A year ago, I poked around Steam to see how many game developers were disclosing usage of Generative AI . It was around 1,000, which seemed like a lot to me at the time. If memory serves, that was about 1.1% of the entire Steam library, which has since seen 20,000+ more titles appear. I've been fol
No it’s not. If you have paid for data to self train AI, you have paid artists already. Why use the AI slop, when you can use the actual work you purchased?
Not quite… I mean depending on what you’re comparing it to. Like if you compare it to a person doing it—breathing, eating, space(home, office…), electricity…—the Ilm is much more efficient. Now a random person that wouldn’t have produced any image, text, song… whatever, that is now generating a hundred of them a day is, indeed, very wasteful and bad for the environment.
For comparison, the co2 emissions from training gpt3 were equivalent to 1250 people’s breathing for a year.
Now about the stealing part, I’m not very fond of ‘intellectual property’ very much myself, nor am I very respectful of it, so I will not discuss it.
No it isn’t, the lack of renewables feeding into the energy grid is the problem, not AI - direct your ire in the right direction. Also no it doesn’t unless you completely redefine theft to me not theft - nothing is taken, no-one is denied access to existing things, and no copies are made
Good. Let’s normalise it so the rest of us can actually fucking use it!
What’s stopping you from buying games from the nearly 8k that use that stupid AI shit? There’s gotta be some slop in there that suits your tastes.
Let’s not. Generative AI is bad for environment, it’s also using stolen assets.
but what about self trained on paid data(with allowed authors) and used on local pc?
If you have the money for that, why not just hire those allowed authors and artists to make the art for you?
its like to tell somebody: if you have moneys for self cooking food why dont order it from professionals
No it’s not. If you have paid for data to self train AI, you have paid artists already. Why use the AI slop, when you can use the actual work you purchased?
Every artist that ever saw another person’s art is “using stolen assets” then. Why is training a meat neural network more valid?
Because AI training and humans training are different
Unlike humans, GenAI has no imagination.
Not quite… I mean depending on what you’re comparing it to. Like if you compare it to a person doing it—breathing, eating, space(home, office…), electricity…—the Ilm is much more efficient. Now a random person that wouldn’t have produced any image, text, song… whatever, that is now generating a hundred of them a day is, indeed, very wasteful and bad for the environment.
For comparison, the co2 emissions from training gpt3 were equivalent to 1250 people’s breathing for a year.
Now about the stealing part, I’m not very fond of ‘intellectual property’ very much myself, nor am I very respectful of it, so I will not discuss it.
No it isn’t, the lack of renewables feeding into the energy grid is the problem, not AI - direct your ire in the right direction. Also no it doesn’t unless you completely redefine theft to me not theft - nothing is taken, no-one is denied access to existing things, and no copies are made