It is a bit, but I think that's mostly surface - might fade if you keep playing? Did you feel the same about the classic Bioware games?
Quite a bit of that in Baldur's Gate tbf!
There's so many examples in this article of her pop star mum opening doors for her that you have to think the BBC journo did that deliberately. www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
The independent artist describes her sound as
The only reason the engines are low cost is because 1) they're absorbing costs, 2) they're not paying creators anything. If machine outputs were (say) half the price of paying a creative, but creatives were getting some of that money, would that be so bad?
It can only do that based on what's been fed into it, and it's cheap because artists aren't paid at all. If there was even a small amount per licence, these machines would quickly have a cost. IMO we don't need the machines gone - they're just a low-end version, with proceeds still going to artists.
I think they're almost like social media tbh, except that they've forced everyone onto their network without asking. The product is partly the software and partly the inputs - but they've just stolen much of the inputs.
Put another way, should people be allowed to sell art to be input into these engines? If they're properly licensed and limited, I don't see them as problematic tbh. It's the current parasitic approach that seems to be the big problem.
But that machine can't do what you can, and is reliant on your input. I don't think they can ever be a replacement for human art, certainly if they're not allowed to feast on everything in an unlimited way. It's a cheap version of what humans do.
I suspect that it would be pretty small - on the assumption that you're not signing away the rights in perpetuity.
What's a reasonable amount for such a licence? I agree that they should be paid for their work and benefit from its use, but not sure what the value per-artist would be.