AI/LLMs DLSS 5 will be the worst thing to EVER happen to video games

[Justice and Rule]

Okay. The person using it can though.

But they are no longer the artist at that point. They are a commissioner of art, since they aren't the one making it. The AI puts the art together, and the AI has no intent, only algorithms. Again, the courts have ruled that people using AI generators can't copyright art because it isn't actually theirs. It's why I bring it up.

 

[bsss]

But they are no longer the artist at that point. They are a commissioner of art, since they aren't the one making it. The AI puts the art together, and the AI has no intent, only algorithms. Again, the courts have ruled that people using AI generators can't copyright art because it isn't actually theirs. It's why I bring it up.

They are still the artist or art director or whatever of all the assets underlying the DLSS 5 output, and they chose to use DLSS 5. I don't think that undoes their contributions in the source.

Edit: especially noting that the DLSS 5 output is a transformation, and there are adjacent (more, probably) renditions that are DLSS 5-less. The absence of copyright on the AI output depends on an evaluation of the DLSS 5 results, not the whole work. The artist is still the artist.

 

[Justice and Rule]

They are still the artist or art director or whatever of all the assets underlying the DLSS 5 output, and they chose to use DLSS 5. I don't think that undoes their contributions in the source.

Yes, but those are basically covered up by the generative AI, and in some cases outright modified. Again, this is a stripping of intent, since the AI is taking away/adding things without any sort of direction. It's making choices without reasoning, only algorithms.

Edit: especially noting that the DLSS 5 output is a transformation, and there are adjacent (more, probably) renditions that are DLSS 5-less. The absence of copyright on the AI output depends on an evaluation of the DLSS 5 results, not the whole work. The artist is still the artist.

I mean, it's still generative, which means that while it can reference what was there before, it's basically meant to coat over the top of it instead of highlight it. And it's hard to argue that fact when you look at the pictures and see how wildly things like lighting change due to what the AI has accumulated to reference, let alone how it works faces.

And I mean "paint over" pretty literally, since PC World said that the adjustability is largely how transparent or opaque it is.

 

[FrogReaver]

But they are no longer the artist at that point.

Assuming they were to begin with why not? If I take a photo I took and apply a filter to change how it looks, I’m still the photographer.

They are a commissioner of art, since they aren't the one making it. The AI puts the art together, and the AI has no intent, only algorithms. Again, the courts have ruled that people using AI generators can't copyright art because it isn't actually theirs. It's why I bring it up.

That ruling is not in all contexts.

 

[bsss]

It's making choices without reasoning, only algorithms.

And those algorithms are applied per the artist's intent.

 

[FrogReaver]

And those algorithms are applied per the artist's intent.

Besides a ton of pc gamers use mods to modify and/or enhance graphics. They literally are changing the artists intent and no one has ever given a damn.

 

[trappedslider]

Besides a ton of pc gamers use mods to modify and/or enhance graphics. They literally are changing the artists intent and no one has ever given a damn.

and it only matters because "humans"

 

[Justice and Rule]

Assuming they were to begin with why not? If I take a photo I took and apply a filter to change how it looks, I’m still the photographer.

That ruling is not in all contexts.

Filters are different than generative AI, which makes up stuff. And DLSS5 is generative AI.

And those algorithms are applied per the artist's intent.

They are no longer an artist at that point, the are a commissioner of art. They aren't making art anymore, hence why they aren't entitled to copyrighting such works.

Besides a ton of pc gamers use mods to modify and/or enhance graphics. They literally are changing the artists intent and no one has ever given a damn.

Yes, but those are people making choices and their own artistic intent. That's different than an industry-adopted generative-AI program that strips out what the devs are making for no discernable benefit other than promoting an industry-wide bubble, and I feel like that should go without saying.

and it only matters because "humans"

It matters because it's completely different, but sure.

 

[bsss]

Besides a ton of pc gamers use mods to modify and/or enhance graphics. They literally are changing the artists intent and no one has ever given a damn.

Yup! No one minds then, and incidentally, no one claims a mod undoes the artist-ness behind the original.

 

[Tea Cozy]

DLSS 5 output does not lose its eligibility for copyright.

“It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts. The Office confirms that the use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability.”

NewsNet Issue 1060 | U.S. Copyright Office

Copyright Office Releases Part 2 of Artificial Intelligence Report

www.copyright.gov