The track record for preventing people in positions of trust from seeking out mental health care is terrible. It's just brushing problems under the rug and waiting for them to turn rancid. Don't interpret not seeking help as the nonexistence of a problem, especially if their career depends on it.
Have you ever served on a jury? It's easy to get out of jury duty. The people who really don't want to be there, usually aren't. When I did grand jury, everyone wanted to be there and was very engaged. To me this is like saying people aren't interested in juicy gossip, having an opinion, debating the smallest details, and wielding power - that's not been my experience.
But the bigger problem is that, if the process were really so precarious, then that's exactly why we would want stronger controls. There may be a good argument for a different threshold but it isn't this one.
You've expressed your criticism plainly without addressing anything the post might've done well. I think that's absolutely fine, but why would your criticism apply to the post but not your own comment? Personally I think it's because the standards of peer review don't apply to HN comments, but I don't think they apply to blog posts either.
> And without any environment feedback, it has no trouble writing, from scratch, small game-playing networks that outplay networks trained with PPO for 100 million steps.
This is basically a claim that the bitter lesson doesn't turn out to be true. Exciting and I want to learn more but I am immediately suspicious.
I would be happy to see these companies have their lunch eaten by open source but I don't understand who the audience is for this populist framing. Tech workers by and large wouldn't have supported the Occupy movement. The people sympathetic to Occupy generally don't like the tech industry and especially not AI. It's difficult to imagine serious teams deploying anticapitalist branded software within their enterprise. Who is this project for?
Expression is as much about what is excluded as what is included. They've made it clear they aren't making a prescription for other people's projects. I don't see any reason to interpret this as an attack on other's expression rather than simply their own expression.
I'm wondering if you foresee remaining open to new contributors or focusing on a trusted set of like minded contributors? How much time are you willing to spend enforcing this policy? (To put my cards on the table I think it's good for projects to pursue different and incompatible agendas and if you are volunteering to conduct this experiment I think that is great and genuinely wish you the best, I'm just wondering whether this will become a tarpit that either soaks up all of your time or makes onboarding new contributors take an inordinate amount of time.)
> I'm just wondering whether this will become a tarpit that either soaks up all of your time or makes onboarding new contributors take an inordinate amount of time.
In an ideal world, LLM users would simply steer clear of trying to contribute instead of trying to hide it and direct their energy and tokens elsewhere
I agree the onus should be on people not to create a nuisance but I don't think it's a realistic expectation. Descriptively, normatively I agree that people ought to be considerate and reasonable.
I do not have a skin in the game for repository being ai vs no ai bit ( and I am biased as I work for one of the major AI labs now, need to put food on the table ) but, not directed toward you --
I genuinely do not understand why so many people that are pro-AI do not understand consent. There are people one comment downdown this tree talking about this being discrimination and harassment. It's not your project, you don't have a human right to contribute to it ... fork it ? direct your tokens elsewhere ? Wwhy the default with AI users seeming to try to nonconsensually force your way in while trying to hide it and consider it a one-up on the maintainer ?
I think normal people would, couple projects I needed features added/bugs fixed and checked first if there were ai rules, there was, so instead of opening a pr just forked fixed and use my fork now. Not a big deal.
This isn't much of a response, what they said amounts to that you should work harder to cultivate a community that you can then funnel into their platform. "Launching isn't the finish line" is obviously true but what has been happening is that people are sniped before launch based on their demo and marketing material, so it's not all that relevant.
Valve ought to be funding lawsuits against these bootleggers. Steam can only exist if indie developers feel confident they can publish there. It's as much a threat to them as anyone else, and indie studios can figure out for themselves they need to market harder but can't necessarily embark on a lawsuit.
I don't think it's a problem of copying, as much as the fact that the signals we use to identify quality are no longer working.
Clones always existed, kids chose pokemon rather than a dollar store dragomons because pokemon became a household name by the time bootlegs appeared, legitimate shops only sold pokemon and the cartridge itself showed a quality difference.
Nowadays the clone can reach people before the original, the store shows everything equally, and the sprites, videos and description can be good enough to fool people. Steam works as a platform for the purchase itself but not as a discovery mechanism, because there's no "seal of quality" you can consider (other than skipping indies entirely).
No one can review at the scale needed, and it's entirely possible for a great game to have devs that are awful at marketing and get buried. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think some kind of threshold is necessary for the shops, or at least for an optional filter.
Agreed. Copycatting has existed all the way back to the early Atari days. In fact, Nolan Bushnell used to talk about constantly moving on to new products in order to “eat his own babies.” Swift style.
Always wary of “the jackals” and convinced that the only way to stay ahead of the competition was to introduce new products, Bushnell wanted to discontinue the VCS and move on to the next-generation game console. Bushnell preferred moving to new technologies rather than spending time refining old ideas and letting his competitors catch up to him. He called his philosophy “eating your own babies” and said that if Atari didn’t (eat its own babies), somebody else would.
-- Steven Kent (The Ultimate History of Video Games: From Pong to Pokemon)
The issue today is the breathtaking speed with which people can rip you off by simply pointing an agentic coding harness at your original IP and laundering it into 50 copies in the span of a single weekend.
the notion of "quality" equals very much luxury for many many people... and last time I checked some 90% of the peoples of the world were not concern with it (the lux), but with making ends meet. all opportunities arising would be taken immediately, and if some kid can play a game for 5EUR and likes it, even not the certified origins, his father would not rush to get the 80EUR one (and particularly if he can afford to summon, or like prompt, something workable into existence).
same for many forms of media, and for a lot of physical objects such as luxury items fakes. and we're talking utility here, so I bet lots of people use counterfeit electric equipment because it just works.
of course then comes ingenuity and community, but copyright is so dead, that it cannot be resurrected meaningfully at all perhaps at this moment.
People are not choosing AI due to money here. It's not the 80EUR, AAA games being copied, it's indies that are frequently in the same price range as the original.
What's actually happening is people buying knockoffs not knowing they're knockoffs, or no one buying those but the original being buried in the volume anyway.
As for the 'think about the non privileged', AI is a pretty poor answer for them. Once we're at a point where the person isn't able to pay for genuine stuff, they might as well go for piracy and emulators rather than a mindless knockoff. A world where the privileged are given intellectually stimulating material and the rest are fed empty slop is the worst possible scenario.
you make a very valid point. I will adjust my view of things and take into consideration all said here, as it really makes sense from particular perspective.
While OP discussed bootleggers, it's the extortion TFA mentions (quoted below) that's likely worth suing over. Indie devs can't fund a full-fledged lawsuit, local authorities don't have the reach to grief those responsible due to it almost certainly being outside their jurisdiction, and Valve may not have legal standing.
What could be done is forwarding the complaint to Valve, and ensuring that the bootlegged game put out by those attempting to make good on their threats gets removed, and the developer banned.
> The question regarding AI cloning stemmed from a specific threat. One developer shared that indie developers have recently been receiving extortion emails threatening, "If you don't pay, we'll clone your game with AI and release it first." While understanding the advice to showcase games prior to release, the developer noted that such threats could make creators hesitate and asked if Steam had protective measures in place.
> Tom Giardino expressed regret, noting that this was the first time he had heard of such extortion cases.
> [...]
> While drawing a line on the extortion itself, he kept communication channels open. He noted that such extortion is closer to an issue for law enforcement agencies rather than a game platform to solve
> What could be done is forwarding the complaint to Valve, and ensuring that the bootlegged game put out by those attempting to make good on their threats gets removed, and the developer banned.
For Valve to remove a game like that could be seen as anti-competitive. They would also have to actually prove this with evidence and so on for it to make sense. And there lies the competitive fog of war which can have consequences among competing games. One competitor saying "I'll make a game if you don't pay me to not make one" to another is not extortion or a threat at all. It's just business. And it can be very scary to be faced with an adversary like that.
What do you think Facebook et al do? They rip each other off through planted employees, poaching, and other shenanigans to find out who is working on what so they can be there before their competitors.
This is why we have other methods (patents, copyright, and so on) that are employed for legal protection. But ideas? Not good enough.
The word "extortion" here is doing so much heavy lifting it's comical.
Legal depends on details. There are copyright, patent, and trademark laws that apply depending on how the cloning was done. Ask a lawyer for details.
The idea of a game is not protected. The specific graphics, dialog, script, and code are protected. Save the princess in an 8 level game is generic but just a few more details copied and suddenly you are an illegal clone of the NES Mario brothers script...
If you are worried talk to a lawyer about preemptively registering your copyrights (cheap) and trademarks (more expensive).
It's a good question and the answer is mixed. Some of the problem has been directly bootlegging games in other markets like China, so stealing the code and assets outright. That's definitely a copyright violation most places, I would assume it is in China too, but the point is moot without Valve's backing because no indie is going to conduct a lawsuit in a foreign country.
A clean room knockoff isn't but I don't think the cases would necessarily even be brought or won. There's a lot of quick buck artists who see gaming as a soft target. Success is in convincing them there's risk involved rather than actually winning in court or extracting settlements.
That will still leave a lot of AI game development people feel is slop. That's probably the reality going forward. But reducing that to the people who are interested in making games (even if we are unhappy with their results) and removing the people who are revolving through the latest AI get rich quick schemes is probably achievable.
Valve is unlikely to raise a lawsuit in China even if someone releases Half Life 2: Electric Boogaloo. They have no hope of winning, and their position in the country is a miracle as it is.
As for the other cases, I don’t see a realistic path for Valve. Once they start kicking knockoffs they will have to draw a line, and it won’t end up being based on whether the action is actually illegal.
Not in the least. You can make a 2D platformer and Nintendo can't sue you for copying Super Mario (they'd like to, probably).
The only defense against copies has always be the same, be better than the copies in thing the consumer likes. You can't copy a Mario game, you can't copy a Kojima game, you can't copy a game that has been masterfully done and polished. If slop is gonna eat your lunch, it's only because your game is as good as slop.
Sure if you made a name for yourself, you can bank on that. People will buy Slay the Spire 2 instead is cheap copycats.
However I you are a new indie dev and made a decent game, how can people find you? They can't under the sea of slop. They could scroll and scroll and never find you.
I heart from many game reviewers that they have an harder and harder time finding good games to review. Not because people don't make good games anymore, in fact more good games than ever are made but finding them is harder than ever. Indie devs don't have a giant marketing department.
If steam keeps refusing to curate game the gaming market is going to crash hard.
In the same vein that having the same name of functions is a copyright violation. People don't understand that good things are meant to be copied so that consumers have the best product
> People don't understand that good things are meant to be copied so that consumers have the best product
I get how my comment comes off that way but I do agree and am broadly in favor of knockoffs. I think there's a distinction between a knockoff and a bootleg, where a knockoff steals ideas and a bootleg steals the execution. And a good game is a tasteful knockoff of a bunch of previous games, great artists steal and such.
Patents and copyright are there to allow businesses to recoup investment in R&D
The end result of what you're talking about isn't that the innovator will be copied and consumers will benefit.. it's that the innovator will no longer exist and no-one will benefit.
Video games are a perfect example of how innovation all but stops when a few companies have access to all of the resources. Companies like EA, Ubisoft, Activision Blizzard all make mostly hot garbage these days because they 'innovated' themselves into making the same 4 games over and over. It's happening with movies too where everything is either a sequel or a remake because recognizable IP has been deemed more important than making something actually good.
Video games have always been about copying the other guy and making it better though. Blizzard famously akways just made the best parts of all other games in the genre packaged up with cool looking cinematics. Every single FPS borrows from every other FPS any time something new comes along. And thankfully when Nintendo tried to stop it with Palworld they (mostly) got egg on their face.
The one famous example that did stick that I can remember is warner bros patented the nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor. Nobody can use that actually rather cool idea until 2036 and it hasn't been used in a decade now. Real cool stuff and definitely pushed the industry forward.
I thought Valve was interesting as they essentially said the accumulated community around a good game will be something that is harder to copy, and developers should make their game unique and cultivate this.
So far, so good. I talk to indie devs all of the time. I remember a husband and wife setting aside a small budget for their passion project. These are people with very limited time and money, so they do not have the resources or expertise for the business and marketing side, and they may also get overwhelmed if somebody just makes a copy and starts spreading it on reddit or elsewhere.
I think Valve is still right in essence but the answer is really "it depends". To me it comes down to relationships and trust: Getting a few early, vetted players, not necessarily going for high volume e.g. 500+ on Discord or whatever. Having people who really care, support and co-create with you. This will probably look a little bit different for every game: Some might run curated spaces, others will just embrace that copying is a thing that may happen. I saw the Xbox Labs announcement lately with even another route: Remixing being part of what they explore as the future.
It does not work that way. This is not the same when Thiel was financing the anti-Gawker lawsuit.
This has no direct precedents and the case and the lawyers involved need to be chosen carefully, because once the precedent is set it is used by the courts for ruling subsequent cases. You don't want a sloppy lawyer, and the case has to be bullet proof, the judges known in advance (hence why certain districts are chosen for certain types of cases) and so on.
A case of this sort would bring into question so many non-game related things, more related to recent AI copyright and IP theft, that it would far exceed what Valve would be able to bring forward in terms of an argument anyway. Computer game mechanics and game designs are already on thin ice in terms of copyright.
Valve isn't going to fund this, and it is not how legal works.
One case does not a precedent set. Sure one case is a precedent and whichever lawyer it helps will be sure the judge knows about it. However any opposing lawyer will find plenty of details that are "different" and thus the judge should ignore it.
In the US you need to go all the way to the supreme court to get a binding precedent. However the supreme court wants to see a lot of other judge's with lots of different things considered before they set a binding precedent. They are well aware that they don't want to get this wrong and so want to review the thinking of a lot of different judges in lots of different circumstances so they can get the precedent right.
the other way to get a binding precedent is if lots of different cases refer to it and all get the same result and so there is no controversy.
Of course there are variances and the legal teams will find everything they can. But we're not talking about hundreds. I wanted to keep it simple for the crowd here, and furthermore a judge can look through the legal bullshit which they often do. Think about for example the way that Alsup handles his cases compared to the way a "stereotypical judge" is portrayed.
As an aside, other posters keep saying how Valve can regardless finance or file or whatever a lawsuit. Yes. Anyone can. It doesn't mean they will win. Lawsuits happen all the time brought upon by people who are wasting their time and money.
Share links to these violations, cases, case outcomes, etc.
I don't know why people are downvoting me. Folks, Valve aren't going to fund these lawsuits. It's a fantasy.
Edit: I keep trying to reply to you but you keep removing them before I can! It isn't personal in any way. I am simply looking to see what the arguments were and whether it was an already-released game having its assets stolen, vs. a game that is not yet released being knocked off with AI, vs. something else. I wanted to see what the cases actually played out like.
One of the threats that is highlighted in the article posted is that they want to extort games which are not yet released. Which is certainly juicy in its own right.
It seemed to me like they're hedging until they know which side is more profitable to support. We don't know yet if slop will be widely embraced by consumers. Valve will be happy to profit from AI if it takes over from real developers.
Valve has ignored the quality problem of submissions for years. Lazy asset flips of demo levels have been common for years. It's less of a hedge and more of a restatement of what their position has been since they opened the floodgates. AI just made the bad stuff look better than it used to, so people have to relearn how to filter.
As far as I can tell, "slop" doesn't have a clear definition. It seems to just mean "AI used poorly or obviously". Nobody cares if a developer of a game uses AI as long as it's done well. They might not even know.
The idea that there is a future where game devs don't use AI, while the rest of the industry does, is absurd. We do know that AI will be widely embraced in gaming, because the alternative is, what? The honor system?
> Steam can only exist if indie developers feel confident they can publish there.
Why though?
Imagine, there will be an AI agent, which will produce new game everyday and Steam users will like it and keep buying. Steam can only exist if customers keep buying and are not annoyed by games.
Valve takes a 30% cut of all sales through their platform which is responsible for the majority of their revenue. This is dependent on it being a mutually beneficial relationship for developers and a near monopoly on PC customers eyeballs.
Fantastical examples aside Valve is still dependent on developer good will. The balance of that to the near monopoly is a much more valid point about how far Steam can strain that relationship.
Why would they need to take a cut in that fantastical case? They'd just own the agents and take 100%. Not to mention AI at this level of advancement would probably have a decisive lead in many areas leading to mass unemployment which would likely crash the game playing parts of the economy so might be it's own undoing. Valve need customers with disposable income.
"Valve ought to be funding lawsuits against these bootleggers." - yeah good luck on that. no legal framework exists and they actually benefit from it the same way Spotify and YouTube does. In a way they all welcome this move, and eventually may require you to pay on top for them to inform you of slop alongside banners. Otherwise you get the whole package and tis all business as usual.
The slop has always been there, and Valve makes it easy to refund it. I don't see what more can they do. At the end of the day the players decide what they want to play and pay for. Ideas have always been cheap in this industry. Threes was cloned immediately and most people only know the clone.
reply