Definitely AI
Suspended account171 days ago
Show post...
Fuck, what's up with AI games it shouldn't be allowed dark content isn't allowed but fucking AI.
Suspended account167 days ago
Show post...
Enjoy AI art don't you see the problem with AI art is fucking lazy and steal art from other artist.
Suspended account167 days ago
Show post...
Parodies is underneath fair use in 'Generally, courts are more likely to find that a parody qualifies as fair use if its purpose is to serve as a social commentary and not for purely commercial gain.' google it 'In the United States, parody is protected by the First Amendment as a form of expression. However, since parodies rely heavily on the original work, parodists rely on the fair use exception to combat claims of copyright infringement.' I am talking computers scanning art online and that counts as stealing.
Suspended account167 days ago
Show post...
You still use a computers to scan the web how do you think computers work.
Suspended account166 days ago
Show post...
You know what stop protecting AI art I would rather someone made their game in paint software than AI. I bet you protect AI scripts.
An AI does not store any information about anything it has seen on the internet (or whatever data it was trained on). It cannot recreate what it has seen, to any better extent than what a great artist could. All images on the internet would not fit any amount of hard drives you as a private person could buy, but the AI itself will fit in just a few GB (because no "stolen" images are stored!), just information on how to draw.
Banning AI Art, is kind of the same as banning artists that have looked at others art to learn how to draw. It is more or less the exact same thing. Just that an AI can spend a bazillion more time training and doesn't grow as tired as a human would.
AI training is not automatically not fair use. Nor is it automatically fair use. But it can be. And if used for such a "parody" that does qualify, it stands to reason that training the AI for that purpose would also fall under this.
Aside from the work, there is no substantial difference between an arist made of flesh to copy and plagiacaricaturize another ones ip, or to have an AI do it. The ip still gets transformed into the parody.
fair use is about result, not about method.
An AI does not store any information about anything it has seen on the internet (or whatever data it was trained on). It cannot recreate what it has seen, to any better extent than what a great artist could. All images on the internet would not fit any amount of hard drives you as a private person could buy, but the AI itself will fit in just a few GB (because no "stolen" images are stored!), just information on how to draw things.
Banning AI Art, is kind of the same as banning artists that have looked at others art to learn how to draw. It is more or less the exact same thing. Just that an AI can spend a bazillion more time training and doesn't grow as tired as a human would.
It depends heavily on the AI system used. There are instances where the system put forth artwork with resurfaced signatures. That is only possible, if that signature was stored. Besides being quite embarassing.
We are not quite there yet, that the AI systems really learn how to draw, but if we were, yes, banning them makes as much sense as baring students from studying artwork that they could use as reference for their own style. A glaring example can be seen in those AI systems that make pictures of people with fused body parts and extra hands, fingers and so on. They do not grasp how a human is supposed to look like. They just garble whatever is associated with the prompt and the AI operator can sift through 100 pics to get a good one.
I am very familiar with how AI art works. It does not use assets, it uses deep learning from a dataset, essentially determining the "essence" of promts, and creating an image from them. I would strongly suggest you actually look into how it works before spreading misinformation on the internet. Here's a video from Vox as a starting point:
to think AI art is theft while also thinking making a game about Back to the Future isn't
Good argument. Also, it is not even established what AI was used and how it was trained. (or that it actually is AI made. Just some commenter claimed it was. Could also just be old fashioned tracing.). But the AI haters would not care, even if the AI would be trained ethically by consenting artists and public domain art. They do not even understand how those tools do their magic. It is even possible to train an AI on your own art for crying out loud.
But yeah, complaining about the AI stuff on a game with no original charactes is kinda ironic. Reminds me of someone complaining about the "ntr" of a son watching his mother have intercourse.