- cross-posted to:
- gaming@lemmy.world
- games@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- gaming@lemmy.world
- games@sh.itjust.works
You must log in or # to comment.
I’m working on a game. I’ll be using AI for anything it’s good for. If some people don’t want to play because of that, fine, but AI used properly is a productivity multiplier that cannot be ignored.
Feel like “anytime it’s good for” could be subjective.
There are likely folks who think they can just vibe code up an unreal tutorial and say AI was good at “all of it”.
if some boilerplate mechanics are AI code completions, or you had it generate a skybox for you, ok. If it’s generating a significant chunk of your “foreground” assets, then I’m likely to find out as disinteresting as the titles that have leaned hard on stock assets.
why not pay some unknown artist on fivrr for some work.
well, that’s probably a bad idea. they’re probably also using AI.
Slop.
Slop
Honestly, maybe I’m an old fart, but I refuse to knowingly buy games if they use AI instead of paying talented people to create works of art.
What if talented artists use AI to enhance their original work?
An interesting use case for me in programming has been prototyping. Stuff I otherwise wouldn’t have the time to experiment with suddenly becomes something feasible. And then, based on what I learnt while having the AI build the prototype, I can build the actual thing I want to build. So far, it has worked out pretty nicely for me.
If you’re AI upscaling a low resolution texture or something I can see that. But if I want a computer to rip off somebody else’s work and regurgitate a story based on some amalgamation of its questionably sourced training data, I can do that on my own for free.
Well that’s the problem isn’t it it depends entirely on what the AI is being used for. The truth is we don’t know because Steam doesn’t tell us.
what I want with AI games: Free conversations with NPCs who react to your actions.
what I don’t want, endless slop
deleted by creator
instead of writing pages of dialogue, write a lot of back story, personality, interests, knowledge, info they have, quests they have to share, sample of how they talk…
fine tune models… this way each character would sound unique, rather than standard chat gpt.
a good prototype would be about a village with about a dozen of NPCs.
deleted by creator
another use, draw assets for a age of empires like game. then generate a diffusion model on them. now you can make rows of houses and non of them will be identical and all will fit in the art style.
same things with textures, no more repeating textures.
Yes pls
I don’t know if you have heard about the game AI2U: With You 'Til The End that’s basically a Escape the room game where a Girl kidnapped you and you need to escape. You can talk to the AI girl about any bullshit, interact and show them items in your inventory etc. If you make them upset they will maybe kill you, or they can like you so much that they will help you escape. I had a lot of fun with this game.
thanks, looks like a cool concept
Same, so used as a tool to help textures load better, to make the game function better, great.
If you pay an actor for their voice, why not ai infinite dialogue? Nobody is losing work because a human literally cannot do that job.
without that tech they would have hired a voice actor anyways, or what would be better, get a voice actor, create a character, have him voice a shit ton of lines with different emotions, timber, whispers… fine tune a model in that character, that would make every character sound unique and much less robotic.
How is it possible to hire a voice actor to make up infinite lines based on my specific questions? For every player? It isn’t
not infinite lines, just enough to find tune a model for a specific character.
also, i mean proper voice actors, the ones that can make countless distinct characters with different voices and accents.
i don’t mean buying someone’s voice, i mean hiring a voice actor to make up a specific character and have ownership of that character.
The conversation around gen AI seems to go to putting people out of work or replacing tons of human effort, and I’m sure some companies are led by people with those naive dreams, but that My Summer Car example is exactly where my head goes when I think what the future of the technology is. It’s artwork that ought to be there, because the scene demands that there’s art on the walls, but what that artwork is basically doesn’t matter, so if gen AI can get the job done cheaply, it’s probably the right tool for the job. However, I’d have thought that the scientist portraits in Jurassic World Evolution were another prime use case for it too, but people rioted over that one. Even if it’s a good tool for the job, if it’s poison in the marketplace, it’s no longer a good tool to use.
I imagine a lot of indie games can’t really afford to pay or commission artists but still want to have a product that looks presentable. I know someone who does mostly programming but is now considering making being a solo dev on a game because generative AI enables him to do it alone.
There definitely exists a spectrum between shovelware, large studios being too cheap to pay actual artists and indie devs having little to no other options.
I mean so long as they don’t try to profit off of it I guess. Albeit it still enables all the corporations that are shilling this kind of bullshit so personally I’d not be very interested in their slopware.
I thought about doing this, but my plan would be to attach a thumbnail on every piece of AI art declaring “Placeholder AI work”. Then release the game for free that way to gauge interest.
I find this outlook to be pretty sad. The idea of chunks of your art “not mattering” and just being there as filler.
One of the joys of creating artwork is that during the process of creation you are actively figuring out what is important. Perhaps you start out creating a simple texture just to have something on the walls, and in the process you realize there’s an equally simple yet creative way for you to tell a little story with that wall. Something most players will never notice but a year from release gets thrown in “small details you missed” compilations.
It may be that the idea you came up with for that wall goes on to influence the main story, and spur on a totally different and more interesting game than you initially imagined.
A lot of non-artists have this concept of art, where it forms completely in your head in a single burst, and then you just have endure the tedious labor of constructing it. I think that’s why people are so easily persuaded by the ‘promise’ of AI. They think it’s just making the boring parts easy. But in reality it’s making the creative parts boring
Elevator music is a surprisingly profitable commercial niche. For that matter, there are always going to be soulless, insipid, overused imitations of real art that gets turned into staggering commercial success precisely because it’s bland and meaningless. “Live, love, laugh” for example.
Not everything has to have meaning and significance, but we also have the right to judge it when it should.
The problem with AI is that a lot of artists literally rely at least to some extent on the money that flows from that soulless commercial drivel, either with their eyes fully open to the situation, or by convincing themselves that it does have meaning to somebody, or just themselves if nobody else. They need to pay the bills and put food on the table and a huge source of that comes from commercial art work which has a high bar for visual impact and a very low bar for ideas or meaning.
If AI replaces the meaningless filler content of the art world, how do artists survive if that’s their bread and butter? It’s never going to directly replace real human art, but if it removes their meal ticket, the outcome will still be the same. Soon there will be almost no real human artists left, as they’ll start to become prohibitively expensive, which will drive more people to AI in a self-reinforcing feedback loop until only a handful of “masters” and a bunch of literal starving artists trying to become them without ever earning a penny. The economics of the situation are pretty dire and it’s increasingly hard to picture a future for human art that doesn’t look bleak.
I’m planning to do my part to make sure exclusively human-made art is always the choice I’m going to make and pay for, but there are bigger forces at play here than you or me and I don’t think they’re going to push things in a happy direction. The enshittification of art will happen, is already happening, and we’re just along for the ride.
A beautiful post, thank you. There’s a lot in here that I could further clarify my positions on but I don’t disagree with you.
My hope is that enough people will emphatically reject it in order to keep things alive. A band doesn’t need ten million listeners to thrive, even 1,000 people who buy your albums and come to your shows can keep you moving. It may be that we become a counterculture of a bunch of artists who support each other.
But I do also have confidence that human ingenuity will always be more powerful than the slop that literally anyone can churn out on their phone in two seconds. So the scene may change but I think there will always be a somewhat large market for when people want more than just inoffensive elevator music
with 1000 supporters you need them to shell a monthly €10 to be viable. That’s unrealistic. I’m not going to support every individual creator to that extent.
Artists need to make a stable hundred and twenty thousand euros a year to be viable?
But my apologies, my framing of this idea was underdeveloped. You as a listener are not supporting every artist you listen to via like patreon or something.
Essentially, from the perspective of the band itself, you just need to reach a critical mass of fans that will buy your albums, come to your shows, want to pick up a t shirt, etc. And that number is much lower than you would think. Not for becoming a millionaire with a mansion mind you, but to make your project self sustaining
That « just » carries a lot… and 10k a month brut is far from making anyone a millionaire. They have expenses, taxes… that’s a confortable-ish living wage.
Your assertions carry nothing
It’s kind of interesting that you say elevator music is soulless, not real art, etc. There are some genres of music that are based on elevator music, hold music, weather channel music, “Muzak” in general. It’s just as real as anything else, and people do seek it out.
I think when you’ve got a small enough team making something as multifaceted as a video game, there will be parts of it you find boring and relatively unimportant. If you can make it cheaper, you get that much closer to the possibility of breaking even. Parts of this can scale up to larger projects, but in the end, this is a matter of choosing your battles. There’s an adage that’s something like, “Your game is never done; you just stop working on it,” and the sooner you can stop working on it while still delivering a product that people are interested in, the more sustainable the whole endeavor becomes. Chunks of it will be filler or less important than other chunks, always. It’s why there’s a Unity and Unreal asset store; and why you can hear the same sound library used in Devil May Cry, Soul Calibur, and Dark Souls menus. Those parts of the game were less important to be specifically crafted for these games, and they chose other battles to care more about.
Eh, the small team argument doesn’t really carry any water I think. Some of the most beloved indie games of all time have simple, geometric graphics. Thomas Was Alone even managed to tell a tear jerking story between characters who were monotone squares and rectangles.
Using AI to totally gloss over some of your most basic creative questions, such as “what are my capabilities?” And “What can I do given those limitations?” Isn’t going to lead you to a better product. If something is truly that unimportant it can be arranged trivially or cut. Even choosing to cut something is an inherently creative decision; another layer of the process which is lost if you train yourself to reach for AI to implement something that suits your first whim.
The asset store angle is also not really comparable. You’re still collaborating with another artist. We could ride this train all the way down to you didn’t personally mine the silicone for the computer you personally designed if we felt like it. It’s disingenuous and ignores the material differences between these technologies.
In summary, I basically think that you are narratively framing this as something that empowers the little guys, but I disagree that it is actually doing so in practice. It’s a product that’s only on our minds because of a massive concerted effort on the behalf of mega corporations whose explicit goals are to rob and disenfranchise us
I’m not a fan of AI; I’m indifferent to it. What your capabilities are will vary based on which tools you’re using, and that can result in a very different scope of game. The part where it’s collaborating with another artist doesn’t matter to me if I can’t tell the difference, as long as the intellectual property rights of how the AI was trained are handled properly. I won’t be able to tell the difference in something like My Summer Car, because the prop artwork hanging in the room isn’t why I would be playing that game. If it has a tangible effect on the quality of the game, and I can tell the product is sub par because of the use of gen AI, that’s when it was the wrong tool for the job, or that it should have been cut. I personally wouldn’t care about how those scientists in Jurassic World look (there’s more important, attention-grabbing stuff in that game), but seemingly, plenty of people do. The reason I brought up small teams in particular is not just because of cost savings but because you’re less likely to have a specialist who excels at or enjoys every single part that makes up a video game.
that can result in a very different scope of game.
That’s exactly the point. Sometimes you shouldn’t even try to do certain things. The 15 minutes you spend shimming your AI assets into the game are ironically stealing your time from the 15 minutes of thoughtful consideration that would have resulted in a manageable project. Again my friend; your first thought for the project is not the point when you have finished the important thinking for your project.
Anyway we can keep going back and forth about your narrative framing of the technology all day, but you say you don’t really care, so why try to justify anything beyond that? If the devs don’t care about the phenomena I’m describing, and neither do their players, then of course it’s a match made in heaven. Please feel free to enjoy your pastimes without any concern for these conversations. People who think like me will occasionally meet you with scrutiny (we obviously think you should care very deeply about the art you choose to fill your life with) but I suspect in time our groups will naturally just see less and less of each other
You’re certainly free to lovingly craft every byte of a game but that doesn’t automatically make it a better product. You’re describing a creative outlet, not something that needs to appeal to some random customer in the 10s they skim your store page.
Regardless of how important it is to your creative vision, there are some boxes you need to check. Visual texture on an otherwise forgettable wall is that exact case. If you need some background wall art your options are:
- Spend X units of time putting something together. Most likely a poor use of time unless you’re already proficient
- Fundamentally simplify your art style to keep X manageable (your game ends up in the pixel art bin, sales plummet)
- Sacrifice other parts of development to free up X time (content, mechanics and other features suffer)
- Pay somebody else (literally never in the budget for an indie game)
- Gen AI gives something passable in a few minutes
Or everyone could take your advice: if you don’t have the time or money to approach your dream game, don’t even try! In my opinion, more people making their art is a good thing, even if it doesn’t pass everyone’s purity test.
If you’re (rightly) worried about the livelihood of the displaced background artist that’s fine, but complain about the economic system and not the tool.
Yeah similar to above my friend, you are simply incorrectly framing the issue rather than exploring reality as it is.
You are merely saying the words “you will either use GenAI or your project will fail, there is NO WAY to economically address any of the problems that crop up during game dev without using it”. This betrays fundamental misunderstanding of what creativity is
It is also ahistorical. What you and seemingly all proponents of the technology seem to forget is the meteoric success of the industry and indie games in particular prior to the AI nonsense.
Finally, I am not even slightly interested in addressing your ridiculous perversions of my previous points. Anyone can easily understand what I’m saying and it’s very telling that you feel the need to misrepresent me so extremely. You may continue arguing with yourself if you wish, I trust that any reader worth reaching will easily be able to distinguish between my words and the strawmen you are compelled to present
That’s exactly the point. Sometimes you shouldn’t even try to do certain things.
This is some luddite logic. If man were meant to fly God would have gave us wings.
Icarus flew too close to the sun, you know.
Ridiculous and obvious mischaracterization of the point. I’m not gonna waste my time arguing with the random ideas you invent
Well, AI is largely a solution in search of a problem at this point in time, but I’m very glad that people found ways to make games that got beyond telling stories with colored rectangles, because I don’t think I have it in me to play more than one of those. Fortunately, better tools and options can exist so that there’s not some arbitrary reason to choose to do less when you could have done more. The actual value of gen AI right now is propped up by investments and not actual profitability, so we’ll see where its value falls in the marketplace once gravity pulls it back down. I expect the better option will still often be just the asset store when the dust settles. And this isn’t some total disregard for what art we fill our lives with. There’s art that people care very deeply about in My Summer Car, just not the framed pictures hanging on the wall.
I’m very glad that people found ways to make games that got beyond telling stories with colored rectangles
You and I both are limited in what we are capable of appreciating. The limiting factor is our taste. My hope for everyone is that we always continue to see the value in developing our taste, because the art we engage with affects who we become
It does empower little guys. It empowers everybody, for good or ill. That’s a what a tool is. I can hammer a nail, I can hammer a nail that shouldn’t be there, or I can hammer a person in the face. Is any of that the hammer’s fault?
Gen AI is not a hammer, it is an auto-construction machine that removes you from the process of building. It doesn’t empower people, it sidesteps them.
I think there’s room for someone to recognize there’s an utterly generic facet to an otherwise creative work. If you for example know you just want a generic night skybox, I don’t think there’s going to be more quality by doing it directly.
However that sentiment carried forward to the assets will rapidly degrade the experience similar to using stock assets.
There’s a balance for sure, again tho I would caution against “knowing” things about your work beforehand. I consider that to be a trap. Skyboxes in particular you can do amazing stylish things very quickly by blowing up unexpected textures and adding a few grounding elements, but we don’t need to drill too deeply into any particular element. Doors don’t open for you if you never try the handle
A few angles on this:
You’re right that nothing is unimportant and I certainly enjoy it when I discover that attention to detail, but part of what makes that special is knowing that they put in extra effort into that. Acknowledging it as something that takes effort, we have to recognize the trade offs associated with that effort. Devs, especially indie ones, don’t have unlimited time and resources. So they have to prioritize. Choose your battles. What are the MOST important things that need to be in the game? What is required? Then after that if you have resources left and can control yourself from doing too much scope creep, then you can spend time on the lower priority things. If you can’t do this you might never release the game.
Of course, what is more or less important is subjective and context dependent. Subtle, intentional details might be more important in a game with a lot of environmental storytelling like Dark Souls, or a puzzle game where you want to be careful about how you direct the player’s attention, but is probably much less important in say, an action rpg where you’re just running through hoards of random enemies slamming particle effects.
Another thought I had related to the point about inspiration happening through the process: I don’t really do art anymore, (no real reason I stopped, might be fun again if I ever have the motivation/focus for it) but in high school I took 3 years of graphics design classes for art class. I’d finish whatever my assigned project was and then I just spent a bunch of time messing around in photoshop with random gradients, filters, and other effects. I wouldn’t call it super deliberate at least in the early stages, but at some point I’d end up with some abstract art that I liked and maybe tweaked a bit from there based on the things I saw from randomly trying stuff. I still use some of those for desktop backgrounds. I don’t think I could have ended up with any of that without some of the random stuff photoshop did. I could imagine someone using an ai image generation for similar kinds of inspiration. Although I can see how it’s also a lot easier for them to just stop there and not think about it again.
That thumbnail’s got some hand body horror going on.
I would charge extra to do her manicure.
The way that valves AI tag works is kind of a problem.
There is no subtlety to it at all, if you use AI in any capacity during the development of the game you need to declare it via that tag yet all the tag then does is say “AI in this game”, but there’s a big difference between having the AI develop the entire story or produce all of the artwork, and having AI write boilerplate camera controls for a farming simulator.
Does using copilot to code count as “made with AI” too?
Of course, that’s why we need better guidelines. It’s like beauty ads that have to declare they used Photoshop. Every photo is edited if you don’t make it clear what you mean
Yeah, I suspect the AI tag should apply to even more games then.
Hence the problem
Why should something not be disclosed just because its common?
Because it becomes meaningless noise instead of useful information.
Even if it is ignored by a lot of people, its better than not knowing at all
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a disclosure, but an uncertain threshold that might be as low as “a developer accepted a copilot completion suggestion one time” isn’t useful. You just end up with a prop65 situation where it’s slapped on everything and basically meaningless.
Steam allows you to describe the use of AI
Also, if you know you are making a game for steam, why not just ignore the copilot suggestion? I dont think it will increase the time to make a game by that much time
Okay great so I’ll use AI to develop every aspect of my game and then just not declare it. After all, there’s no enforcement so why wouldn’t I do that?
The problem is the tag has literally no reason to exist, no one would admit to using AI even if they did so what the bloody hell was the point?
It’s like you didn’t even bother to read the Wikipedia article because it explains exactly why this sort of thing doesn’t work
Because I don’t think anybody actually cares that much if you use small pieces of AI code. What people don’t want is everything being AI produced.
Right now though the AI tag is been applied to both scenarios with no distinction.
But there is a difference
Steam allows you to describe how you used AI
I didn’t say that. It should be more specific to have any meaning to the consumer.
But it has meaning to some consumers. Not everyone can tell that an image has been majorly edited or created using a program created to replicate pictures
You mean the idea that if wasn’t created completely by people? It matters to you that some unpaid intern wasn’t forced to work overtime writing the most boring bullshit scaffolding code?
That kind of behavior should be disclosed too
It builds indifference to the disclaimer when it’s too general. The California cancer label is a good example.
But its not too general. Steam allows you to give a description of the use of AI
The problem is you end up with the tag nonetheless.
The description doesn’t apply to the label, no matter how much explanation you provide you’re still going to devalue your game with the AI label so why would any developer admit to that?
The whole thing is just mind numbingly stupid.
Whoever thought this up needs to get out more and actually experience the human condition.
What? It shows up as a footer under the description, and inside is the game developer’s description of how they used AI. Look at Stellaris for example, I remember they claim to use it minimally (in very vague words), but they certainly get to say their piece.
I agree that having more degrees of usage would be useful, but erring on the side of caution and declaring any AI use as a first step is better than doing nothing.
Okay so there is this whole arguement going on about The Altars how apparently a tiny piece of background art has AI generated text in it. Personally I feel that’s absolutely fine, as otherwise it would have just been Lorem Ipsum, and really doesn’t need to be declared but technically, under the strictest interpretation of that tag, it should be declared even though you can’t even see it unless you zoom in.
I would very much like valved actually come up with a concrete policy rather than a vague one-line statement.
E.g. Does using Intellisense need to be declared?
Would syntax highlighting?
With how many games are released on Steam, how can AI be quantified and enforced?
Using generative AI to replace toil and not the creative human process is fine imo. Even doing something like generating visual things, to me, is OK if it’s driven by real creative intent and doesn’t result in something that looks low quality. But it’s not very simple to get output that you can tweak in fine ways to get predictable changes based on specific creative intent - human language is not descriptive enough to really capture that. “A picture is worth a thousand words” is accurate. You’re also shooting yourself in the foot when you end up with a ton of assets or systems that you don’t have fine control over because you can’t do something simple like tweak a layer of an image because what you got at the end of the day was just a raster output from a black box.
I have an acquaintance who is a lead Dev at an Indie studio where he is developing and training an NPC behaviour engine with thousands of responses and actions. Think fallout or mass effect response wheel, where 2-4 dialogue choices have 2-4 outcomes, but instead you can tell the NPC anything and it will have a different response. Or it will do different things whether you hand it a book, give it book, throw a potion at it or cast a healing spell on it or hug it. It could also change tactics if you tried to snipe it vs if you went at it melee. All of these are trained and accounted for and made in a way where it can be built into any game using a certain engine. And this is just aimed at generic npcs, not companions.
So if this is what disclosure of the use of generative AI means, I’m not against it. I think there is nuance to what can be done with it. Using final art assets? It’s theft. Writing? Theft. NPC behaviour? Definitely not.
Strange to not qualify the last one as theft. If it’s out putting code, it’s from the same kind of training set. If it’s out putting character responses, they’re from that same literary training data.
Open-source training texts intended for pairing with your intended style of output have been around for far longer than OpenAI has been grifting data from the entire Internet and collected book works. It came across like that’s what they’re using, not some shit off HuffingFarce that was built off of AO3 and Harry Potter.
Procedural generation of content in games is by no means a new thing. Even if the end state isn’t completely procedurally generated, odds are a version of the asset was initially and a human touched it up as necessary. When you’re talking about large asset sets (open world and/or large maps, tons of textures, lots of weapons, etc) odds are they weren’t all 100% hand made. Could you imagine making the topology map and placing things like trees in something like RDR2?
That’s not to say all this automation is necessary a good thing. It almost feels like we’re slowly chugging through a second industrial revolution, but this time for white collar workers. I know that I tell myself that I would rather spend my time solving problems vs doing “menial” work and have written a ton of automation to remove menial work from my job. I do wonder if problem solving will become at least somewhat menial in the future.
Is procedural generation part of what they must disclose as being AI generated, tho? The assets used usually are still made by hand, even if all the tree and rock (and whatever else) assets were placed procedurally using RNG or some sort of algorithm. Its when the assets, or dialogue/writing is generated by the computer that p
Procedural generation is just an earlier form of AI that’s been demystified and commercialized as a positive thing. The current generative tools aren’t at that level of adoption yet.
Procedural generation is just an earlier form of AI that’s been demystified and commercialized as a positive thing.
That is such a broad generalisation that it makes the term useless.
Is Minesweeper AI then? It uses procedural generation to generate the play area. Is Minecraft chunk generation AI?
Is perlin noise AI?
Oooohhh Grooosssssss! It’s gonna fucking overtake the real content so fast, now. jfc, how do we even sort them out if the “creators” don’t follow the disclosure rules?
Read reviews. Examine promotional materials. Discuss with friends.
So at the end of the day we all have to go digging through muck. Horrible.
It doesn’t take very long to look at ratings. If it’s crap it’ll have crap ratings.
A lot of great games get middling reviews, but I’m expected to parse whether or not something contains slop by a glance?
I mean that’s exactly how it’s always worked. What’s the difference just because the AI exists
No, theres a fucking difference, mate. AI has empowered the worst people to make shit they otherwise couldn’t have, and it has degraded the works of anyone with some level of skill.
Yeah because there hasn’t been a bunch of asset flip slop before. All it’s changed is that they have new tools to make it but there was always crappy stuff on Steam
You need to train your ability to spot AI.
AI art has a very distinctive style. Weird shadows, impossible architecture, and having a blatantly incorrect number of fingers are dead giveaways.
AI text tends to talk at you rather than with you. It has difficulty remembering context, so it tends to forget what you said 10 lines ago.
How about we figure out a better way to detect and sort it so I don’t have to waste time making judgements?
You’re assuming that the detector can be trusted. The detector could be someone who is being paid to mislead you on purpose.
If AI presence really matters to you, you need to trust your own two eyes for this sort of thing. Offloading that work to someone else is a considerable risk.
And to be honest, detecting AI is pretty fast once you’re able to spot it. I can spot the typical variants of AI art in just a few seconds.
I’m not assuming anything, I’m saying we should make something happen.
The halting problem makes that somewhat impossible to make. Detectors have a notable weakness with detecting themselves.
Good. Let’s normalise it so the rest of us can actually fucking use it!
What’s stopping you from buying games from the nearly 8k that use that stupid AI shit? There’s gotta be some slop in there that suits your tastes.
Let’s not. Generative AI is bad for environment, it’s also using stolen assets.
Every artist that ever saw another person’s art is “using stolen assets” then. Why is training a meat neural network more valid?
Unlike humans, GenAI has no imagination.
Because AI training and humans training are different
Not quite… I mean depending on what you’re comparing it to. Like if you compare it to a person doing it—breathing, eating, space(home, office…), electricity…—the Ilm is much more efficient. Now a random person that wouldn’t have produced any image, text, song… whatever, that is now generating a hundred of them a day is, indeed, very wasteful and bad for the environment.
For comparison, the co2 emissions from training gpt3 were equivalent to 1250 people’s breathing for a year.
Now about the stealing part, I’m not very fond of ‘intellectual property’ very much myself, nor am I very respectful of it, so I will not discuss it.
but what about self trained on paid data(with allowed authors) and used on local pc?
If you have the money for that, why not just hire those allowed authors and artists to make the art for you?
its like to tell somebody: if you have moneys for self cooking food why dont order it from professionals
No it’s not. If you have paid for data to self train AI, you have paid artists already. Why use the AI slop, when you can use the actual work you purchased?
No it isn’t, the lack of renewables feeding into the energy grid is the problem, not AI - direct your ire in the right direction. Also no it doesn’t unless you completely redefine theft to me not theft - nothing is taken, no-one is denied access to existing things, and no copies are made
I figure if people can’t be bothered to develop the games then I can’t be bothered to play them either.
I always wondered if I could play Skyrim but with an option to say or ask custom things to NPCs
I think someone made a mod for that because of course they did.
They absolutely did, awhile ago too. It’s the Mantella mod. Used to be a nightmare to set up but now it’s good. Pretty fun talking to characters.
Is it bad that I know what the Mantella is in Elder Scrolls lore?
There was a question about Daedric Princes in a trivia game I went to recently. They gave four of them and you had to match what they were the prince of. I felt confident about two but only got one right. Of course I got Shegorath right.
What was the one you messed up? I’m gonna guess either mephala or meridia since they are kinda weird, either that or the answer was Magnus who is technically a daedra though not usually lumped in with the rest.
I thought Sanguine or whatever was the murder one but I remembered wrong. They gave the four categories and we had to match them. I thought Malacath might be based on Malakith from War Hammer and that seemed pretty hedonistic but it was a 50/50. (Well, I thought it was a 50/50 lol.) The last was Mephala who I thought might be lies. And if you know the lore well you probably already knew Mephala was the fourth they mentioned lol.
I think the biggest problem is that steam is like 80+% shovelware and it’s no surprise that a lot of those are using a bunch of AI generated “artwork.” IMO it’s no worse than a shitty asset flip and as others have pointed out, there are a lot of really cool things you could do with generative AI in game dev that aren’t just slapping shitty pictures all over your product, and this doesn’t capture the nuance. I would also assume that this number is lower than reality since it relies on tagging, and nobody is accurately tagging shitty scam games with less than a hundred downloads.
I wonder if games with UGC report they have AI content. (Games that allow for outside assets and code)
Are algorithms the same as AI?
I think the biggest problem is that steam is like 80+% shovelware and it’s no surprise that a lot of those are using a bunch of AI generated “artwork.” IMO it’s no worse than a shitty asset flip and as others have pointed out, there are a lot of really cool things you could do with generative AI in game dev that aren’t just slapping shitty pictures all over your product, and this doesn’t capture the nuance. I would also assume that this number is lower than reality since it relies on tagging, and nobody is accurately tagging shitty scam games with less than a hundred downloads.
