will be able to mix the already existing creativity of humanity, and reproduce new things.

it's more likely it someday reaches a state where it's actually useful as a tool for writers.

many people use ai already for that, so yes
you can easily knock together an article and then overwork it by hand, many people do that.

AI may indeed be an exciting new field, but it'll be years, decades, maybe even centuries before it can match a real human.

never said anything else

its the same with random map generators, they cant produce something like a human would create, but they can create a base to work with, or other way around, they can add little differences, e.g. scatter stuff and that. these little things are also ai, and we use it already.

as soon you can formulate what is called creativity into ai. it is able to reproduce that in one form or another.

and even right now a good random map generator can knock something together even a human needs hours to do, and will be better at it as most humans.

he best they can do is output something that vaguely looks like a novel but makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If your goal is to generate false fiction to add flavour to a game setting, then it might work for that, but if your goal is to produce an original work, then it's no use to you.

btw, i 100% agree on that. ai wont even be able to tell wether things make or dont make any sense, since it doesnt know wha t makes snse at all.
this is by far very complicated to do so.
you would have to formulate the WORLD and all the laws and dependencies in it. gravity is one of the things an ai could possibly learn that things dont fly into the sky for no reason for exmaple. in order that things make SENSE as a whole you need a deep understanding of many many things AND be able to define them and then implement them into ai.

as this is more or less impossible .. the best bet for ai, is to copy art/behavior/craftsmanship from humans, copy how they do things. etc

[Mabuse]

I'm not sure exactly what your point is here, but the fact that Wesnoth is free to play is not really relevant. Games which are available for no cost still need to comply with copyright law.

sure.

but wesnothians dont need to fear rhe power of ai. thats what i meant.
and since you can use ai to create non copyrighted stuff i dont see a problem.

you dont need to go on the street and protest like writers and actors in hollywood do (for example), since they know sooner or later the majority of them gets replaced by ai, that can create most of the generic stuff

[Mabuse]

Steam has also banned a few games that have used generative AI art as well.

really? based on what?

i think its a bit funny

[Pentarctagon]

Steam has also banned a few games that have used generative AI art as well.

really? based on what?

i think its a bit funny

Because despite the massive amount of hype around it, the legal status of generative AI's output is unclear.

[Mabuse]

Because despite the massive amount of hype around it, the legal status of generative AI's output is unclear.

whats the worst things that can happen?

for steam e.g.
that the programmer of ai step in and say: all the art form this ai in mine and you pay me me xxx amount of dollar?

because for the dude who pressed a button and created a pic (and put it into a game), i guess there wont be much damage if someone else uses "his" pic too.
i htink the dude know that he didnt "made" the pic.


the truth is: ai can generate art that is truly nice and thus many people fear they cannot monetarize it anymore, thats why the cut off ai art

[Pentarctagon]

Because despite the massive amount of hype around it, the legal status of generative AI's output is unclear.

whats the worst things that can happen?

for steam e.g.


the truth is: ai can genrated art that is truly nice and thus many people fear they cannot make money with it, thats why the cut off ai art

Well, in the US, if a court rules it's copyright infringement you can be fined up to $150,000 per instance of infringement.

[Mabuse]

Well, in the US, if a court rules it's copyright infringement you can be fined up to $150,000 per instance of infringement.

infringement to whom?

i guess we a re talking about some strange cases where people use ai to make a "mickey mouse comic", and then we have a prohlem, since micky mouse itself is protected.

but if i tell ai to whatever paint an "orc" for me. and it comes up with whatever, and i sell the ai paints online then. and find buyers.
who will call copyright-infrigement on me and on what base?

i just want to understand the point?

[Pentarctagon]

Well, in the US, if a court rules it's copyright infringement you can be fined up to $150,000 per instance of infringement.

infringement to whom?

The people whose work was used to train the AI.

[Mabuse]

The people whose work was used to train the AI.

ok i see. well. i guess they wont have a point here.
since even a human can "learn" by watching other people art, and there is no legal claim that it is basically the art of the person whose art was used to learn.

but i guess the violations can occur if ai generated art is too similar to already existing art and checking every pic would be a pain in the ass.


on that matter i have read currently that ai can be trained legally with freely available data.
but people have the right to restrict that their (freely available) work is used for that.

if you renounce on the right to restrict that your freely available art is used for ai-learning ... i guess you cannot blame anyone.

although i think there is chance that not everybody knows about this, but i dont know whose problem that is.

but there are questions, i agree.

[Celtic_Minstrel]

but there is so much genric stuff out there anyways, this generic random stuff ai will be able to reproduce in 1 or 2 decades.
high quality stuff may be something different

Fair point. I don't think the current generation of AIs (or any direct evolution of them) could even produce a decent generic novel, but perhaps if combined with some additional narrative / world-building rules, it could reach that point in a few decades.

and creativity is only one thing. the other thing is craftmanship. ai can learn the craft once you formulate it.

Might be true in theory, I'm not sure. None of the currently existing AI tools even approach this though. They're heading in pretty much the opposite direction.

you can easily knock together an article and then overwork it by hand, many people do that.

Certainly there are people who do that, though I suspect it's actually more work than writing it from scratch in many cases.

btw, i 100% agree on that. ai wont even be able to tell wether things make or dont make any sense, since it doesnt know wha t makes snse at all.
this is by far very complicated to do so.
you would have to formulate the WORLD and all the laws and dependencies in it. gravity is one of the things an ai could possibly learn that things dont fly into the sky for no reason for exmaple. in order that things make SENSE as a whole you need a deep understanding of many many things AND be able to define them and then implement them into ai.

as this is more or less impossible .. the best bet for ai, is to copy art/behavior/craftsmanship from humans, copy how they do things. etc

This is sorta funny, now you're downplaying the potential for AI. I don't think it's impossible to make AI that does this. I don't think we're anywhere close to doing it though.

[egallager]

The US Copyright Office is opening a public comment period on August 30th for people to submit their feedback on issues relating to copyright and AI:
https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/29/23851126/us-copyright-office-ai-public-comments