If there was an AI that licensed every bit of art/code/etc that it trained on, then I think I would be fine if they used it. BUT, I’d never think their final product was ever a more than just a madlibs of other people’s work, cobbled together for cheap commercial consumption. My time is worth something, and I’m not spending a minute of it on AI generated crap when I could be spending it on the product of a true author, artist, coder, craftsman. They deserve my dollar, not the AI company and their ai-using middle man who produced shit with it.
I mean they mostly used it for textures, right? Those are often generated from a combination of noise and photography, it’s not like they were building the game out of lego bricks of other people’s art.
I don’t see how it’s significantly different than sampling in music, it’s just some background detail to enhance the message of the art.
Obviously modern AI is a nightmare machine that cannot be justified, but I could imagine valid artistic uses for the hypothetical AI you described.
When you sample in music, you get the original artist’s permission or you get fucking sued. If the AI used were trained on a licensed library catalogue, then sure. Media companies historically would buy sample licenses to use for their sound effects in movies, video games, etc. so AI could essentially just do that, but put the encyclopedia of samples in a blender of training to modulate that shit to make something somewhat “new” to be used. Original artists get royalties, users get something customized without having to hire sounds engineers to make those adjustments, and consumers get good products.
Yeah, that’s basically what I was trying to imagine. It’s absolutely not what contemporary AI is, but it’s closer to how I think the technology should be used.
If there was an AI that licensed every bit of art/code/etc that it trained on, then I think I would be fine if they used it. BUT, I’d never think their final product was ever a more than just a madlibs of other people’s work, cobbled together for cheap commercial consumption. My time is worth something, and I’m not spending a minute of it on AI generated crap when I could be spending it on the product of a true author, artist, coder, craftsman. They deserve my dollar, not the AI company and their ai-using middle man who produced shit with it.
I mean they mostly used it for textures, right? Those are often generated from a combination of noise and photography, it’s not like they were building the game out of lego bricks of other people’s art.
I don’t see how it’s significantly different than sampling in music, it’s just some background detail to enhance the message of the art.
Obviously modern AI is a nightmare machine that cannot be justified, but I could imagine valid artistic uses for the hypothetical AI you described.
When you sample in music, you get the original artist’s permission or you get fucking sued. If the AI used were trained on a licensed library catalogue, then sure. Media companies historically would buy sample licenses to use for their sound effects in movies, video games, etc. so AI could essentially just do that, but put the encyclopedia of samples in a blender of training to modulate that shit to make something somewhat “new” to be used. Original artists get royalties, users get something customized without having to hire sounds engineers to make those adjustments, and consumers get good products.
Yeah, that’s basically what I was trying to imagine. It’s absolutely not what contemporary AI is, but it’s closer to how I think the technology should be used.