Kickstarter Is Cracking Down On AI And Promoting Human Creativity

It’s very telling that cryptobros and NFT idiots have pivoted towards AI. Comes from the same place of arrogance.

It's nice how they are handling this matter, instead of just banning AI.

Since AI just mashes human - generated pictures together for "pictures resembling art", every single author of every single piece that AI would use will still have to be fully credited, so it's gonna be a complete nightmare to use AI generated images for commercial purposes. If you wanted to do it legally, simply hiring an artist would be a much better choice both in financial and quality related terms

@RupeeClock Sure, that's what I meant. Crediting is necessary if a piece is copyright protected, and if they use their own previously bought/licensed databases, it's fine.

Even the AI trained on vast oceans of protected images is able to produce a very low quality image, though, so I doubt that any self respecting creator would use them. It's their problem, though

Good hopefully others follow suit. AI should be seen as false advertising. Too easy to fake a project or promise way more than than project could ever actually create. Type in a few prompts and could easily fake a game being made.

I don't follow gaming funding projects but I've seen lots of indie films use ai to make photos for their fundraiser projects. Use images there is no way they would be able to reproduce but trying to act like that's how their movie is going to look.

To be honest judging by the regurgitation of ideas it looks like they have been using AI for years.

But good to hear that there is some regulation for AI, and that they will have to say when it is being used.

Good.

There's a character minimum on comments, so allow me to repeat: good.

As long as AI is not regulated, I won't be supportive of it. It's such a slap in the face to artists.

The credited authors of human-created project parts will be randomly interviewed in a separate chat with every message submission requiring a capcha.

@CharlieGirl good, very good. Excellent, even. Magnificent, one could say.

Sounds like good new from the looks of it. I'll say this as well:

"Good show! Jolly, good show!"

@RupeeClock yes, but what I meant - from what I've seen, the AI generates images that can't really be called exemplary. I'm a very weak beginner at art, and even I can outperform it, so it kinda gives you the perspective. The problem is, AI does not think, therefore it does not understand, so it can't grasp the concept of 3d space on 2d canvas.

"Personally, I think that AI image generation should only be used as a toy for one's personal enjoyment, and as a way to develop ideas and concepts internally. I wouldn't actually use the exported results in works except potentially for things like generating environment and material textures for 3D work."
100% agreed

AI is harmless and has been turned into a boogeyman by people that have no idea what AI even is/does.

Anybody played Disney's Illusion Island?
I get the feeling that this game was completely made through AI, the environments, the maps, the "enemies", the NPCs ... it all looks so random and inconsistant.
Not completely dumb AI though, it did consider the speed of the characters, I mean, if they weren't that slow, the game would be played 100% in under 2h.

@JackieCMarlow nothing that is put in human hands is harmless.

@JackieCMarlow Yeah, it's SO harmless that it's likely that 30% of low and middle-income jobs will be lost because of A.I. by 2030 according to former experts in the field sounding the alarm. That's nearly 1/3rd of all low to middle-income workers being out of a job...SMDH.

@LilyGoMEOW Not saying that it won't but as I see it now, the employers would not afford the risk of having highly faulty AI do the work for the same reasons they don't outsource all the work to 3rd world countries (some do, but come to quickly regret it), and those reasons are responsibility for potential damages and quality of work.

@RupeeClock that would be one thing, but my point is, even with simple recreation of depth, AI wouldn't be able to make images with satisfactory quality for commercial purposes because it does not understand the art, and never will.

@nessisonett The one silver lining to these grifts hitting back-to-back and overlapping with certain types of people is that they become increasingly easy to spot.

Especially in light of how we're now realizing that some types of convenience we've adopted haven't come without sacrifice of bargaining power, people are thankfully becoming more critical of tech bros showing up to "disrupt the market" while hand-waving logistical and ethical concerns.

Good, really if someone's just generating AI art, etc. for the projects what are they even doing asking for funding for?

For regular projects you're actually funding developers, artists, writers, etc. A game where someone is just generating AI pictures, the quality will be the same regardless of how much money they're given.

@Princess_Lilly Unfortunately you'd be incorrect. There's been reports of layoffs already and replacing positions with these programs or hiring artists only for clean-up work of generated imagery. This stuff is already in the wild and being used.

Which is precisely why it needs a stigma: a tool should not be a replacement.

And that dude Jackie above is the kinda attitude most AI-bros have regarding artists who are rallying and actively against these Generative Algorithm Machines. This is in spite of many artists finding out and being informed of how these things are trained, how their algorithms work, and how the generation works.

@MegaVel91 well then, if a company is okay with offering low quality products, it's their portfolio, their reputation, and their problem.

I am all for stigmatizing people using AI, don't get me wrong. It's just that a tool itself is not good or evil. It's the people who are at fault. In other words, saying "AI is bad" is not as impactful as saying "people who use AI are bad", since the latter clearly puts the blame on someone instead of an unthinking tool.

"I'm a real boy!" That made me laugh.
They should call it Pinocchiart

Tech bros think all new tech is magic. They can't explain why but they speak as if it can solve all problems. Crypto currency and NFTs have zero useful applications. When it wasn't fully understood, tech bros imagined any possibility, but when it actually got used it was entirely used for scams.

So far all I've seen AI used for is spam. Fortunately, it is so awful that I doubt interest will get past the initial novelty.

I dislike being so cynical but I can't help it. I don't trust Kickstarter after their blockchain shenanigans. Real human creators are suing the makers of AI technology for stealing their work. I bet Kickstarter wants to avoid any legal trouble. They don't actually care about ethics.

@LilyGoMEOW 30% of low and middle-income jobs will be lost because of A.I. by 2030? That's awesome!

We should be automating low-skilled and tedious work so that we humans don't have to waste our time on that crap. 1,000 years ago most humans worked as sustenance farmers to survive. Do you want to go back to those days of back-breaking labour or are you happy with automated farms freeing us to do better and more productive work?

The transition might be painful, but fighting progress is bad for everyone. We need to embrace AI and focus on transitioning people to new and better jobs.

@Quarbit Get out of here, evangelist.

@Quarbit Would be nice if they focus on transitioning to better jobs before they put people on the street and have AI take over their job that kept them fed, but I think reality isn’t quite that sweet, is it?

Have to wonder what the ‘better’ alternative is for artists too who have a passion for what they make but the money machine won’t care if AI just does it faster. Magic those new and better jobs out to the people being replaced first, then we’ll talk about how purely awesome these AI lay-offs are.

@Quarbit Ha. We all know that people will just be transitioned into even lower income jobs, or become homeless. There's not suddenly going to become a new need for employees as a result of this. The money will just keep getting siphoned out of the system once the people who have money no longer need to pay people to make more money.

AI will kill of artists just like the calculator killed off the mathematician.

@Picagrande You call people against AI room temperature IQ, and yet reduce their concerns down to nothing but being about their jobs. You really have no room to speak about being stupid.

@Takoda @link3710 @MegaVel91 I'm honestly convinced those people are just A.I. bots themselves lol.

@LilyGoMEOW You'd be surprised how many people on the Bird App literally respond to anti-AI posts with -no joke- response templates that are wholly meant to try to make them sound intelligent.

@Picagrande @Quarbit If AI took over every job it could feasibly do, the people who lost their jobs to it wouldn't just be able to find other work because there wouldn't be enough jobs. It's not simply a case of "well they should have gone into another field" because those fields that still need human employees won't suddenly have an influx of open positions. There will be substantially fewer jobs than working people. Then the poverty rate skyrockets because people can't find work. Then what?

@stungun No point in asking, they didn't think that far.

@Dr_Lugae That argument doesn't make sense. What about creating all the actual mechanics, and putting it all together? You know, basically everything that makes a game a game. Art is only one of the many things required to complete a game.

Not to say that I am supportive of AI art, though, quite the contrary, if we could shut down every AI project in the world outside medicine, I would be all for it.

AI taking over art is the LEAST of our problems. It's coming for everything and no profession is safe.

@Princess_Lilly
That’s a really good point. How crediting of source material evolves with AI will be really interesting.

@stungun Then you introduce a basic income likely funded by a tax on automation. Again, you don't fight progress, you use automation to improve the lives of everyone.

@Quarbit Most wealthy governments already do a poor job at taking care of people who are unemployed or even homeless. There would be substantially less tax revenue to support unemployed people because there would be substantially less people paying taxes. And at least in the US, many of those massive corporations who would profit from replacing jobs with AI currently don't pay taxes.

I get what you're trying to say, it's very utopian and optimistic. But it doesn't reflect the reality of our society. Most large corporations implement automation to save money. They don't care if it makes someone's job easier or outright eliminates it. Outside of areas like medical science, it's rarely done with altruism in mind. Companies trying to save money isn't "progress".

Do you trust corporations to suddenly stop being greedy? Do you trust governments to suddenly start taking care of people in need? If and when society reaches that point, that's the only real level of progress where society as a whole would actually benefit from what you're suggesting. No, we shouldn't just embrace corporations replacing jobs with automation and AI en masse and hope that those other things suddenly fall into place before a global economic crisis occurs.

@stungun Governments already take care of people in need. During the 20th century, massive investment in social programs was made by governments all over the world to address social inequalities and many countries became welfare states. Pensions, universal healthcare, social security, welfare, etc. all became commonplace (at least among wealthy countries) in the last 100 years due to economic prosperity and technological advancement.

I have a utopian and optimistic view of the future because that's what history indicates will happen. As automation takes over and unemployment goes up, governments will be under pressure by the public to address the issue because that's how democracies work and we've already seen this happen many times before in history. Rich CEOs can only pressure governments so much; at the end of the day, that rich CEO is still only one vote.

@Quarbit Well I don't know where you live, but in the US we absolutely do not have universal healthcare, one political party is trying to cut social security, a large portion of the country does not believe in welfare because they have no empathy for those in need, and it doesn't matter if a CEO only has one vote because when members of Congress and the Senate make legislative decisions that only benefit the people who are already rich. The things that you're suggesting are supposedly already commonplace in wealthy countries are by no means overwhelmingly popular ideas here. Half of elected politicians consider those ideas to be Communist and therefore evil, and that each of them bring the US one step closer to being an authoritarian dictatorship.

It's nice to think that once a crisis becomes serious enough that the government will surely step in and do something about it to make things right. But mass shootings have been a regular occurrence for the past 15-20 years and nothing has been done about that.