Comment by stego-tech

Comment by stego-tech 17 hours ago

35 replies

View on Hacker News

This actually looks pretty good. The key takeaway I got was that they know their business is dependent upon Intellectual Property rights, and that Generative AI in final outputs or productive work undermines the foundation of their future success vis a vis discounting or dismissing IP Law and Rights.

That’s likely to be the middle ground going forward for the smarter creative companies, and I’m personally all for it. Sure, use it for a pitch, or a demo, or a test - but once there’s money on the line (copyright in particular), get that shit outta there because we can’t own something we stole from someone else.

DebtDeflation an hour ago

> Generative AI in final outputs or productive work undermines the foundation of their future success vis a vis discounting or dismissing IP Law and Rights

It goes beyond just IP law compliance. Creativity is their core competency and competitive differentiator. If you replace that with AI slop, then your product becomes almost indistinguishable from that of everyone else producing AI slop.

IMO, they're striking exactly the right balance - use AI as a creative aid and productivity booster not something to make the critical aspects of the final product.

Reply View 0 replies
AmbroseBierce 16 hours ago

Or they can do like Call of duty, that just makes skins "heavily inspired" by other franchises they don't own, the week Borderlands 4 came out they put a few cell shaded skins that heavily resembles the look of that game's characters, there is one that skin that is pretty much like reptile from mortal Kombat called "vibrant serpent", they got a bit of heat in May of this year for releasing a skin that looked too much like one from another game called High On Life, and the list goes on. It reminds me a lot of the disguises they sell on Spirit Halloween during every October.

And yes I know they do legal and agreed partnerships like with the Predator franchise, or the Beavis and Butt-Head franchise (yes they exist in CoD now...), and those only count for a tiny number of the premium skins.

Reply View 19 replies
  • p1necone 15 hours ago

    The Call of Duty series makes me so sad. I remember when cod 4 came out it felt like a genuinely groundbreaking and innovative thing and I was so pumped to see what IW did next. And then Activision took all of that talent that was genuinely exploring new ground in game development and stuck them in the yearly rerelease of the same damn game mill until everyone got burnt out and left.

    Reply View 18 replies
    • retrochameleon 14 hours ago

      For the record, Arc Raiders (just released) makes me feel like I'm back playing MW2 in the golden days. Just in the sense of playing an awesome game and riding the wave of popularity with everyone else.

      Reply View 7 replies
      • p1necone 14 hours ago

        Thanks, I'd heard whispers but hadn't jumped in yet. I will need to check this out.

        (platinum rating on protondb too woohoo)

        Reply View 0 replies
      • avtar 12 hours ago

        I've been trying to find time here and there to get the tumbleweeds out of my gaming pc just so I can try that game. Reviews and streams for it remind me a bit of the Dark Zone experience when the first Division game came out.

        Reply View 2 replies
      • alickz 4 hours ago

        Arc Raiders, and their previous game The Finals, uses AI in some capacity for Voice Acting - though they do still hire VA and make it explicit in their contract offer

        >Some of the voice lines were created using generative artificial intelligence tools, using an original sample of voice lines from voice actors hired specifically with an AI-use contractual clause, similar to the studio's production process in The Finals.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC_Raiders

        Great game though, I'm really enjoying it too

        Reply View 0 replies
      • Der_Einzige 12 hours ago

        Unfortunately games playerbases don't stick around long enough anymore for grinding hard enough to be worth it.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • [removed] 10 hours ago
          [deleted]
          Reply View 0 replies
    • asdff 12 hours ago

      I thought they were on biyearly swapping with treyarch?

      Cod4 in some ways was the beginning of the end for a lot that we took for granted in gaming up to that point. I remember when it released and a couple of us went to my friends house to play it. Boy were we in for a shock when there was no coop multiplayer like halo 3.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • Der_Einzige 12 hours ago

        If MW didn't have co-op multiplayer on console than that's another example of the Mandela effect.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • swiftcoder 5 hours ago

          It had split-screen local multiplayer, but you couldn't play online in that configuration

          Reply View 0 replies
    • AmbroseBierce 15 hours ago

      Not me, the mix of parkour with multiplayer shooting with beautiful highly detailed maps it's something I like a lot, nothing even compares in that regard, I know the game is a shameless skin store but I do appreciate the former, although I also hate how small a lot of maps are, glances at Nuketown

      Reply View 6 replies
      • p1necone 14 hours ago

        They stole all the parkour stuff from Titanfall, which was made by the original IW founders when they left and founded Respawn ;)

        (I use "stole" in a non derogatory way here - 90% of good game design is cribbing together stuff that worked elsewhere in a slightly new form)

        Reply View 3 replies
      • asdff 12 hours ago

        I hate how parkour infested the fps genre. There's this whole meta now that I don't care about at all yet one has to learn if you don't want to go 3 and 12 and its in most games now.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • com2kid 12 hours ago

          It has been that way for decades, but prior the parkour stuff was exploiting bugs in game engines and only the top 1% or less of players could even pull off the complex inputs needed.

          Personally, I was in the top 10% of HL2DM players but because I couldn't master the inputs for skating I wasn't able to compete with the truly elite tier players who would zip around the map at breakneck speeds.

          Reply View 0 replies
amelius 16 hours ago

> get that shit outta there because we can’t own something we stole from someone else

How does anyone prove it though? You can say "does that matter?" but once everybody starts doing it, it becomes a different story.

Reply View 8 replies
  • bjt 16 hours ago

    It's partly about Netflix getting sued by someone claiming infringement, but also partly (maybe mostly) about Netflix maintaining their right to sue others for infringement.

    The scenario looks like this:

    * Be Netflix. Own some movie or series where the main elements (plot, characters, setting) were GenAI-created.

    * See someone else using your plot/characters/setting in their own for-profit works.

    * Try suing that someone else for copyright infringement.

    * Get laughed out of court because the US Copyright Office has already said that GenAI is not copyrightable. [1]

    [1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

    Reply View 4 replies
    • Bombthecat 7 hours ago

      You need to say you improved on the work of AI and it's yours.

      Now you can sue

      Reply View 0 replies
    • babyshake 16 hours ago

      This scenario only plays out if it is known what was or wasn't made with GenAI.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • Aloisius 15 hours ago

        It would become known during discovery.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • amelius 5 hours ago

          How can you find out if an AI created something versus a human with a pixel editor?

          Reply View 0 replies
  • TheRoque 14 hours ago

    Are you kidding me ? Everyone knows it's pirated content (aka stealing), there are a ton of proofs here and there:

    - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-torrented-o... - https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/openai-risks-billions-a...

    Other than that, just a bit of common sense tells you all you need to know about where the data comes from (datasets never released, outputs of the LLMs suspisciously close to original copyrighted content, AI founders openly saying that paying for copyrighted content is too costly etc. etc. etc.)

    Reply View 0 replies
  • higginsniggins 16 hours ago

    Any one with a brain knows it is not stolen, but nevertheless the fact that people will claim so is a risk.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • exasperaited 8 hours ago

      It is stolen on a cultural level at least.

      But since many of these models will blurt out very obviously infringing material without targeted prompting, it’s also an active, continuous thief.

      Reply View 0 replies
doctorpangloss 12 hours ago

Yeah. No. This document says, “our strategy is wait and see.” It’s the most disruptive media technology since the TV. And they’re like, “whatever.” That is not the move of a “smarter” creative company. Lawyers are really, really bad at running companies, even if you have strong opinions about the law.

Reply View 4 replies
  • exasperaited 8 hours ago

    Disruptive does not mean good, or useful, or important, or valuable. There is no reason to jump onto a thing early just because it is disruptive: Netflix exists in a different creative world than the tech industry, and its audiences are even more hostile to the idea that AI is being used to steal from the things and people they admire than the audiences of typical tech industry disruptions. People who care about art and artists and films and actors tend not to value slop.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • danielbln 8 hours ago

      Nobody values slop, and not everything is slop, AI or otherwise. Also, stealing is not the same as copyright infringement, unless you subscribe to the RIAA definition of the word.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • exasperaited 5 hours ago

        AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad.

        So just as there's no procedural difference between an AI getting something right and an AI "hallucinating", if the word "slop" describes anything AI generates, it describes all of it.

        Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is.

        Also I know stealing is not the same thing as copyright infringement. I'm talking about stealing livelihoods as much as stealing art.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • alickz 4 hours ago

          >AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad.

          AI is just a wrapper around a tool - it doesn't need intention or creativity because those come from the user in the form of prompts (which are by definition intentional)

          It's just a Natural Language Interface for calling CLI tools mostly, just like how GUIs are just graphical interfaces for calling CLI tools, but no one thinks a GUI has no intentionality or creativity even when using stochastic/probabilistic tools

          Anything a user can do with an AI they could also do with a GUI, it would just take longer and more practice

          >Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is.

          But then how do you know something is slop before you know if it's made with GenAI? Does all art exist as Schrodinger's Slop until you can prove GenAI was used? (if that's even possible)

          Reply View 0 replies