Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mitsuru-Ch]

That said, one of the main arguments I see time and time again against the use of AI is that its using 'stolen' content, and I think its important to make it clear that its a lot more complicated then that.

(Thank you for the link! And, sure, but I think the paper linked by Wisp shows pretty conclusively that some images are stored, functionally in a lossy format, doesn't it? Not that this is necessarily addressing your point; I'd only mentioned this as a response to a statement that the models don't do that. But yeah, tangent.)

I mostly just wanted to point out that there are valid creative uses for generative AI as a creative tool.

Absolutely!

From the paper:

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of our attack, we select the 350,000 most-duplicated examples from the training dataset and generate 500 candidate images for each of these prompts (totaling 175 million generated images).

They identified images that were likely to be overtrained, then generated 175 million images to find cases where overtraining ended up duplicating an image.

We find 94 images are extracted. [...] [We] find that a further 13 (for a total of 109 images) are near-copies of training examples

They're purposefully trying to generate copies of training images using sophisticated techniques to do so, and even then fewer than one in a million of their generated images is a near copy.

And that's on an older version of Stable Diffusion trained on only 160 million images. They actually generated more images than were used to train the model.

So yeah, I guess it's possible to duplicate an image. It's also possible that you'll win the lottery.

This research does show the importance of removing duplicates from the training data though.

[Cyan Leader]

I think the banning AI art, or any models that use the training of data that wasn't explicitly authorized, is a really bad idea for several reasons. I'll list them below.

For starters, if we follow that rule to the letter, should the translated Chinese mods be banned too? How about mods that translate Starsector into other languages? If the translators used DeepL or Google Translate then they would have used an AI that was developed using unauthorized text samples. Most machine translators are guilty of this. Speaking of the Chinese, I doubt that they will abide by these rules so their mods will get even harder for us to access and that's not something good for the western playerbase in my book.

I also have a bone to pick with the kitbashing analogy. If someone makes a mod that has, say, Homeworld inspired ships (like that old mod did), is that "kitbashing" just because it uses the same style? It's obviously not and that's basically what the AI model does. It's very similar to how humans develop our styles. We see things, we are inspired by things and then we make something new that originally was something else. Inspiration and learning on from samples is not the same as copying and pasting literal chunks, which is what kitbashing actually is.

Another problem you'll run into will be, well, the drama. Once this rule solidifies there will eventually be some accusations of people using AI art or whatnot. Bad actors will try claim generated content as their own and the moderation team will have their work cut out for them trying to prove what is AI art and what isn't.

Finally, I foresee the modding community becoming even more fractured than it already has become. There are the modders here, the unofficial Discord, the Chinese modders and their forums, Corvus, Nexus and those in anonymous image boards. The banning of some controversial mods has already caused some splits, but this? It's much bigger than anything that has been done before. It's very much possible that the central modding hub will move away from the forums completely and I'm not sure that will be beneficial to the game nor the community.

All in all, you should let the lawmakers do their jobs and not jump the gun on the issue. I fail to see why a "remove if requested" system wouldn't be inherently superior to causing all this strife.

[RoquetheRogue]

Finally, I foresee the modding community becoming even more fractured than it already has become. There are the modders here, the unofficial Discord, the Chinese modders and their forums, Corvus, Nexus and those in anonymous image boards. The banning of some controversial mods has already caused some splits, but this? It's much bigger than anything that has been done before. It's very much possible that the central modding hub will move away from the forums completely and I'm not sure that will be beneficial to the game nor the community.

For such a niche community, the sheer amount of feuds between modders and the fracture of the community is extremely high
I have been modding games for 11 years and I have worked with various communities as a writer and these communities despite their differences have kept it together, not the case with this one, you see so many discords, so many discord exclusive mods not released in either the forum or the USC discord

This isn't because it would be better for a particular mod author to get more accurate reports for their mod, this is just people being absolute pricks to each other and the result is them forming their own little group separate from the main one

Officially banning AI generated content, will fragment the community a lot more.
Because there are already some AI generated content exclusive discords because even the unofficial discord there have been people picking on others for using AI to generate content for their mod and the result of that was people moving on to create their own little AI gen content discord groups.

[Wyvern]

If someone makes a mod that has, say, Homeworld inspired ships (like that old mod did), is that "kitbashing" just because it uses the same style? It's obviously not and that's basically what the AI model does.

...Except that the AI model is basically kitbashing. Yes, it's a very complicated kitbashing that's using statistics to add details that are mathematically similar to its original input data, rather than literally copying specific pixels around, but that doesn't make it 'inspired', it just means that there's a lot of very complex math obscuring what's going on.

Now, there is - as some have pointed out - perhaps more to this topic than purely the raw ethical concerns; one could argue, for example, that the ethics should be on the people who feed the data in and make the resulting model available, rather than people who use a model that's been made available.

But the core of those ethical concerns are obvious and straightforwards; "AI art" is 100% reconstituted from whatever original data was put into it. It's the refried beans of the art world: you can smush it up all you like until no individual bean is visibly recognizeable as such, but at the end, it's still beans (and if you don't put beans in, you don't get refried beans out).

[Grievous69]

But the core of those ethical concerns are obvious and straightforwards; "AI art" is 100% reconstituted from whatever original data was put into it. It's the refried beans of the art world: you can smush it up all you like until no individual bean is visibly recognizeable as such, but at the end, it's still beans (and if you don't put beans in, you don't get refried beans out).

And that's how the human mind works as well. Everything is a cocktail of data you gathered in your mind which you then use to create "new" things. Hell your mind contains literal millions upon millions of copyrighted data, and illegal stuff. But since you can't poke another's mind with a magnifying glass it's hard to yell "copycat" or call it unethical.

[Igncom1]

AI tools just seem kinda lazy for me, when it comes to art. So I'm against them.

[Alex]

And that's how the human mind works as well.

(I've got to, sincerely and with no offense meant, recommend that you take another look at this. David covered it pretty well, I think, and I have to be honest, the "this is how the human mind works too" takes - not just yours, but in general - imo are just indicative of a lack of understanding. When you get down to the code, the idea that it's anything like the human mind is frankly ridiculous, though the terminology used - "neural" network, "learning", etc - serve to obfuscate this fairly effectively. But, again, I don't want this thread to get too off-topic with general discussion about AI rather than the specific case of its use in mods.)

[Grievous69]

AI tools just seem kinda lazy for me, when it comes to art. So I'm against them.

What kind of argument is that... I think producing music on a computer software is lame compared to recording the sounds yourself, you don't see me trying to ban that for people that want to make music in an easier way.

The more I read responses about this topic, the more I am for AI generated content. And I really really think one huge thing that would happen, as was stated many times previously, is fragmenting the community even more. No one wants that.

@Alex
Ok let's go a step further, how will you and other moderators prove something is AI generated? Obviously some examples are very clear, and some you just can't tell. I feel like you and David immediately chose an opinion about this without thinking how it would affect the modding scene and moderation here. Likewise this is supposed to be a genuine concern, I'm not dissing the opinion itself.

[Igncom1]

AI tools just seem kinda lazy for me, when it comes to art. So I'm against them.

What kind of argument is that... I think producing music on a computer software is lame compared to recording the sounds yourself, you don't see me trying to ban that for people that want to make music in an easier way.

The more I read responses about this topic, the more I am for AI generated content. And I really really think one huge thing that would happen, as was stated many times previously, is fragmenting the community even more. No one wants that.

I think people should be free to use them if they want.

I am still against them.

[Amoebka]

Ok let's go a step further, how will you and other moderators prove something is AI generated?

Realistically, it can only go one way. Established modders will get the benefit of doubt, while newcomers and modders disliked by others for unrelated reasons will get falsely accused and put to the gallows.

[Cyan Leader]

AI tools just seem kinda lazy for me, when it comes to art. So I'm against them.

Why should this up to you and not up to the player deciding to download the mod or not?

The only rule I'd agree with is one that asks modders to put in the thread title that their mod uses AI generated imagery.

[chickenboy]

I build a number of mods for a number of games, ranging from Bannerlord to CK3 to Starsector.
I've recently dabbled in AI generation to create art, because I am personally not an artist and cannot draw.

I understand the moral concerns with training data, and I think this is something that the community needs to strongly work on in order to ensure "clean" training data is used for models.

I am disappointed by the stance that this forum has taken, as in my understanding of the posts you have fully banned AI art in its entirety.
I was planning on writing a short mission story for my Starsector mod, https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=26229.0 which would have included a couple of new characters, and a visit to eventide (a ground event/mission).
I would have written the event text myself, because I enjoy writing stories, but I was planning on using Stable diffusion to create event backgrounds and character portraits.

Given the ban, I see no point in continuing to mod for Starsector, as I can see that my creative works would no longer be welcome here.
It's sad to see what I look at as an enabler for non-artists like myself to create works that include art generated from a model are being used against us instead.

[Matheld]

If you're considering using AI generated content for a mod you're making, please read this post. In brief, it's treated exactly the same as kitbashing, and so it's only allowed if one has the permission/rights to use all of the content in the training dataset.

From the forum's own guidelines. It links right back to this thread, so take care to read every comment from the moderators and Alex himself before jumping to conclusions or make (unintentional or otherwise) false claims when it makes it very clear that AI art isn't necessarily banned in its whole. As long as you can prove that you have permission to use the content of whatever dataset the AI was trained on. It will be allowed.

If you can't prove it however, you're asked to not use it. Which I think is an entirely fair take in all this, even if I am personally vehemently against anything AI.

So if you find a dataset that uses 100% public domain stuff, stuff with permission from artist, and all that, and can prove it? Then you are allowed to use it to produce generated artwork for your mods, to my understanding.

[chickenboy]

If you're considering using AI generated content for a mod you're making, please read this post. In brief, it's treated exactly the same as kitbashing, and so it's only allowed if one has the permission/rights to use all of the content in the training dataset.

From the forum's own guidelines. It links right back to this thread, so take care to read every comment from the moderators and Alex himself before jumping to conclusions or make (unintentional or otherwise) false claims when it makes it very clear that AI art isn't necessarily banned in its whole. As long as you can prove that you have permission to use the content of whatever dataset the AI was trained on. It will be allowed.

If you can't prove it however, you're asked to not use it. Which I think is an entirely fair take in all this, even if I am personally vehemently against anything AI.

So if you find a dataset that uses 100% public domain stuff, stuff with permission from artist, and all that, and can prove it? Then you are allowed to use it to produce generated artwork for your mods, to my understanding.

Given that the standard stable diffusion dataset uses https://laion.ai/blog/laion-5b/ has over 5.85 billion images, I think its safe to say that I will not be able to "prove" all of it is public domain this lifetime. The point of these generative AI models is to draw on large datasets to better train them, which inherently makes it harder to prove the copyright of each image used.

I suppose instead of saying "fully banned AI art in its entirety" I should have said "banned AI art except for very tiny provable datasets that aren't going to useful"
Its like taking away all my building tools and giving me a spoon to nail a hammer, yes its still technically possible but in reality you've taken away the tool to do the job

[Igncom1]

AI tools just seem kinda lazy for me, when it comes to art. So I'm against them.

Why should this up to you and not up to the player deciding to download the mod or not?

The only rule I'd agree with is one that asks modders to put in the thread title that their mod uses AI generated imagery.

It is interesting seeing how worked up people get because other people don't like these tools.