66
Terraforming Mars team defends AI use as Kickstarter hits $1.3 million (www.polygon.com)
submitted 1 year ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

A small team of 7 was able to create something of this magnitude , all thanks to the various tools of today like Generative AI.

We talk about the bad stuff of AI. But here's the good... small mom and pop shops being able to release top tier products like the big companies.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 1 year ago

It's arguably not good that we're normalizing people being able to use this while its training relied on other creators who were not compensated.

[-] Ethanice@kbin.social 50 points 1 year ago

My programming training relied on other creators who were not compensated.

[-] acutfjg@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago

Were they in public forums and sites like stack overflow and GitHub where they wanted people to use and share their code?

[-] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Stable Diffusion uses a dataset from Common Crawl, which pulled art from public websites that allowed them to do so. DeviantArt and ArtStation allowed this, without exception, until recently.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk -1 points 1 year ago

Where did the AI companies get their code from? Is scraped from the likes of stack overflow and GitHub.

They don't have the proprietary code that is used to run companies because it's proprietary and it's never been on a public forum available for download.

[-] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago

I imagine creators who... released their work for free, and/or open source?

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] moon_matter@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Devil's advocate. It means that only large companies will have AI, as they would be the only ones capable of paying such a large number of people. AI is going to come anyway except now the playing field is even more unfair since you've removed the ability for an individual to use the technology.

Instituting these laws would just be the equivalent of companies pulling the ladder up behind them after taking the average artist's work to use as training data.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

How would you even go about determining what percentage belongs to the AI vs the training data? You could argue all of the royalties should go to the creators of the training data, meaning no one could afford to do it.

[-] moon_matter@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

How would you identify text or images generated by AI after they have been edited by a human? Even after that, how would you know what was used as the source for training data? People would simply avoid revealing any information and even if you did pass a law and solved all of those issues, it would still only affect the country in question.

[-] Lmaydev@programming.dev 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Then we shouldn't have artists because they looked at other art without paying.

[-] kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Oonga boonga wants his royalty checks for having first drawn a circle 25,000 years ago.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

As distinct from human artists who pay dividends for every image they've seen, every idea they've heard, and every trend they've followed.

The more this technology shovels into the big fat network of What Is Art, the less any single influence will show through.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Literally the definition of greed. They dont deserve royalties for being an inspiration and moving a weight a fraction of a percentage in one direction...

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] alleycat@feddit.de 31 points 1 year ago

[-] kae@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago

Good interview. They didn't let them off the hook, but weren't pushing an agenda either.

This is going to be a moving target that someone is going to pay big bucks to figure out in court. International laws are not up to speed on what is or isn't ok here, and the ethical discussion is interesting to watch unfold.

[-] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

I didn't see the sub at first and thought it was a kickstarter for a real-life mars terraformation project

[-] evilsmurf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Awesome, I didn't know they had a kickstarter going. No such thing as bad press I guess.

this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
66 points (88.4% liked)

Games

16651 readers
907 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works