Thereis examples of AI Art where signature of original artists popped up in the image.Rehashing is precisly what some of those nets do. It learned that for the thing the operator wants, that signature is important. Or those fake pictures of Trump with missing or extra hands. The net was trained with photos, obviously, and on photos hands are often not visible or you see extra hands from different persons.

Those nets that are trained with real stuff are not learning how to do the skill, but to imitate the result by rehashing. With frightenly accurate or creepy results in some cases. 

And with copyrighet material that poses legal risks that are not decided yet.  To put it blatantly oversimplistic,   you can view a trained ai as a filter, like those popular for selfies. And instead of one image you add effects to, you use hundreds images and add a little random and an objective for the result. Like, picture-bot, give me one with that Trump person sitting and eating a burger.  

But you still use  stuff that you might not have the rights to use or not use in that way. Real persons can do that in some scenarios. But that does not mean that tools (or their operators or the service provider that hosts the tool)   are allowed to do that in all scenarios. 

Well in some years it might be possible for ai to make games by itself like now chat GPT can write simple programs and code for you.

It will be cool if ai can 'help' game developers and not replace them like the other advances in game development softwares.

Like it took 3 days to make the original flappy bird and now any experienced game developer can make it in 15 minutes.

Convenience can be defined as putting in less for equal or more gain. That differs little to none from the definition of profit.

Furthermore I have seen little to no evidence that more automation generally leads to higher life satisfaction. If a machine does more, then your own actions are less consequential, hence you are lesser as a person.

Giving an aircraft listener as a single example doesn’t prove the general case. There, the person does basically the same overall work with the radar as they did before, so its less of an issue. This is the same reason why digital art isn’t as controversial as AI art.

So no, I don’t agree that it would be great if you could make a GTA V game effortlessly. If that were the case, then you’d be doing almost zero work, hence the game isn’t made by you. And even if it were, nobody would care because they can make their own GTA V game. In your scenario, every person would be a profit-driven entrepreneur.

Ultimately, this sort of thing does more harm then good because it doesn’t make people feel like they can open up

The fact you assumed anyone who is against AI in this use case hasn’t “thought critically” does the same, and is the reason for my combative tone.

You went to modern dictionaries for the definition of a Luddite? Who do you think wrote those?

I made clear my stance, because I’m tired of folks slandering their name when a lot would identify as one if they’d know what it was about. But, apparently, speaking up for good working conditions justifies their genocide and subsequent besmirching.

My point remains; you do not know what Luddism truly stands for, and my existence is testament to that.

I would not go over semantics in this discussion, stealing is fine if you look at it this way. I am not sure if it applies, but courts will decide that. 

All that said this will not change anything at all, even if the courts decide midjourney can not use public available images without consent (unlike in japan), all that happens is that a company with way more money way bigger (google, microsoft...) will buy rights to enough images to just train their model (in addition to cc0 art). At which point we are right back where we are right now. I honestly have a different view then you (stealing vs not stealing), but in the grant scheme of things it just does not matter. These generators are here, maybe its not midjourney, maybe it will be open ai with microsoft money who trainst their next dalle with just images where they have the right to. It will come and it wont be stopped, maybe slowed down a little.

When it comes to creativity, I always smile when people bring these arguments. Because what is creative the skill of being able to draw or deciding on what to draw? Or is the skill to translate the language into a picture?If it is the skill of drawing a printer is creative if it is deciding what to draw the user of an AI image generator is creative. If it is the translation of language into a picture it would be the AI generator itself. But once again I am not sure whats the point of the discussion, I think there will always be a place for human drawings, just way more niche then it will be and there will be alot of uses for AI art as well. I also dont think the the skills are the same or if we need to discuss about whats creative and whats not.  I think the hostility against AI art usually has nothing to do with any of the things I mentioned above, it is because people love that they can paint for money and they dont want to lose the opporturnity and I completly understand and feel with you. The sad truth is that automation doesnt care about if people like the job or not and we have to somehow deal with that.

For me I am using art from asset packs right now for my game, it certainly does not make a difference if I am using AI art and pay a small tech startup or I am paying a small art company providing these art assets. It is just different people getting payed, maybe you dont like the company I am paying, but who says that the art company is any better?

So my question to you is, if I would use AI that only used cc0 images or images where it has the rights to do it, would it really make a differnce for you. (Like let's say adobe firefly)

And bonus question do you also feel the same way about my game if I continue to use premade assets?

Software piracy is also widely considered stealing

Wich does not make it any true. Even piracy is the wrong word. But it was used so long so wrong, that it now has that meaning. If you use such incorrect terms you run risk of  belittling the issue. People do not take it serious. Like, this is killing me. But you actually can steal software, and databases, source code and so on. Calling the unauthorized use or copies also stealing is not helping.

which contains ZERO expression on your part, again akin to googling images and picking one of the results

This is not true. It is more like being a lector.  You give your unpaid moneys typewriters and  guidelines and then sift through the garbage and refine what you seek. 

Only someone who doesn't understand anything about creativity would compare machine pattern extraction with humans learning from and being influenced by other art. They're not even remotely similar. People talking like these glorified search engines are one step away from "advanced AI" are fully delusional.

You do realize, that the best pattern recognition apparatus known to man is the human brain? This is what our brain is all about. Patterns. We are good at that. And this is exactly how we learn! Repetition of patterns. We internalize the concepts and know how things are supposed to look. A reason why zombies and clowns are frightening (it is called the   uncanny  valley). They violate the known pattern.

Did you ever try using one of these AI? I did.  And I do not see happening what you rant about. And ranting it is, complete with ad hominems. I repeat: you need better arguments. Going emotional and insulting people is not good arguing.

You also seem to try to elevate  what human artists do somehow. It is a  skill and what you call creativity is not some mystical emergence of being human. It is your brain creating associations by comparing stuff it knows and linking it in new ways, with limitations of applied mechanical skill.  Art is not a synonym for creativity. It is a synonym for superior skill and prowess.  While you do create something,  a creative expression is not needed for art. Nor is something that "was expressed" art.   

I get why people get so emotional about those AI stuff. It chips away at what they think makes us humans human. Not only some mere manual labor. But what I see, much of what people call art is just that. Manual labor.  And other stuff was just expressed, but would not qualify as art, if no one told you.

Any responsible lawyer will tell you commercial use of derivative AI generated images based on copyrighted work that you do not have license to use is copyright infringement

A responsible lawyer would tell you that the issue is not resolved and you should be careful to release such stuff, until the garbage law that exists has been tested in courts. If it were so clear, there would not even be a debate. And what you failed to say, that the reason valve does discourage it at the moment is precisly because it is not so clear. You tried to tell it like valve discourages is, because it is clear and forbidden. Did you even read the article you tried to argue with?

I am not saying  I am pro AI or whatever corner you try to paint me in, with your qualifier veiled insults. I am only saying you need better arguments. Because current issues might be resolved and what then?  Argue against machines taking  our jobs? Go full on Dune with the Butlerian Jihad against the thinking machines? And for the generative AI stuff as you call it, what about AI that indeed were trained with public domain and licensed training materials? How do you argue against them?

You misunderstood me there a bit.

The likening to a photographer or photoshop wizard   goes more in the direction of what an AI user actually does, giving importance that it still is a person using an advanced tool. And those activities and their results are established and not stigmatized nor banned for the tools used. 

And the discussion if and what kind of consent is necessary to use material to train an AI with, is not finished*. Especially because the discussion about AI bans and stigmas    will flame up anew, if tools emerge that indeed only were trained with training material that was ethically aquired. Also, if you ban those, you would have to ban a lot of other stuff for similar ethical reasons. It is a can of worms.    The only thing quite clear is, that it is not ok to use those tools for plagiarization and defamation and similar. But this is because of what you do, and not how you did it. It is not ok to create such works with photoshop either.

So my point is what I wrote.  It is necessary to wait for actual legal stuff and not perceived ethical reasons. Ethics are quite fuzzy and subject to change  a lot and are very, very arbitrary. For example, it is unethical in my opinion to outsource jobs into other countries and exploit work conditions there. Same for several and most tax evasion maneuvers and lots of other despicable stuff that Harvard would be proud to teach students.  Do you boycott and ban any and all companies that engage in such unethical activities? Yet here you call for ban of things for ethical reasons. I say, ethics is not enough.

But rest assured, AI games already have stigma. There are enough haters, and haters they are, that downvote such games.  And I do not believe for a second, that those haters will upvote games that used ethical AI stuff.

* My current stance would be, that if it is ok to look at a thing, it would be ok to train an AI with it, if the AI does not copy the thing, but extract the essence. Or in other words: learn. Quite like a person would learn from being "trained" by studying other peoples art. Just look at google image search. That pattern recognition system is an AI in my book. It is used more to recognize and find things, not to randomly create things, but effectifly it was trained by stuff without giving consent for AI training.