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.
That makes sense to me. You might piss people off less by doing that if you put their username in the title or something.
Why’d’ja take no_nothing’s post? They seem pretty upset about it.
The frequency with which cm0002 posts would make me say bot if they didn’t leave lots of conversive comments too.
You can turn them off.
Steam isn’t perfect, but it’s sooooo much better than something like EGS or some Ubisoft/EA first-party launcher loaded with ads.
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.