Vapourware How will AI affect RPGs?

[turkishronin]

How about better AI in SP strategy games, or use it to create better random maps? Is that at all feasible?

We will have full games made by AI before a functional naval AI in strategy games or companion AI in rpgs

 

[Kev Inkline]

If it's a modern companion, it's going to be dysfunctional by definition.

 

[Atrachasis]

StableDifusion is walking into what I think will become a massive copyright litigation hell because it is using copyrighted material for training and the material it produces in many cases are derivative and not transformative as claimed, worse, you can even type the name of the artist you want the Ai to use, this will be turned illegal, 100%.

Japan made a law that dictates AI can freely use copyrighted material if it's for purpose of training it I think other nations will also follow suit.

He does have a point, though. You can quite easily prompt these image generators to reproduce a specific image from the training set, which means that any time anyone distributes the trained model, they will be distributing (low-quality versions of) images from the training set as well. That can't be legal, can it?

Using the output for your own game is a different matter, of course, unless you are very careless with your prompt. Artistic styles can't be copyrighted.

 

[Peachcurl]

How about better AI in SP strategy games, or use it to create better random maps? Is that at all feasible?

Regarding AI in SP strategy games:
- I think it's feasible to do, but unlike image and text generation, it is not so easy to generate / collect _human_ gameplay recordings. And that's what you need to make it feel good / believable. You also need to think about difficulty scaling.

Regarding random maps:
- I'd even go so far to call this trivial, and would be highly surprised if people do not already do that.

 

[Correct_Carlo]

StableDifusion is walking into what I think will become a massive copyright litigation hell because it is using copyrighted material for training and the material it produces in many cases are derivative and not transformative as claimed, worse, you can even type the name of the artist you want the Ai to use, this will be turned illegal, 100%.

Truth. People have been finding that you can even get the AI to spit out exact replicas of current, copyrighted, works with minor differences. What they are doing is likely illegal within the bounds of current copyright law. However, there's grey in it that will likely need actual new laws to address what AI can and can't do when it comes to training based on copyrighted works. The problem is that US lawmakers still have not dealt with legal complications from Web 2.0 type content, which was 20+ years ago now. I highly doubt they are going to be pro-active about this. So the courts will end up fighting it out, which could take years. I have more hope for the EU, who is much more proactive about these sorts of things, but it still takes them much longer.

When it comes to AI models we need:

1. Some kind of technology that artists can employ to prevent their work from being used for AI training.
2. Complete, legally enforced, transparency about what derivative works and sources were used to feed AI learning models and create an artwork or piece of writing. If ChatGPT creates something for you, it needs to spit out a list of the sources it used to create it. If StableDifusion's AI creates an art work for you, it needs to spit out a list of all the artwork that it used to create it, with percentages to indicate influence.

I highly doubt both companies could do that right now, as I'm guessing that they never bothered creating a system at the start to tag content they are feeding to their AI and track it through the process. There's also the murky and difficult problem of distinguishing between sources that were merely used to mimic structural elements, and sources that were cited as content.

I doubt it. Plenty of material is available free of copyright, or under some anything-goes license. Or will be made available at a negligible price. Or will be made available by artists who support AI. etc. etc.
The curation process becomes more difficult, but still feasible for the industry.

The vast majority of open access content online, especially when it comes to artworks, is licensed with Creative Commons "Non-Commercial" licenses, which means that AI companies shouldn't be using it for training. This makes me wonder how Creative Commons and the Open Access movement in general will respond to this. I think they should respond, to make sure licenses are being enforced, as individual artists who post art online won't have the resources to do it themselves.

 

[Popiel]

StableDifusion is walking into what I think will become a massive copyright litigation hell because it is using copyrighted material for training and the material it produces in many cases are derivative and not transformative as claimed, worse, you can even type the name of the artist you want the Ai to use, this will be turned illegal, 100%.

Truth. People have been finding that you can even get the AI to spit out exact replicas of current, copyrighted, works with minor differences. What they are doing is likely illegal within the bounds of current copyright law. However, there's grey in it that will likely need actual new laws to address what AI can and can't do when it comes to training based on copyrighted works. The problem is that US lawmakers still have not dealt with legal complications from Web 2.0 type content, which was 20+ years ago now. I highly doubt they are going to be pro-active about this. So the courts will end up fighting it out, which could take years. I have more hope for the EU, who is much more proactive about these sorts of things, but it still takes them much longer.

When it comes to AI models we need:

1. Some kind of technology that artists can employ to prevent their work from being used for AI training.
2. Complete, legally enforced, transparency about what derivative works and sources were used to feed AI learning models and create an artwork or piece of writing. If ChatGPT creates something for you, it needs to spit out a list of the sources it used to create it. If StableDifusion's AI creates an art work for you, it needs to spit out a list of all the artwork that it used to create it, with percentages to indicate influence.

I highly doubt both companies could do that right now, as I'm guessing that they never bothered creating a system at the start to tag content they are feeding to their AI and track it through the process. There's also the murky and difficult problem of distinguishing between sources that were merely used to mimic structural elements, and sources that were cited as content.

This shit is hilarious for many reasons but I'll list just one. You do realize that this is exactly what a human being is doing when learning to craft art, do you? People learn new skills through emulation and repetition. That's how it was always done, for hundreds of years, even more so: excelling at emulation of the master was what gave you praise, especially in music (I'm speaking about European tradition now, though I doubt it's much different in other places). AI is doing what humans are doing, it's just doing it much faster than humans do it, it's much more efficient in how it's emulating works of others and other caveats. If we'll limit development of this tech because some poor schnobs who had sunk their lives in debt going to artsy colleges to learn how to draw are now crying because a script is replacing them then we should go and cry over all these poor peasants replaced by tractors.

Tl;dr: moron lawmakers will curb development of the human race because some xir/xe people are crying on deviantart.

 

[Dadd]

If we'll limit development of this tech because some poor schnobs who had sunk their lives in debt going to artsy colleges to learn how to draw are now crying because a script is replacing them then we should go and cry over all these poor peasants replaced by tractors.

Good thing art schools don't teach students how to draw anymore

 

[Correct_Carlo]

This shit is hilarious for many reasons but I'll list just one. You do realize that this is exactly what a human being is doing when learning to craft art, do you? People learn new skills through emulation and repetition. That's how it was always done, for hundreds of years, even more so: excelling at emulation of the master was what gave you praise, especially in music (I'm speaking about European tradition now, though I doubt it's much different in other places). AI is doing what humans are doing, it's just doing it much faster than humans do it, it's much more efficient in how it's emulating works of others and other caveats. If we'll limit development of this tech because some poor schnobs who had sunk their lives in debt going to artsy colleges to learn how to draw are now crying because a script is replacing them then we should go and cry over all these poor peasants replaced by tractors.

Tl;dr: moron lawmakers will curb development of the human race because some xir/xe people are crying on deviantart.

No, actually. There are pretty strict laws governing what is considered an adaptation, and what is merely influence, and I've seen many examples of AI models breaking them outright.

However, even apart from that, these are for-profit companies using an artist's copyrighted work to feed a proprietary algorithm that they then package and sell. Even if the AI never creates a picture with that work that would violate what the law considers an "adaptation," that's still an instance of a company illegally profiting on your work without your permission in a way that uses your work to create a tangible product that they are selling. There absolutely is some grey in this within the bounds of current law, but that's why I think we need legislation to clarify.

Honestly, this is why Facebook has agreements when you join that require you to basically sign away all your rights to your data in order to use the service. They are taking things that you have rights to and using it to generate algorithms that they sell to marketers. If StableDifusion were smart, it'd do something similar: create a social media website where people "share art," while also signing away their rights to that art, so they can use it to generate AI. However, I think that method would be much more difficult for them to pull off, especially now.

 

[Peachcurl]

I doubt it. Plenty of material is available free of copyright, or under some anything-goes license. Or will be made available at a negligible price. Or will be made available by artists who support AI. etc. etc.
The curation process becomes more difficult, but still feasible for the industry.

The vast majority of open access content online, especially when it comes to artworks, is licensed with Creative Commons "Non-Commercial" licenses, which means that AI companies shouldn't be using it for training. This makes me wonder how Creative Commons and the Open Access movement in general will respond to this. I think they should respond, to make sure licenses are being enforced, as individual artists who post art online won't have the resources to do it themselves.

Citation needed on non-commercial CC. I'm under the impression that the CC versions allowing commercial use are applied more often, and in fact are the majority. The more valid question is probably: do Stable Diffusion et al. comply with the OTHER terms of the various license versions (BY terms, SA terms). Because the free-for-all version is definitely a minority.

And whether or not the non-commercial licenses are violated: We'll see. It's been discussed to death in many places, I don't think there's much to add before the courts nail this down.
But yes, the CC people should respond to this, and they already have, at least in terms of communication:

https://creativecommons.org/2021/03/04/should-cc-licensed-content-be-used-to-train-ai-it-depends/

Our licenses do not restrict reuse to any particular types of reuse or technologies, so long as the attribution (BY), share-alike (SA), no-derivatives (ND) and non-commercial (NC) terms are respected. Therefore, strictly from a copyright perspective, no special or explicit permission is required from the licensor to use CC-licensed content to train AI applications to the extent that copyright permission is required at all.2 In addition, our licenses do not override limitations and exceptions, such as fair use. If a use is not one that requires permission under copyright or sui generis database rights (e.g. text and data mining allowed under an exception), one may conduct the AI training activity without regard to the CC license.

 

[Theodora]

Generically written quest dialogue could be replaced by generically written quest dialogue (but by an AI).

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Shallow content will be reshuffled, and out comes *moar* shallow content.

 

[Shaki]

How about better AI in SP strategy games

Afaik we already could have really good AI in strategies long time ago, the reason devs don't implement non-retarded AI is because they think people wouldn't play that shit. 99% of players want to play against AI that acts reasonable from the lore/RP perspective, instead of focusing purely on win conditions, cheesing and metagaming like players in MP games will do.

 

[Dadd]

How about better AI in SP strategy games

Afaik we already could have really good AI in strategies long time ago, the reason devs don't implement non-retarded AI is because they think people wouldn't play that shit. 99% of players want to play against AI that acts reasonable from the lore/RP perspective, instead of focusing purely on win conditions, cheesing and metagaming like players in MP games will do.

But good AI is one of the most demanded features in strategy game forums

 

[Justicar]

It will make them even shittier you will get cringfinder tier writing with endless dialogue cause voice acting will cost nothing.

 

[Berengar]

If they can finally get ai companions to stop taking braindead routes when you send them somewhere I'm all for it.

 

[Alex]

Like every other fad, it will make them worse.

 

[moon knight]

We already have AI voice and AI dialogue writer. How could RPGs utilize them? Can we have organic C&C?

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

StableDifusion is walking into what I think will become a massive copyright litigation hell because it is using copyrighted material for training and the material it produces in many cases are derivative and not transformative as claimed, worse, you can even type the name of the artist you want the Ai to use, this will be turned illegal, 100%.

Japan made a law that dictates AI can freely use copyrighted material if it's for purpose of training it I think other nations will also follow suit.

He does have a point, though. You can quite easily prompt these image generators to reproduce a specific image from the training set, which means that any time anyone distributes the trained model, they will be distributing (low-quality versions of) images from the training set as well. That can't be legal, can it?

That's like saying the existence of a DVD writer violates copyright because the user could possibly direct it to duplicate copyrighted DVDs. It's the user's fault if he copy's others' works.

 

[jac8awol]

Just depends what data is being used to train the AI. If input = Dragon Age, Tyranny, Outer Worlds, (any other modern stuff really) then you can expect the AI to generate RPGs based around dangerhair feminists going up against patriarchal institutions with plenty of side quests about helping gay companions stick it to their families. Basically the same shit we are getting already.
Now if on the other hand input is strictly controlled and a developer got the AI to only study Fallout 1,2, Baldurs Gate (for example).. I'd be very interested to see what sort of world, NPCs, quests, dialogues etc would be generated.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Now if on the other hand input is strictly controlled and a developer got the AI to only study Fallout 1,2, Baldurs Gate (for example).. I'd be very interested to see what sort of world, NPCs, quests, dialogues etc would be generated.

The water pump broke which means we have people suffering from iron deficiency. Our guns are all of poor quality because your half brother has been doing experiments with radioactive materials. Your companions are a super mutant who wants to protect his pet dog and a stuttering man who keeps shooting you in the back.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Generically written quest dialogue could be replaced by generically written quest dialogue (but by an AI).

IDK, I think AI can be creative.

ChatGPT can even write poems:

Ma'am I Am

Hello, my friend! Hello to you!
I need to tell you something new!

Hello, good sir! Hello, I say!
Please tell me why you’re dressed this way!

I am so glad we meet once more!
You knew me as a man before.
I changed my name! I changed my hair!
I put on ladies’ underwear!
You must not ever call me “sir.”
I am a she! I am a her!

I see your hair. It is a wig.
Your Adam’s apple still looks big.
You are a man, and that is clear.
I do not see a woman here.
I must admit, it’s rather odd
To hear you say you’re now a broad.

I am a woman! Call me ma’am!
You have to call me Ma’am I Am!
I wear a skirt! I wear high heels!
I feel just how a lady feels!

You cannot know how ladies feel.
It is not true. It is not real.
A woman’s more than shoes or clothes.
I do not care if you have those.

I am a woman! You can see!
I had expensive surgery!
A surgeon came! He gave me tits!
He changed my junk to lady bits!
My pronouns now are “she” and “her.”
I am a woman! I am sure!

A saline bag is not a breast.
A woman’s more than how you’re dressed.
You are a man. This is a sham.
I will not, cannot, call you ma’am.
I will not, cannot, say a lie.
I wish you well, but now: goodbye!

I made the city change a law
To let me use the women’s spa
But now I do not want to go!
It is your fault, I’ll have you know!
You have been mean! You have been rude!
You’ve put me in a sour mood!
I am so mad! I feel such stress!
I think I may have PMS!

You have no uterus, so no:
You cannot bleed from down below.
I do not like your padded bra!
You should not use the women’s spa!
You tell me you had surgery;
Your pronouns still are “him” and “he.”
Your chromosomes are X and Y.
That means you’ll always be a guy.

You gave yourself a girly name.
That does not mean you’re now a dame.
A surgeon chopped your eggs and ham?
I still won’t call you Ma’am I Am.

Police! Police! It is not fair!
You must arrest that person there!
His hateful speech has frightened me!
He made me sad! He called me “he”!

Now come with us for being bad.
You should not make this lady sad.
To jail with you & there you’ll stay
Until you change the words you say.

I will not change them! I refuse!
A woman’s more than clothes or shoes!
The DNA in every cell
Is how a scientist can tell!
You cannot force me to agree
Because he’s taking HRT!

You cannot force me to comply!
I will not, cannot, say a lie!
A woman’s more than how you feel!
It is not true! It is not real!

To jail with you! That’s quite enough!
You must not say such awful stuff!
You should have called this lady “ma’am”!
We’re very sorry, Ma’am I Am.
Because he did not call you “she”
We’ll lock him up and lose the key.

At last that horrid man is gone!
I think I’ll hit the nail salon!
And then I’ll buy athletic shorts.
I think I could be good at sports!
I may be getting fat and old
But still, I bet I’ll win the gold!
I’ll beat those girls! I know I can!
I’m bigger! Stronger!
I’m a man!

 

[cretin]

How about better AI in SP strategy games

Afaik we already could have really good AI in strategies long time ago, the reason devs don't implement non-retarded AI is because they think people wouldn't play that shit. 99% of players want to play against AI that acts reasonable from the lore/RP perspective, instead of focusing purely on win conditions, cheesing and metagaming like players in MP games will do.

I've constantly heard some refrain of that form - oh we COULD make good ai, but you wouldn't like it - and its just fucking nonsense, i remember devs saying this exact thing about some tactical FPS i forget, and it turned out their idea of good "AI" was just to increase the reaction time and precision of the bot's hitscan to superhuman levels .

Armed with ridiculously powerful modern CPUs, the industry apparently can't even make AI in the simple genres like FPS at the level of CS 1.6 or Quake 3 bots, but totes could make human tier AI in strategic games but dont because it wouldnt be fuuuuuunnnn for the poor players, most of whom spend the bulk of their time playing against human players for their intelligence. Yeah I don't believe this shit for a second. Occam's Razor: they dont implement non retarded AI because they dont know how to.

 

[Apostle Hand]

rpgs will be harder to beat

 

[Yosharian]

We already have AI voice and AI dialogue writer. How could RPGs utilize them? Can we have organic C&C?

NPC dialogue will improve, especially the spelling

 

[Atrachasis]

StableDifusion is walking into what I think will become a massive copyright litigation hell because it is using copyrighted material for training and the material it produces in many cases are derivative and not transformative as claimed, worse, you can even type the name of the artist you want the Ai to use, this will be turned illegal, 100%.

Japan made a law that dictates AI can freely use copyrighted material if it's for purpose of training it I think other nations will also follow suit.

He does have a point, though. You can quite easily prompt these image generators to reproduce a specific image from the training set, which means that any time anyone distributes the trained model, they will be distributing (low-quality versions of) images from the training set as well. That can't be legal, can it?

That's like saying the existence of a DVD writer violates copyright because the user could possibly direct it to duplicate copyrighted DVDs. It's the user's fault if he copy's others' works.

Not quite. The fact that you can replicate specific training images from the neural network means that the original artwork is still encoded somewhere in these Gigabytes of network weights. That's hardly the case for a DVD writer, but it is the case for the DVD itself.

But we're talking about two different things here. It is the model itself (and its distribution) that runs a risk of running afoul of copyright law. I've had the same issues with data privacy: If you train a neural network on clinical data, there is a very real (albeit exaggerated, IMHO) concern on some parts that data pertaining to a specific patient might be recoverable from the network. The artwork that you create with it should, in general, be OK to use, so I agree with you there, but the technology itself has some legal issues to resolve.