• [R3D4CT3D]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        it’s on the steam store page:

        AI GENERATED CONTENT DISCLOSURE

        The developers describe how their game uses AI Generated Content like this:

        The use of AI in Vice Undercover was strictly limited to enhancing a limited number of database images, such as some faces, objects, and locations. All images began with original photographs taken by the team, which were then used to create datasets for generating initial concepts. These AI-generated images were not used as-is—instead, they served as a starting point for detailed, creative transformation. Every final image was extensively painted, composited, and refined using original photographs and artistic elements, ensuring that all visuals align with the game’s unique style and authenticity. AI was simply one tool in a much larger creative process driven by human artistry.

        https://store.steampowered.com/app/1953850/VICE_Undercover/

        • jqubed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          39
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          That doesn’t sound like a kind of “AI” usage I’m particularly concerned about, but would be willing to listen to reasons of why it is or isn’t a problem

          • ObsidianZed@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            I just genuinely don’t like the look of most AI generated imagery, also there’s the ever prevalent conundrum that is the lack of supporting actual human artists.

            • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              Out of curiosity, did you not like the images before you read that they used AI? Its pretty obvious that it was used as a tool by human artists from the write-up, in the same way that a human artist would use Photoshop.

              • ObsidianZed@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Yes, I actually sought out the AI disclaimer to confirm my suspicions since they had that uncanny valley feel to them.

                A human artist using Photoshop would generally know how to fix that.

          • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            3 days ago

            The AI used was likely trained on sets of data without the consent nor compensation of the people whose works were used.

              • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                I didn’t take it to mean that the AI was exclusively trained on their own images, but good on them if they are.

            • Belgdore@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              I’ve never understood this argument in a vacuum. Fair use includes education. And people have been getting inspired by art they don’t own a copyright to for ever.

              There are lots of other critiques of ai that I do agree with.

              • dzsimbo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Yeah, everything is a remix. I think it all boils down to preferences on copyright and corpos as entities.

                It’s easier for me to accept that an inventor gets a 30+ year copyright (or lifelong for that matter) in our current societal setup. I even understand how most things today are a collaboration, so we need bigger entities to hold such copyrights. And this is the point where I personally start seeing the problems.

                I feel if we keep this up, art will move towards a l’art pour l’art phase. Mass media will turn into something personally tuned and we’ll be charged a premium for something that was touched by human inspiration. Don’t know if I helped or digressed too much, but these are my worries in the vacuum.

        • ObsidianZed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          I almost would have preferred that they lower the quality of the images they took, or use an older camera for more of that “old school jank” vibe they were supposedly going for.