this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
67 points (89.4% liked)

Games

16714 readers
543 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
67
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] moon_matter@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 (1 children)

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.