Well, on the bright side, we’ll have a huge cache of free assets we can directly lift from triple-A games, given that AI work is public domain.
I assume if they just tweak things by hand slightly then it becomes a protected derivative work. For example, if I modify Shakespeare, my modifications are protected.
They have to tweak it more than a little bit for it to count. It has to be actually transformative, meaning it has to be changed enough that it no longer serves the same function, something not easily achieved with a texture, sound or 3d model without effectively doing the whole thing by hand. For comparison, in your Shakespeare example, changing a few words here or there isn’t enough. You would have to nearly completely rewrite anything that you would want to copyright.
And I am actively avoiding everything from Take-Two as a result. I won’t pay real money for slop.
I’ll be skipping all your shitty games then, asshole.
Like hiring a bunch of pro athletes and then pushing them all aside to focus on a gas guzzling robot that plays at an amateur level at best.
If it’s anything like the thousands of pilots and implementations in my company, only like 2 actually made it to production use.
If you listen to the ai-bad crowd, screw science.
You can just skip the experimentation and go directly to conclusions. Testing things is for idiots, the real enlightened among us already have the conclusion, they just need to gather the right observations to prove themselves right.
If you listen to the ai-good crowd, screw economics.
You can just skip the market outcomes and go directly to assertions. Selling things is for idiots, the real enlightened among us already have the conclusion, they just need to gather the right investments to prove themselves right.
Was your comment generated by AI? I read it three times and I still don’t understand what you’re getting at.
He’s just saying just push to prod no need for any checks.
Or, better idea, stop using AI for creative work people find genuine personal fulfillment in, and eliminating any pathway to excellence. If you can’t afford to pay real people to create genuinely human artistic works, you’re a terrible business person and deserve to fail. It doesn’t make you a “Genius Creative” finding shortcuts to success, it makes you a pathetic hack with no independent talent, a parasite, and a miserly cheapskate on top of that.
Or, better idea, stop using AI for creative work
People can use whatever tools they want, if someone wants to be a great oil painter they can do that, if someone wants to learn how to draw on a digital tablet and use photoshop to edit it then let them do that, if someone wants to use diffusion models and Photoshop then let them do that.
You do not lose personal fulfillment in a thing that you genuinely enjoy because someone else is enjoying their own thing. This is not about creative expression. Your argument is an economic argument at base, not one about artistic expression.
If you can’t afford to pay real people to create genuinely human artistic works, you’re a terrible business person and deserve to fail.
An AI tool is not going to produce higher quality work than a professional human. Anyone who is gutting their business because they think AI is going to replace creative workers will fail because they’re making the wrong bet. The tools simply cannot replace human creativity.
At the same time, the framing that any use of AI tools to save labor is inherently bad is simply a denialist position. These tools exist and people are using them, this is the reality that we live in. Yes, it causes disruption in the labor markets this is unavoidable.
Think about how much you feel for the jobs of the Computers. Remember them? The people who used to earn their living calculating math problems… hundreds of thousands of professional people who had advanced degrees and worked their whole life in the field were suddenly replaced by some silicon and electricity. Are you boycotting the Field Effect Transistor because it decimated an entire industry?
Why do you even acknowledge the rights of digital artists or engineers to own intellectual property? After all, they’re using (by this logic) the terrible digital design tools, the software that replaced an entire industry of Drafters and support artists. Because of that software, nobody is going to hire a team of drafters, with their college educations and high salary expectations. Instead they just buy an AutoCAD license for less than a single worker would earn in a week.
Attacking a technology because it causes disruption in the labor market is pointless. If you’re living in a country where this disruption is causing serious problems, then you can understand the value of creating a social safety net in order to protect everyone from the next unforeseen circumstance/technology/disruption.
Ew :|
I’m guessing it’s a response to this
Appeasing shareholders, means fuck all
