Future of Ai in Adult Games
- Thread starter Deleted member 1952336
- Start date
AI Translations are happening now, it will make it easier for creators to reach bigger audiences.
10 years would have to be full AI generated audio-visual, procedurally generated worlds. do we dare?
10 years would have to be full AI generated audio-visual, procedurally generated worlds. do we dare?
- Jun 24, 2022
- 2,734
- 21,970
In ten years ? lol h game devs already produce games with ai art some implement ai to games that are on going for years already or start new games from scratch only with ai stuff you will see in 5 years the whole h game industry will change drastically the only problem are the limitation by the devs of ai tools against lewd content
10 years? Some game devs have already used AI generated images and voices for their work. It is not over hyped, though. The results are very satisfying. Especially, AI generated images. But I don't think we can play an AI generated content anytime soon. Maybe 30-40 years later, who knows?
- Oct 20, 2019
- 138
- 52
I believe that in 10 years' time there will be more stories with the technology of ai with images and sounds, the stories will be better and there won't be any problems with image rights
- Oct 26, 2017
- 220
- 377
I believe 10 years is a bit optimistic. Also, "the stories will be better" by how much? In what ways? I'm not a habitual reader, but when I read a book it's because I want to learn about its contents, maybe I want to read a story or learn something new. It may be possible for some of the books I’d like to read to be written with AI in it's entirety, but I think that most of the time I'll go for human-made works, as they are based on the life experiences of the author (a human being I could relate to).
In my case, as a programmer, I don't really like the process of using AI as a code generator. I have better results when I come up with an idea or take a project and think about what I want to do and then use AI as a helping hand to figure how to do it. I'll go to my preferred AI when I need to find a name for some specific implementation or to give input on similar methods and techniques and, most of all, understand how some tools work.
Maybe there comes a day where developers don't write any code like we do now, that's a problem future me will face and will adapt to.
- Nov 16, 2016
- 447
- 311
intersting the worlds first ever ai sexbot
You must be registered to see the links
news arical on sex robots with ai
You must be registered to see the links
- Oct 20, 2019
- 138
- 52
AFTER SEEING THESE TWO ARTICLES I ONLY HAVE ONE THING TO SAY, WHAT IS SARAH CONNOR'S PHONE NUMBER?
I get you, but AI-generated text can straight-up fool you into thinking a human wrote it. I mean, it's mind-blowing. These algorithms have learned from tons of human-written stuff, absorbing all that language and style like sponges. They've become masters of mimicry, capturing the emotions and experiences that make human-made works relatable.
Now, don't get me wrong, human authors are special and all, with real-life stories that hit you right in the gut. But here's the deal: AI-generated text is like a sneaky little imposter, blending in with human works and leaving you thinking, "Wait, a damn robot wrote this?" It's like a wild card. So while human-made works will always have their place, don't sleep on AI. You might just stumble upon some mind-blowing shit that feels like it was poured straight from a human soul.
- Oct 20, 2019
- 138
- 52
Well, I think the whole current AI industry will likely be put back a few years of work in the near future, due to copyright infringement. This could be huge news for artists and/or library's of work, as new AI models will need legal source material.
legitimist library's of work have all the metadata. This could more refine and really get granular on styles/genera's the AI's learning. Instead of currently "here is all this data from everywhere and most of it the worst of the worst of humanity, you sort it out." "No we didn't pay for it. the internet is free."
TL/RD. AI is not NFT's. it has a future, just have to learn from the early mistakes.
legitimist library's of work have all the metadata. This could more refine and really get granular on styles/genera's the AI's learning. Instead of currently "here is all this data from everywhere and most of it the worst of the worst of humanity, you sort it out." "No we didn't pay for it. the internet is free."
TL/RD. AI is not NFT's. it has a future, just have to learn from the early mistakes.
You cannot copyright a style.
Human artists train by studying a wide variety of styles and techniques and then applying them to their own work. What AIs do is similar: they train on existing material (often with copyright), but unless explicitly asked to do so, they won't imitate a specific work, just like a person can draw a comic in the style of another artist, but won't infringe on their copyright unless they go out of their way to do so.
Those who claim that all AI art is stolen are delusional, and more often than not, entirely unknown artists trying to draw some attention. Claiming that AI training infringes copyright is like saying that all musicians are thieves because they learned from the works of other musicians, or that all writers are infringing copyright because they got inspired and took elements from the works of other writers.
People who use AIs to infringe copyright can already be prosecuted just as if they used any non-AI tool to do it.
Lets focus on Visual art, the same does apply to written and audio but harder to prove.
it's not the fact the "Style" being produced is infringing on artists, its the fact the leaning model was trained on stolen work. This has been proven time and time again, many with actual watermarks/signatures being displayed on the "new" AI work.
So AI company's are using stolen art to make a profit. This is copywrite infringement. For the current big AI company's to have to remove all that work from the AI learning model will be more time consuming and expensive than starting from scratch with Licenced works.
it's not the fact the "Style" being produced is infringing on artists, its the fact the leaning model was trained on stolen work. This has been proven time and time again, many with actual watermarks/signatures being displayed on the "new" AI work.
So AI company's are using stolen art to make a profit. This is copywrite infringement. For the current big AI company's to have to remove all that work from the AI learning model will be more time consuming and expensive than starting from scratch with Licenced works.
Again, humans train on "stolen" (I think you mean things with copyright) as much as AIs do. Every single comic, manga, illustration, painting, you-name-it visual artist trained by studying the works and techniques of others.
If an AI is adding watermarks to the output, then your prompt is trash, or you're purposely asking it to imitate a picture instead of creating a new one based on the million of pictures that it's studied and on your original prompt.
AIs don't infringe on anything, people who misuse them do, and once again; those people are liable to legal action just as if they had copied the work on a piece of paper, a canvas, or using Photoshop (which incidentally is now including AI in its newest version).
And those "comic, manga, illustration, painting, you-name-it" were payed for right?
Human's train on lots of "Public domain" but we also train from licenced works. Texts book, Art magazines. Literally paying an entrance fee to experience it.
The idea that everything we learn is free, because it is so easy to find unlicensed copies, is a misconception.
Just because we do it, doesn't make it rightWe're in a piracy forum. I don't know what to tell you.
The point I'm trying to make is. These AI learning models have been trained on some copy written material, without permission or fee. Downloading text books, art magazines, comics.....The basic building blocks of where current AI is at, and using that to create a new for profit product.
I'm not ok with big tech paying nothing for peoples work.
- Oct 26, 2017
- 220
- 377
I kinda wanted to make the point that Teye phoon did with the training on copyrighted material, knowing that this could be a counterargument:
Now suing a multimillion dollar company has proven to be more beneficial. That's a good enough reason for some people to try and pursue legal action.
The important part is that when Napster and LimeWire were getting heat, suing the individuals wasn't really efficient (money and time wise). So an artist won't go after every artist they think has "copied" pirated material.
Now suing a multimillion dollar company has proven to be more beneficial. That's a good enough reason for some people to try and pursue legal action.
- Jul 13, 2019
- 47
- 173
That's just assuming for Western tech companies in regard to AI. If we make it so that over here, AI developers have to get express permission to use other peoples' content to train the AI, what do you think the Russian or Chinese governments will do? The Russian and Chinese governments don't really give anywhere near a shit when it comes to copyright in other countries. If some Chinese company infringes on the copyright of an American company or person, and you try filing a copyright infringement lawsuit, good luck getting the defendant to show up or for them to even acknowledge your existence. The same applies largely to Russian companies and the sort. Western AI developers would have to play by the rules, because they could end up getting sued into oblivion, but I'm calling it now, Chinese and Russian AI developers aren't going to give a rat's ass about our copyright laws, because historically, their own companies haven't