Probius

@Probius@sopuli.xyz

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Indie devs have begun adding a no generative AI stamp to their store pages⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Indie devs have begun adding a no generative AI stamp to their store pages⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I like to use AI autocomplete when programming not because it solves problems for me (it fucking sucks at that if you’re not a beginner), but because it’s good at literally just guessing what I want to do next so I don’t have to type it out. If I do something to the X coordinate, I probably want to do the same/similar thing to the Y and Z coordinates and AI’s really good at picking up that sort of thing.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Indie devs have begun adding a no generative AI stamp to their store pages⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  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.