It’ll also use it as learning material, which is something that’s good to be aware of.
To be fair, teachers do that too.
I do agree AI can be useful for the process though. I use image generators sometimes, to conceptualize ideas. (Sometimes the best parts are something where they glitched.)
Grammar AI probably would. Chatbot… I wouldn’t hold my breath.
While I was using AI to help me write better, I noticed it would completely miss the tone of the topic and also summarize it before going into specifics. This is the best AI btw.
Like what @Trista_JW gave for examples.
The AI is horrible at writing past of what info you give it. Almost predictable.
Very good at describing environments though.
No, but it sounds like a personal Lora training, it’s fine if the user isn’t trying to sell the resulting work.
I used to when the art generators came, but now I mainly use local llm now, I need to get back to it honestly.
Probably, I mean people will want to use AI art in their work instead of paying people for indie work, big companies can shell out to human artist though.
I would be all for it, it’s another step to popularize AI art, which is a great thing.
It’s way more beneficial to have AI art then no art at all, just couple weeks again I played a vn called deluge sermon for the dead and it uses a lot of AI art, real fans of the series won’t care and it’s still rated 9/10 on steam.
Hello! I use AI to help me write, but not exactly in the way you are discussing here, I believe.
English is not my first language, so AI helps me a lot to correct some errors. Plus, when I’m not very inclined to write in English or I’m having difficulty, I write in my native language and ask it to translate. Sometimes I write something, don’t like it, and ask the AI for alternative suggestions on how to phrase the same sentence/paragraph.
Does this prevent my game from being published? I mean, I can rewrite the parts where I used AI, but in the end, isn’t it like using Google Translate? I will still have some difficulty writing certain parts and will need to seek external help—without AI, I would use Google Translate to translate things or dictionaries to look up more interesting words to use.
With or without AI, my way of working won’t change much, just have more steps and probably take longer.
Regarding any other use of AI, like for art, I don’t use it neither will I. I also don’t use AI to create my story, characters, setting, etc.
I just want to know if any use of AI is 100% prohibited or if it is possible to use as an alternative tool to those already out there.
Ima be honest here, I think this is simply going to be a case of “If it’s obvious, youll get rightfully burned.”
If you use AI to pretty much translate, and then you work out the prose to suit your own better, then it should be fine. It is a tool, it shouldn’t replace the entirety of one’s writing. If so, THEN it becomes a problem.
If you use it to circumvent writer’s block, to throw ideas off of, to help you get started in research or find a good direction to go off from, that should all be okay.
Hi –
At this point, it would be best to contact Hosted Games support and explain to them how you use it to translate.
This is something that only Hosted Game staff will be able to make a judgement call on.
The support email is: support@choiceofgames.com – you’ll want to attention it to Hosted Games staff, so it gets routed to the correct people.
It is prohibited if you plan to publish.
Translate and AI gen are not the same.
Translate tries to move what you’ve written into the same thing but another language. I’m guessing this would be ok, but you could contact COG to be sure.
AI generation actually generates new work that you haven’t created.
I know it’s hard not being a native english speaker, but if your game gets flagged by detection programs as having AI generated passages it probably won’t get published as you can’t put a copyright on anything AI generated so rightfully so, apart from the iffyness of selling work that may have been created using AI trained and creates derivatives based on on people’s writing/art that haven’t given their permission, I’m guessing COG doesn’t want to go there and get involved in any messy copyright issues that are probably going to get worse in the near future. As it stands, you basically cannot claim ownership of anything that contains AI generated work. Therefore, you cannot licence you game to HG for exclusive publication.
I have less of an issue for people using AI for their own enjoyment or maybe to produce things that aren’t being sold (although I still don’t love the idea of completely unaltered AI work being circulated as someone’s art/writing without it being clear where it has come from, and do have a big issue with the AI’s that replicate particular authors/artist’s styles that are still alive), but for stuff like HG, it’s not really ok.
This randomly came up on my feed. Seems topical and they make some good points. (Thank you tracking cookies, nice to know my searches about the legalities of AI copyright have not gone unnoticed 
.)
AI.
If it was given consent from people, or paid then I say it’s ok.
I seen AI artwork take real people and make new art with it. These with obvious no consent. I don’t like that. I know, it went to public domain opinions, still an issue to me.
Those that paid for art and then using it in AI freely is fine.
AI isn’t good enough. It needs writers and artists to follow up on its work.
I laugh at AI Dungeon and other AI written stuff. They can’t write good still. Again they need a writer to go back over it, badly! They are usually horrible.
I understand why several would use something like AI art programs when money isn’t going well.
AI CoG?! Fuck No!
I already said how horrible AI is currently. It is no good. Plus it will plagiarize, stealing from around net. It will.
AI chat programs are not great. Usually coded with words but its still technically VI, not AI. Virtual Intelligence using blocks of words to do things, most coders will understand VI problems.
Good, scathing piece on the AI bubble – which like blockchain/crypto before it seems to have mostly been good for eye-watering increases in electricity usage.
" Google grew its emissions by 48% in the last five years chasing a technology that made its search engine even worse than it already is, with little to show for it."
I don’t think we should be overly critical. I agree that creating something entirely with AI is foolish, and it exploits honest creators (in terms of AI stealing art for its model), and we all already know that AI is bad. The recent news only confirms that:
But what if we isolated some positive news from all of this? For example, it’s still possible to use ChatGPT for minor tasks like paraphrasing your thoughts or providing inspiration.
Regarding art, I found that Canva and Icons8 claim to use models trained on their own illustrations. While these claims are just words, I haven’t seen similar assurances from others. And don’t we really trust companies like Canva?
I’d love to hear if anyone knows of other examples like this.
Honestly, no, I do not trust companies like Canva, Adobe,or anything else that uses AI.
The only art program I use (or even know how to use, for that matter) is GIMP. I know I’m an odd one out, but there is nothing that will convince me to like or trust AI at all.
I used to think I was willing to be somewhat lenient toward people who admit they use it, especially those who claim they only use it as a “simple tool.” I have changed my mind on that stance; even using it as a so-called “tool” is something I cannot accept; I hate AI.
I see it doing far, too much irreversable harm (blatant plagairism, allowing wannabe “creators” to steal others’ works by generating something “in the style of” another person (which is theft,) the damages that have been done via misinformation and “deepfakes,” how AI as wormed its way into politics. The massive harm it has done and continues to to all creative industries and the way it’s impacted academics, the environment and economy.) Things are only going to continue getting worse, before they become downright horrible.
I absolutely despise seeing anything AI in games; if there is AI-generated “art,” writing, mapping, scripting, or music, I refuse to touch it with a fifty-foot pole, other than to report it. I will never play any game with AI-generated shit in it-- and that’s all AI is to me: complete shit.
People will disagree with me; I know and accept that fact. But I still cannot and will not be able to talk positively about it, as the more I see it used, the less positive, more bitchy and jaded about it I become.
That’s pretty much where I’m at. I struggle to see it as anything other than a bubble that’s already caused, and continued to cause, a ton of difficulties for vast amounts of people (creative people, academics and more, and also just… everyone who’s having to encounter and filter through the swathes of misinformation generated by LLMs), not to mention the environmental impacts.
Why is this bad exactly? The news just confirms that AI is putting people out of work like every tech innovations has done, I don’t see anyone protesting for the horse breeders that went out of work because of cars.
And yes, you can use LLM to help, I imagine in the future you can also give voices to characters with portraits.
shame steam doesn’t allow on the fly AI generation yet, but this is why itch.io is great, I think suck up and the yandere girl game got decent attraction as good example, so the potential is there. There are good game that use pre generated asset but it’s harder to tell and less impressive than on the fly ones.
When AI “art” programs first came out a couple years ago, I thought of them as a fun toy. I didn’t think of it as real art, any more than the pretty designs from a spirograph toy would be. To some extent, I still feel this way - my profile pic on this site was generated by Craiyon, for instance, and I don’t see any harm in keeping it.
But then I started hearing about people using AI for profit, or in serious contexts, and it went a long way toward souring me on the whole thing, especially when I learned that even the models that aren’t based on copying a specific style are still drawing to some degree on the unpaid work of others.
And honestly, one of the things I liked best about it originally was how much of it wasn’t like anything a real human would create - how it was often just subtly “off.” Ironically, as the quality of AI “art” has improved, my interest in tinkering around with it has declined. I’ve barely touched it in months.
Hm. Either we have a very different definition of “tool”, or I need to put in some heavy warnings.
I helped fund a creative mind. They have an artist that makes the art. They then use an AI of that art created to help make it even more realistic. Fingers pressed onto skin and how it affects the skin. It looks great, and knowing the artist is doing both. I accept that.
If my nephew put something on their page, and that got circulated into an AI, without consent. I am fully against. The creator has to give consent.
Celebrities. That’s a mess even before AI technically. I can’t give much take now that I thought about that specific subject.
Actually, a few weeks ago I had to attend a seminar/panel for my study abroad on AI as it pertains to the future of the entertainment industry, and it was really interesting and kind of made me challenge some of my beliefs on AI. It was made up of a few television writers and two producers, and they had some wildly different takes.
The writers were very much against it, saying that it has made their jobs much harder and forced them to have to compete with these giant beasts of programs that were trained on so much work and can pump out content incredibly quickly, that it would be a momentous task to work against its services. Additionally, during the writers’ strike, companies quickly turned to these programs as a way to scab the damage, and it worried them to see the repercussions of the future.
On the producers’ side, they were really excited about the future prospects of the industry using AI, but not for the reasons I assumed. They were excited about the non-generative tools of AI. One thing that stood out to me from the conversation was a script-writing program, where it could analyze a script and produce coverage/an outline, so writers could see if their main points were coming across. Included in the program was a table-reading function, so writers could hear a “realistic-sounding” AI cast read out their script to see if the dialogue held up appropriately. That was something that blew my mind and I think it could be pretty useful, and in this way it made me re-think the use cases of non-generative AI.
Where it gets tricky for me, however, is the case of generative AI. I had asked the producers about the issue of credit, and they were bit, like, wishy-washy about it? They said as it stands there’s no place for generative AI in the industry right now since it can’t be copyrighted, but that it’s the same process a human would go through to create work-- first copying the masters to learn the techniques before producing their own works (which, I’ll say, I don’t really agree with. I think there’s a huge difference between a person sharpening their craft and a machine consuming a huge volume of works to put out something similar). They also compared people’s worry about AI to that of the worry of photoshop, when it first becoming relevant. People thought that photoshop meant the end of photographers’ careers, and yet there’s still a need for them and their artistry. It’s just a tool for creators to use.
So, as it stands, I’m still very against generative AI, although even then it’s complicated. For one of my internships, I have to use generative-fill on photoshop sometimes on graphics to extend the sky, or a wall, or the ground for the photos to fit a certain size. To me, that feels pretty “fine” as a use case, but where is the line drawn? Something to think about, and something I’m still grappling with.
There is zero way to prove that a writer used AI in text, there is some ways to check if an image is AI, but it’s impossible to prove if they did their homework, also good luck with hybrid product, as in part human part AI
Instead of doing an AI witch-hunt that will eat itself as tech improves, a better way in my opinion is just to have the writer display which and how they integrated AI or not, and allow work with such tag to be published, people who support will buy it and people who won’t will not, that’s how it works in steam, anything else is unworkable
The problems with “generative” AI remain legal and moral, and both stem from the fact that “generative” AI doesn’t actually generate anything so much as it does sample from existing work and reconfigure it in a way which follows a prompt.
The legal difficulty lies in the fact that most of these generative AI “services” are sampling from work without permission, which is effectively theft. So long as the amounts being taken are relatively small and nobody’s making any profit off of them, you could make a free use argument - which also applies to things like concept art. As soon as money is involved though, that’s when ownership rights become relevant, and a publisher who makes money off work that is effectively stolen from someone else is in a very nasty legal predicament.
There’s also the fact that stealing that same artwork (visual or text) without permission to flood the “market” with AI-produced facsimiles is also morally repugnant on its face, but also reduces the ability of human artists to produce the very art these “generative” AIs steal from, which leads to the phenomenon of “AI Inbreeding”, where “generative” AI is less capable of creating useful images because instead of using actual human art, it ends up sampling other AI-generated imagery.
Which means the example of car manufacturers and horse breeders is actually an inaccurate one - mostly because generative AI can’t replace human artists, and probably won’t be able to for a long time yet - all it can do is steal from them - making a more accurate analogy being one of horse breeders and horse thieves - wherein the latter both plunder the work of the latter, and render their own profession less viable by doing so.
TL/DR: “Generative” AI being used in any kind of for-profit artistic enterprise is a fucking blight, its use in such avenues should be strongly discouraged, CoG/HG/HC should maintain a blanket ban on publishing any commercial title with AI-generated text or images, and anyone caught out lying about its use in a finished project should be permanently blackballed pour encourager les autres.