Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
A.I. GENERATION AND RMN
Posts
Darken
3952
Darken
View playlists
CloseKumoriCloudGames
This is a pretty awful move in my opinion from this site that restricts a lot of upcoming talent. I don't understand why it's cool and quirky to steal assets from other games, but then not use AI for a simple grass texture or reference;
the rips as a gotcha argument is getting stupid because it's always been a murky rule of what's allowed to be ripped and what's not. It's inconsistent in the first place so pointing it out seems really redundant unless you're pushing for rules to be more strict.
The point is that this is a hobbyist website; really, this shouldn't be up to a site's admins; this is up to the developer, as I will be truthful this site has a problem with the admins enforcing there beliefs on any given topic, and creating a chamber of only people who agree with said given belief.
this is every online forum, there's always going to be a rule created based on someone's personal belief. this site rejects games for not having enough screenshots or not passing a certain standard which is all up to a user with biases and whatever jurisdiction.
Again, rips as they are used are more akin to fanart or sampling, and it is obvious that you are lifting FF6 or Chrono or Rudras. Sampling and fanart are typical cool uses of existing art assets.
AI images is like stealing from 3000 anonymous artists and obfuscating those sources. I'm not sure why people are equating the two
AI images is like stealing from 3000 anonymous artists and obfuscating those sources. I'm not sure why people are equating the two
It really is a dumb argument because we've been very clear on what we do and do not allow when it comes to ripping anyway. We have rules for it. It's not a carte blanc on any and all rips to use however you want, whenever.
- you can't commercialise anything with rips
- you can't claim rips as your own work (yes, even traced over or 'used as base' edits)
- you can't use rips from fellow indie game devs (meaning, don't use graphics from, say, Omori or Undertale or the like (at least without permission))
They've been the rules for years and have been upheld since they were put into effect.
As for the "but how would you even know, you can't police everything" argument - of course we can't. That's why we have the ability to deny things retroactively and have done in the past. Hawkmen didn't even have a game attached when it was accepted to the site but once it was and once players saw that it was equating things like sexual assault to 'asking for it', it was removed asap.
If you knowingly create a game that uses AI content and then the game is later found to have AI content, it'll get removed. Just like any game that was found to have porn or found to have stolen anything. Sure, we'll check first, but if we find it to be true, then it'll fall on your head for either knowingly breaking the rules or using art that you didn't bother to check credit for (which you should be doing anyway). Either way, it was your own failure, but again, it'd be taken case by case.
- you can't commercialise anything with rips
- you can't claim rips as your own work (yes, even traced over or 'used as base' edits)
- you can't use rips from fellow indie game devs (meaning, don't use graphics from, say, Omori or Undertale or the like (at least without permission))
They've been the rules for years and have been upheld since they were put into effect.
As for the "but how would you even know, you can't police everything" argument - of course we can't. That's why we have the ability to deny things retroactively and have done in the past. Hawkmen didn't even have a game attached when it was accepted to the site but once it was and once players saw that it was equating things like sexual assault to 'asking for it', it was removed asap.
If you knowingly create a game that uses AI content and then the game is later found to have AI content, it'll get removed. Just like any game that was found to have porn or found to have stolen anything. Sure, we'll check first, but if we find it to be true, then it'll fall on your head for either knowingly breaking the rules or using art that you didn't bother to check credit for (which you should be doing anyway). Either way, it was your own failure, but again, it'd be taken case by case.
I long for the day Liberty can make an admin decision on this site without someone calling her a tyrannical overlord lmao
Edit: Also I can’t believe i have to resort to pointing out the obvious difference between rips and ai art but,
Rips - You’re taking assets from a corporation that isn’t going to suffer in any way because you made a final fantasy fangame
Ai art - You’re taking an amalgamation of the works of big and small independent artists alike, the latter of which will suffer as this poses the risk of putting them out of work, hurting their commissions, and overbloats the internet reducing their visibility
Edit: Also I can’t believe i have to resort to pointing out the obvious difference between rips and ai art but,
Rips - You’re taking assets from a corporation that isn’t going to suffer in any way because you made a final fantasy fangame
Ai art - You’re taking an amalgamation of the works of big and small independent artists alike, the latter of which will suffer as this poses the risk of putting them out of work, hurting their commissions, and overbloats the internet reducing their visibility
Nenen
50
author=Liberty
- Is it used to enhance/change your creation as a tool, not using other unknown peoples' creations? Yes. (Think Gaussian blur or the healing tool in photoshop).
- Are you using AI generation as a way to avoid the creation process? No.
I'd guess that this would somewhat answer my question for AI tools on whether it's allowed if they're completely trained on only your own stuff or not.
edit1: (Not sure if that would be worth my time anyways, essp. with my potato pc XD)
EDIT2:
author=FroggeNah, I think people will always cry out for the end of Liberty :P (NO MOAR FREEDOM!)
I long for the day Liberty can make an admin decision on this site without someone calling her a tyrannical overlord lmao
Yeah, if it's your own stuff, you can do what you want with it because it's your own stuff... well, within reason. Something like artbreeder using only your own images would be fine, but using your own image mixed with someone else's would be a problem. Hope that makes sense.
One day they'll listen to me and not argue. It'll probably be the day I quit and the quitting is what they don't argue about. XD
One day they'll listen to me and not argue. It'll probably be the day I quit and the quitting is what they don't argue about. XD
Shinan
4314
And always remember, just like with stealing your other game assets, using AI is okay if no one knows you're using it
Irog
4858
author=JosephSeraph
"to be decent at something, you need to have 1000h of experience doing that thing"
Definitely ! Even though I've heard it with 10 000 hours.
KrimsonKatt, I'm sure you'll become a competent artist if you invest time and effort into it.
I think (artists can correct me on this) that what drains motivation to learn art is the lack of instant feedback about your progress. As programmers, we get instant feedback from the compiler: it slaps error messages at our face and refuses to compile our code if we did anything wrong. Artist have to seek feedback from their peers which requires patience and the ability to take criticisms from other humans. Moreover art feedback is often public, like on art forums, which can hurt the art learner's confidence.
On the topic of AI
It's very frustrating that programming game AI is no longer considered AI in its own right. The new AI technology (often used unethically) is stealing the name "AI" and devalues the creative effort of the programmer who codes game AI.
author=Shinan
And always remember, just like with stealing your other game assets, using AI is okay if no one knows you're using it
I mean, yeah tbh. We aren't omniscient
For what its worth, I'd like to throw my opinion into the mix. First of all, I do not want to argue Libby's announcement, the decisions of the site admins are more or less final, all I wish though is that some of these things would be discussed in a more public matter before being decided upon.
Some arguments, specifically JosephSeraph's and Sidewinder's, are compelling arguments against a carpet ban of all AI-generated stuff. I am not a fan of AI generated images/assets, but there are non-unethical uses of said tools.
I also echo Sgt M's sentiment that AI shouldn't be used as a solution, but as a tool. While it is very depressing to think that people would replace the passion and love that goes into making anything by using AI, some other just augment their passion and fun with these AI tools.
I am not going to argue the ban of AI-generated assets, but I would've wished for the decision to be discussed a little more publicly before being decided, so that all the arguments that have come up now and retroactive clarifications could've been talked about before a ruling is made.
Some arguments, specifically JosephSeraph's and Sidewinder's, are compelling arguments against a carpet ban of all AI-generated stuff. I am not a fan of AI generated images/assets, but there are non-unethical uses of said tools.
I also echo Sgt M's sentiment that AI shouldn't be used as a solution, but as a tool. While it is very depressing to think that people would replace the passion and love that goes into making anything by using AI, some other just augment their passion and fun with these AI tools.
I am not going to argue the ban of AI-generated assets, but I would've wished for the decision to be discussed a little more publicly before being decided, so that all the arguments that have come up now and retroactive clarifications could've been talked about before a ruling is made.
LordBlueRouge
2143
author=OzzyTheOne
For what its worth, I'd like to throw my opinion into the mix. First of all, I do not want to argue Libby's announcement, the decisions of the site admins are more or less final, all I wish though is that some of these things would be discussed in a more public matter before being decided upon.
Some arguments, specifically JosephSeraph's and Sidewinder's, are compelling arguments against a carpet ban of all AI-generated stuff. I am not a fan of AI generated images/assets, but there are non-unethical uses of said tools.
I also echo Sgt M's sentiment that AI shouldn't be used as a solution, but as a tool. While it is very depressing to think that people would replace the passion and love that goes into making anything by using AI, some other just augment their passion and fun with these AI tools.
I am not going to argue the ban of AI-generated assets, but I would've wished for the decision to be discussed a little more publicly before being decided, so that all the arguments that have come up now and retroactive clarifications could've been talked about before a ruling is made.
+1
This matter could've been handled a lot more delicately and with some respect.
If someone leaves the site, you're doing something wrong here guys.
Please keep the name calling and all that stuff to a minimum.
That's all I've got to say about it.
EDIT: ...like, I wanna invite more peeps to rmn. but whenever you guys get into discussions like this, there seems to be a severe lack of respect, for parties involved. and you really should be more civil and respectful when talking about these things, because we don't know whose going to be reading them and we don't know all the issues either, because they're always changing.
You're allowed to disagree with someone for having a shitty opinion, but you're not allowed to make them feel like shit about it.
Please keep it respectful. Choose your words carefully. It's the only way we can really figure these things out.
Once you start antagonizing them, they're not gonna want to talk to ya.
Darken
3952
I definitely think putting the boot down prematurely isn't the best call, but i also think ai generation is currently a problem. It should just fall under a preemptive anti-spam or bad content rule rather than getting lost in these mental gymnastics and analogies. There's a lot of hypotheticals at play here which makes the discussion all over the place.
I don't see any namecalling or disrespect though. Passionate and heated? Sure but that's the nature of this discourse. I don't think it's anyones responsibility if a user decides to have a hill they want to die on, it's not like sidewinder was being patient about this either.
Is this an actual exception to the rule? Because it seems worth stipulating unless you're still banning artbreeder for other reasons.
I don't see any namecalling or disrespect though. Passionate and heated? Sure but that's the nature of this discourse. I don't think it's anyones responsibility if a user decides to have a hill they want to die on, it's not like sidewinder was being patient about this either.
Liberty
Yeah, if it's your own stuff, you can do what you want with it because it's your own stuff... well, within reason. Something like artbreeder using only your own images would be fine, but using your own image mixed with someone else's would be a problem. Hope that makes sense.
Is this an actual exception to the rule? Because it seems worth stipulating unless you're still banning artbreeder for other reasons.
Shinan
4314
author=Irog
On the topic of AI
It's very frustrating that programming game AI is no longer considered AI in its own right. The new AI technology (often used unethically) is stealing the name "AI" and devalues the creative effort of the programmer who codes game AI.
This is quite true. We should call these algorithms what they are. Glorified autocomplete.
I can agree with the sentiment that maybe there could have been more of a public discourse about this issue, given how many comments this thread has in response to the ruling. Though, I can't say I could compare the amount of discourse this topic had over, say, allowing commercial games on this site. Though, it would help if I could remember how long ago that was!
author=Marrend
I can agree with the sentiment that maybe there could have been more of a public discourse about this issue, given how many comments this thread has in response to the ruling. Though, I can't say I could compare the amount of discourse this topic had over, say, allowing commercial games on this site. Though, it would help if I could remember how long ago that was!
2012~2013
I do agree with the sentiment of not wanting AI generated content to infest the site, because I'm an old man and yeah.
Let's skim over how "generic" the rule is given how broad the AI matter is (because you've already talked about it).
But let's be honest.
It will happen, whether we want it or not. AI is part of progress and all I can think of is that this progress can't be stopped. It's like going back 10+ years and creating a discussion over not wanting digital art vs traditional art or like the example Marrend made, not wanting commercial games over free ones.
IMO, taking a stern approach in this case won't solve the problem, if anything it will amplify it. People will be like "oh yeah?" and they'll just upload AI generated games without telling.
And what's worse? Maybe we'll never know.
People will make AI games under our noses and wow, you know what's crazy? Some might even win Misaos! Can you imagine it? I shiver just thinking about it. Northern Lights stealing our misaos.
Let's make our own AI a la Person of Interest! And we'll use it to hunt down AI generated content. I'll be Reese version of making.
... Okay, I'll be Finch.
Anyway, this is a possibility, those tools are pretty strong nowadays. With minimal effort you could blend together all the elements generated with it and actually, perhaps, even make a pretty good game. But even if it weren't, we're used to bad games made by humans too. What difference does it make? How can you spot them? You simply can't.
And all of that will happen specifically because you've decided to take this approach.
Whereas if you'd decided to welcome said AI-generated games, giving them a proper category, people making those (or their AI) would've feel more welcomed and they would've uploaded said games, tagged/categorize them gladly and we, very easily, could've filter them out when searching for new games. This would've helped us get rid of a good percentage of AI-generated mess.
Instead, now we'll just happen to stumble upon AI-generated games.
I mean, you do you, because I understand this is more of a, let's say, idealistic approach to the matter and wanting to go against *mostly* all of those sites that steal art using AI.
But the word "AI" contains so many different meanings and involves so many different fields and way to use it that can be useful or malicious or not that... I dunno.
It feels like fighting a war shooting in the air hoping to hit something.
It's like if I decided to start a war against digital art because there is the possibility of copy pasting pieces of another artwork on my PC and blend them together. Or because CTRL-Z Makes everything easier you should put effort using the eraser and yada yada.
It's just... so generic? It's like seeing old men trying to go against the times changing, more than a community fighting an issue WITH its own community.
Then again, since you, the staff, yourselves said this isn't debatable I'll be okay with this, I mean we'll see where it goes, right?
It's not that big of a deal, I don't make games using AI anyway so (I'm just that awesome)
Let's skim over how "generic" the rule is given how broad the AI matter is (because you've already talked about it).
But let's be honest.
It will happen, whether we want it or not. AI is part of progress and all I can think of is that this progress can't be stopped. It's like going back 10+ years and creating a discussion over not wanting digital art vs traditional art or like the example Marrend made, not wanting commercial games over free ones.
IMO, taking a stern approach in this case won't solve the problem, if anything it will amplify it. People will be like "oh yeah?" and they'll just upload AI generated games without telling.
And what's worse? Maybe we'll never know.
People will make AI games under our noses and wow, you know what's crazy? Some might even win Misaos! Can you imagine it? I shiver just thinking about it. Northern Lights stealing our misaos.
Let's make our own AI a la Person of Interest! And we'll use it to hunt down AI generated content. I'll be Reese version of making.
... Okay, I'll be Finch.
Anyway, this is a possibility, those tools are pretty strong nowadays. With minimal effort you could blend together all the elements generated with it and actually, perhaps, even make a pretty good game. But even if it weren't, we're used to bad games made by humans too. What difference does it make? How can you spot them? You simply can't.
And all of that will happen specifically because you've decided to take this approach.
Whereas if you'd decided to welcome said AI-generated games, giving them a proper category, people making those (or their AI) would've feel more welcomed and they would've uploaded said games, tagged/categorize them gladly and we, very easily, could've filter them out when searching for new games. This would've helped us get rid of a good percentage of AI-generated mess.
Instead, now we'll just happen to stumble upon AI-generated games.
I mean, you do you, because I understand this is more of a, let's say, idealistic approach to the matter and wanting to go against *mostly* all of those sites that steal art using AI.
But the word "AI" contains so many different meanings and involves so many different fields and way to use it that can be useful or malicious or not that... I dunno.
It feels like fighting a war shooting in the air hoping to hit something.
It's like if I decided to start a war against digital art because there is the possibility of copy pasting pieces of another artwork on my PC and blend them together. Or because CTRL-Z Makes everything easier you should put effort using the eraser and yada yada.
It's just... so generic? It's like seeing old men trying to go against the times changing, more than a community fighting an issue WITH its own community.
Then again, since you, the staff, yourselves said this isn't debatable I'll be okay with this, I mean we'll see where it goes, right?
It's not that big of a deal, I don't make games using AI anyway so (I'm just that awesome)
To be quite honest, I think taking a reasonably hard stance on AI at this juncture is extremely important in the currently-evolving landscape.
Take one look at the 'New' assets tab on Itch.io. It is flooded with feculent, regurgitated garbage-- barely edited generations asking for ACTUAL MONEY, many deliberately obfuscating their use of AI.
If RMN does not take this stance now, this is what will happen. It was ALREADY happening.
The argument for AI as a tool is an important one but in the current climate it barely matters. You have innumerable companies firing under the guise of AI replacement (when in reality its most likely general layoffs), you have pages of information being tainted due to AI search, Itch.io's asset page is unusable, and there are many, many planned class action lawsuits regarding these AI engines, ranging from the fact they contain medical data to the fact there was no permission gained for these datasets.
Eventually the landscape will change. In what direction, we don't really know.
This rule isn't about enemy AI or the photoshop healing tool or the proofreading AI injections coming into writing software. Look at the itch.io new assets page. That is what this rule is for. To avoid that.
Take one look at the 'New' assets tab on Itch.io. It is flooded with feculent, regurgitated garbage-- barely edited generations asking for ACTUAL MONEY, many deliberately obfuscating their use of AI.
If RMN does not take this stance now, this is what will happen. It was ALREADY happening.
The argument for AI as a tool is an important one but in the current climate it barely matters. You have innumerable companies firing under the guise of AI replacement (when in reality its most likely general layoffs), you have pages of information being tainted due to AI search, Itch.io's asset page is unusable, and there are many, many planned class action lawsuits regarding these AI engines, ranging from the fact they contain medical data to the fact there was no permission gained for these datasets.
Eventually the landscape will change. In what direction, we don't really know.
This rule isn't about enemy AI or the photoshop healing tool or the proofreading AI injections coming into writing software. Look at the itch.io new assets page. That is what this rule is for. To avoid that.
But the thing is RMN could *potentially* have the New assets tab flooded with junk games, AI or not. Sometimes it's assets flip. Sometimes is just "Imma do things at random with the RTPs".
But there's this thing RMN has that's important, it has THE QUEUE (TM all rights reserved).
Admins (Liberty) already go over all the games that get released and do a quick (or more profound?) quality check.
This isn't about AI, because junk games existed and SHALL continue to exist even without it. It's about junk games in general.
Rules about minimum quality requirements already exist and admins already stop gamepages not following said "bare minimum quality" rules from getting released to the public.
But there's this thing RMN has that's important, it has THE QUEUE (TM all rights reserved).
Admins (Liberty) already go over all the games that get released and do a quick (or more profound?) quality check.
This isn't about AI, because junk games existed and SHALL continue to exist even without it. It's about junk games in general.
Rules about minimum quality requirements already exist and admins already stop gamepages not following said "bare minimum quality" rules from getting released to the public.
Marrend
I can agree with the sentiment that maybe there could have been more of a public discourse about this issue, given how many comments this thread has in response to the ruling. Though, I can't say I could compare the amount of discourse this topic had over, say, allowing commercial games on this site. Though, it would help if I could remember how long ago that was!
I strongly suspect an incident I was personally involved with involving someone who got in trouble recently may have been the impetus for this decision. It was a very nasty argument, but the aggressor made some points, however hyperbolic, that couldn't really be dismissed. If you cut through the hyperbole, the heart of his argument was that AI generation was being used to replace artists, musicians, and gamedevs instead of helping us the way it would ideally be used. I think that seeing how vitriolic he got, Libby probably just didn't want to see it discussed at all.
Yeah we are about to be deluged by a sea of mediocrity in all facets of art and entertainment. You can see the takeover happening in all sites that has user submitted content.
Being a small niche with a manageable queue works in rmn's favour here, but for how much longer?
On a personal note, yes, I will admit that I find the way AI "art" has been implemented to be icky. The way they scraped all the sites for images and writing and them tried to sell it as a "tool"... urgh. And that doesn't even get into the way it bakes in racial bias and other problematic parts of society
Being a small niche with a manageable queue works in rmn's favour here, but for how much longer?
On a personal note, yes, I will admit that I find the way AI "art" has been implemented to be icky. The way they scraped all the sites for images and writing and them tried to sell it as a "tool"... urgh. And that doesn't even get into the way it bakes in racial bias and other problematic parts of society
