A year ago, I poked around Steam to see how many game developers were disclosing usage of Generative AI . It was around 1,000, which seemed like a lot to me at the time. If memory serves, that was about 1.1% of the entire Steam library, which has since seen 20,000+ more titles appear. I've been fol
At that point, the question a dev should be asking is, “Is it necessary to have filler text?” Taking your “background text that flashes onscreen” concept, if its just background noise anyway, why does it need to specifically be text? What do letters or characters add that couldn’t be achieved with glyphs or scribbles?
People often see AI as some shiny new tool to bring their visions to life, but the game design and storytelling techniques we’ve collectively learned over the past decades still apply. More ≠ better, and if it’s not meant to be consciously and overtly experienced by the player, what need is there to include it at all, AI-generated or otherwise?
So if that dev used AI to make various filler/background glyphs would it be okay? Because even scribbles take time to make, if an AI tool can do it quicker and its just background noise, is that okay?
Where is this imaginary line of acceptability? Its different for every person who enters these AI discussions. How about if the dev codes a tool that spits out procedural glyph assets, surely thats fine, but what is the real difference?
I think you’re getting caught up on the “thing.” My point wasn’t whether it should be glyphs or letters. Devs should be asking, at that point, why it’s necessary at all. Does it need to exist? If you’re considering AI just to generate “background noise,” is that noise really necessary in the first place? This step often happens naturally in human-derived work when we consider the work involved, but it must happen intentionally when you throw garbage-generators into the mix.
And no, I don’t think making glyphs via AI is okay, because now we’re in the realm of AI image generation, and that’s a giant unethical miasma. You ask what the difference is between a dev making their own script to general glyphs versus an AI, and that’s like asking what difference exists between a solar calculator and a data center run by Google. Both can tell you what 2+2 equals, but one is unnecessarily complex.
And then there’s the ethical considerations. Where did that AI model come from? How was it trained and developed? Whose work was used to derive that model? Who benefits from its public use?
AI simply does not belong in creative endeavors. People may have their own reasons for where they’ve drawn their lines, but that does not mean it is a mere matter of subjectivity, like choosing broccoli instead of carrots, or that they have a good basis for that decision.
We are not going to get anywhere debating a made up scenario. And what glyphs would or wouldn’t do instead of text is subjective. Maybe the game isn’t centered around ancient egypt?? I’m sure someone can find 1 million and 1 reasons as to why something might be text. But that’s not the topic.
I didn’t claim more = better. But I do think gen-AI has a place in some areas. You don’t have to agree.
In my view. It’s a tool. Tools can be misused. Tools can be useful.
I want to be clear that I used to have a similar mindset; I came around to the idea that if I’m a game dev (or any other type of creativity), and I’m looking for speedy shortcuts, I’m doing myself a disservice in two ways:
I’m not learning the necessary skills to improve my craft. It’s vibe coding in a different shirt, and skipping the struggle is skipping the parts that make me better.
I’m missing the forest for the trees. Extra details don’t make something better, and just because AI can do what I don’t want to do doesn’t mean that thing is worth doing. If I’m so disinterested in creating <insert thing>, why am I outsourcing it to a robot that doesn’t actually understand my art? Out of everyone, a dev should be the most interested in the details, and if it’s so unimportant that a robot can put in whatever, the end user likely wouldn’t have cared in the first place.
I agree that it’s a tool, and I agree that we aren’t likely to see eye to eye on this, but at the end of the day, I am wholly convinced that this tool is being used in the wrong place and in the wrong way. It doesn’t belong in creative endeavors.
I’m cool with you saying your final word on the matter, but I think we’ve beat this topic to death. You’ve been very courteous, and I appreciate that. Take care.
At that point, the question a dev should be asking is, “Is it necessary to have filler text?” Taking your “background text that flashes onscreen” concept, if its just background noise anyway, why does it need to specifically be text? What do letters or characters add that couldn’t be achieved with glyphs or scribbles?
People often see AI as some shiny new tool to bring their visions to life, but the game design and storytelling techniques we’ve collectively learned over the past decades still apply. More ≠ better, and if it’s not meant to be consciously and overtly experienced by the player, what need is there to include it at all, AI-generated or otherwise?
So if that dev used AI to make various filler/background glyphs would it be okay? Because even scribbles take time to make, if an AI tool can do it quicker and its just background noise, is that okay?
Where is this imaginary line of acceptability? Its different for every person who enters these AI discussions. How about if the dev codes a tool that spits out procedural glyph assets, surely thats fine, but what is the real difference?
I think you’re getting caught up on the “thing.” My point wasn’t whether it should be glyphs or letters. Devs should be asking, at that point, why it’s necessary at all. Does it need to exist? If you’re considering AI just to generate “background noise,” is that noise really necessary in the first place? This step often happens naturally in human-derived work when we consider the work involved, but it must happen intentionally when you throw garbage-generators into the mix.
And no, I don’t think making glyphs via AI is okay, because now we’re in the realm of AI image generation, and that’s a giant unethical miasma. You ask what the difference is between a dev making their own script to general glyphs versus an AI, and that’s like asking what difference exists between a solar calculator and a data center run by Google. Both can tell you what 2+2 equals, but one is unnecessarily complex.
And then there’s the ethical considerations. Where did that AI model come from? How was it trained and developed? Whose work was used to derive that model? Who benefits from its public use?
AI simply does not belong in creative endeavors. People may have their own reasons for where they’ve drawn their lines, but that does not mean it is a mere matter of subjectivity, like choosing broccoli instead of carrots, or that they have a good basis for that decision.
We are not going to get anywhere debating a made up scenario. And what glyphs would or wouldn’t do instead of text is subjective. Maybe the game isn’t centered around ancient egypt?? I’m sure someone can find 1 million and 1 reasons as to why something might be text. But that’s not the topic.
I didn’t claim more = better. But I do think gen-AI has a place in some areas. You don’t have to agree.
In my view. It’s a tool. Tools can be misused. Tools can be useful.
I want to be clear that I used to have a similar mindset; I came around to the idea that if I’m a game dev (or any other type of creativity), and I’m looking for speedy shortcuts, I’m doing myself a disservice in two ways:
I agree that it’s a tool, and I agree that we aren’t likely to see eye to eye on this, but at the end of the day, I am wholly convinced that this tool is being used in the wrong place and in the wrong way. It doesn’t belong in creative endeavors.
I’m cool with you saying your final word on the matter, but I think we’ve beat this topic to death. You’ve been very courteous, and I appreciate that. Take care.