this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
485 points (99.6% liked)

Gaming

2822 readers
776 users here now

The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community

For news, discussions and memes!


Community Rules

This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:

You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.

What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:


If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lumiluz@slrpnk.net -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"AI" is just very advanced procedural generation. There's been games that used image diffusion in the past too, just in a far smaller and limited scale (such as a single creature, like the pokemon with the spinning eyes

[–] Probius@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To me, what makes the difference is whether or not it's trained on other people's shit. The distinction between AI and an algorithm is pretty arbitrary, but I wouldn't consider, for example, procedural generation via the wave function collapse algorithm to have the same moral implications as selling something using what most people would call AI-generated content.

[–] Lumiluz@slrpnk.net 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

And if you train an open source model yourself so it can generate content specifically on work you've created? Or are you against certain Linux devices too?

[–] Probius@sopuli.xyz 3 points 12 hours ago

I don't have a problem with games creating their own models trained only on things they created. I believe charging money for anything using assets generated by a model trained on data they didn't have the rights to should be illegal. If a model is trained on data that they do own the the rights to, but didn't create, that's a weird gray area where I think it shouldn't be illegal to sell its results, but you should have to disclose that you used it.