• BJW@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yes, because the AI generated the game in a bubble, with no direction by a person. It’s just constantly spitting out games of its own volition with no input from people.

    /s

    • Bugamn@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You misread what I said. If a game creator is using an LLM that was trained with art obtained without consent, that is, the artists were not compensated for that use, why should I compensate that game creator? They don’t value the works of others, so I won’t value theirs either

      • BJW@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        No artist’s work is being directly used. It’s like arguing that artists owe Disney or Studio Ghibli money if they learned from watching their animations.

        • athatet@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Right, instead ALL artists work are being directly used to train the models. And no, it’s not like if another human person took inspiration from those artists.

        • Bugamn@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          But the artist was supposed to pay in some form to watch these animations because they are not in the public domain

          • BJW@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Agreed. That’s why I believe that all business applications of AI should be taxed, and those funds redistributed to the populace. Everyone conceivably contributed, therefore everyone should benefit.