Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- So many companies and individuals using AI and are like, here's our (sloppy) product! Whether it's a game or program or just a blog post. But it's not theirs. They didn't create it. They can't claim copyright over it. Even if they change it a little bit, I don't get how that somehow is transformative enough to grant any protection. So unless how copyright works drastically changes, I don't understand what they think is going to happen, at least from a perspective of a person or company who is doing this to make money.by garciansmith
- I think you're right in the scenario there was no human involvement in design. my guess which may be naive is that the tool use will be mixed. You may see gen AI used more for placeholder assets for example. I also think the landscape is shifting to the point codegen is acceptable in those circles.
If there is mixed usage of AI and human design then like the article said those components generated likely aren't copyrightable but the specific way you cobbled them together could be and that wouldn't need much change it seems. I'd like to follow the revenue anyway, last article I read was from about 6 months ago that steam AI-gen declarations accounted for almost 700million in revenue but it was unclear then to what extent ai tools were used (https://www.gamesradar.com/games/steam-games-that-openly-use...)
by CorvusCrypto - Its happening in other industries as well, as legal and contract management teams have stepped up their maturity in considering these things.
I work in Consulting and we're seeing this across our industry as well. Multiple clauses popping up around no or limited AI use, which comes from those organisations being risk averse, through not knowing how to deal with the reputational risk if AI were to cause an issue.
We see some organisations being very strict on no AI usage, to other organisations naming particular platforms or particular classifications of information, which is a smart way to go about it.
by NoPicklez - I suspect that won't last long for a number of reasons
- AI is already capable of creating some assets that are indistinguishable from human made ones. Anti-AI sentiment is pointless if they can't tell the difference.
- devs in Countries that care a lot less about the legal stuff are going to be cranking out and studios will want in on it.
- If the primary blocker is legal someone will find a way to get around it and provide a model/service/workflow that allows a game with AI assets to claim copyright on said assets.
- Games are literally one of the absolute best uses for this tech. Someone is going to figure out a way to leverage this stuff as a first class function of the gameplay. Player directed assets or procedural world creation, dynamic quests like never before seen. They're going to hit the nail on the head and produce a banger with this tech and the landscape is never going to be the same again.
- > AI is already capable of creating some assets that are indistinguishable from human made ones.
Some assets, yes. But gamers are already losing their mind over single-digit number of AI assets (allegedly) accidentally left into a game. Even when 99% of assets are indistinguishable, you'll still get crucified by the anti-AI gamer mob for the 1% where they can.
> Anti-AI sentiment is pointless if they can't tell the difference.
The gamer crowd already hates it when you are caught reusing human-made stock assets. They hate any perceived laziness. AI is just another addition to this.
> devs in Countries that care a lot less about the legal stuff are going to be cranking out and studios will want in on it.
The studios have already been trying, hence the aforementioned backlash. The studios might want in on it due to higher productivity, but the publishers are against it because the negative PR isn't worth it.
> Someone is going to figure out a way to leverage this stuff as a first class function of the gameplay. Player directed assets or procedural world creation, dynamic quests like never before seen
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Choose-your-own-adventure did not kill the traditional book, Open-world and sandbox games did not kill linear storytelling. Procedural worlds universally feel empty and repetitive because they are.
People recognize a "kill 15 boars" quest when they see one: killing 10 wolves or collecting 20 unicorn horns doesn't change the fundamental structure of what it is. No matter the window dressing, people will get tired of repetitive quests generated from the same prompt. What makes a game like, say, World of Warcraft worth playing is that the thousands of quests tie together into a coherent overarching plot, where you and your friends work together for hundreds of hours on everything from disrupting supply lines, to smoking out infiltrators, to helping a kid who lost his parents during an attack, to eventually defeating the Big Bad Evil. You simply cannot do this with a one-off personalized storyline which makes up additional things as you play it.
Besides, apps like Infinite Worlds[0] are already a thing: it lets people create their own story world in which other people can experience AI-driven text adventures. Sounds great, right? Turns out a handful of people do indeed like it, but for the most part the communities for both readers and writers are banishing it to special AI sections because most people dislike it and are sick of it flooding the rest of the platform.
There are already enough books and games out there to meet everyone's desires. AI-driven storytelling does not meaningfully tap any market of unexplored narratives, while at the same time sacrificing story quality and any sense of shared experience. AI storytelling won't replace traditional storytelling in the same way that AI waifus aren't going to replace real-world (platonic or romantic) relationships.
by crote - I'm going to guess you've never worked in game dev and I'd be shocked if I was wrong.
- > Anti-AI sentiment is pointless if they can't tell the difference.
I disagree, you can object on moral grounds of which there's a few angles that could take.
by valiant55 - > Games are literally one of the absolute best uses for this tech. Someone is going to figure out a way to leverage this stuff as a first class function of the gameplay. Player directed assets or procedural world creation, dynamic quests like never before seen. They're going to hit the nail on the head and produce a banger with this tech and the landscape is never going to be the same again.
I see the AI boosters say this over and over again. People do not want it. Games have tried the whole dynamic NPC stuff along with generated quests and it's immersion breaking and more importantly, not fun.
by fzeroracer