is AI going to ruin video games?

[Strig]

I'll take that as an admission that the good art is already made.

It had to be made to be the subject of judgement. What a silly thing to say. The point lies elsewhere. AI image generators may, and I believe they will, cause stagnation by the proliferation of facsimiles. The only artists that will prosper will be these conceptual twats who already rake in millions for the most inane garbage. And if you think Gasparo is a bad painter then, well, there's no point in talking to you about anything art related.

It's more your creativity than paying some artist to make the art for you.

How?

Because doing it by hand affords me the precision I want (the same reason I don't just use Unity), particularly for elements of the engine that need to be very aggressively parallelized and tied closely to the way the game works. Copilot can't do that. Similarly I want to be able to have the exact music I want. The same with art, really, which is something you're apparently too simpleminded to understand - hand-made art will always retain a niche. But for my particular genre I don't require that level of precision for most art elements other than UI and flags (and even UI is kind of iffy), hence when I get to the stage where I'll need things like portraits for generals/rulers or landscape images for tiles, AI art will be the way to go. And that will be the case for a lot of games in the near future.

First of all, everything you said about music and coding in the context of AI should end in one word — yet. Second, I can quote myself where I literally tell you the exact same thing, because this is not the where we disagree. Like at all. More on the general outcome or whether it's a good thing. Let's take the UI design, maybe you'll have something worthwhile, but there will be people who'll use AI even for that. In the end they would certainly benefit from at least commissioning someone who has actual experience in designing things of this nature. Even if only to correct what they've generated and implemented. Why? Because UI/UX designer has the skills they lack. That's the problem, incompetent people will unknowingly lower the quality of their own products by brute force Dunning–Krugering through art/layout/design related problems using image generators.

You know what's jewish? Being such a rent-seeking parasite that you squeal in terror when a new technology renders unto the masses the ability to get a service you were previously charging for, for free. Guess you'll have to find another stone to wring blood out of, Moshe.

That's an extremely poor attempt at deflection. Highly specialised skills, especially those that require years to master or even be competent at, should always be respected and paid handsomely for. The fact that you consider creative work as "parasitic" and are ready to devalue and sacrifice people's well-being, not to mention the lofty ideas of art and skilled-labor themselves, for your own singular financial gain tells me everything I need to know about you. And then there's your signature, which makes the whole thing even funnier. What I am, dear Shlomo, is a gatekeeper and I definitely am against "democratising" things that should require skill. And I'm right. The best artists in history were "commercial" (with caveats — it's the reason they're remembered, reason they could more freely perfect their craft, and does not mean all their activity was commercial in character) and if you don't understand why that is... read a sodding book why dontcha. I also don't like tech-obsessed proselytising early adopters, they're Steve Jobs level cunts, just poorer.

And again, I fully recognise the potential of this technology and, not going to lie, I am excited what I'll be able to do with it. That does not, however, mitigate the very real problems it's going to pose down the line. To say otherwise is just stupid.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Highly specialised skills, especially those that require years to master or even be competent at, should always be respected and paid handsomely for. T

labor theory of value is the economic equivalent of flat earth

 

[what am i doing]

How?

With AI art, you express yourself using the tools you have at hand.
With commissions you pay some other dude to express himself.

First of all, everything you said about music and coding in the context of AI should end in one word — yet.

Cool. And when Copilot etc get good enough that they can replace programming, I'll use them where appropriate. Just like I turn on -O3 on my compiler to optimize rather than manually unrolling loops. Just like I use libraries for tasks that I don't really care to figure out myself, like polygon union/difference/etc operations. Just like I use C++ instead of C. I believe in using tools where appropriate. AI is another of them.

In the end they would certainly benefit from at least commissioning someone who has actual experience in designing things of this nature. Even if only to correct what they've generated and implemented. Why? Because UI/UX designer has the skills they lack. That's the problem, incompetent people will unknowingly lower the quality of their own products by brute force Dunning–Krugering through art/layout/design related problems using image generators.

Actual human designers, who are UI/UX professionals, aka people who do it for a living, your supposed bulwark of creativity and quality, are producing utter tripe RIGHT NOW. See Victoria 3 compared to Victoria 2 for the best example of the decline, but modern games in general exhibit it too. The soul is gone. It's all flat, minimal, and/or mobile shit. The idea that AI is going to somehow cause quality to decline is ludicrous. The decline has already happened. If we're not at rock bottom right now, I'll be amazed, but I suspect our human designers will find that absolute nadir of quality far more efficiently than any AI UI designer could, given their track record.

That's an extremely poor attempt at deflection. Highly specialised skills, especially those that require years to master or even be competent at, should always be respected and paid handsomely for. The fact that you consider creative work as "parasitic" and are ready to devalue and sacrifice people's well-being, not to mention the lofty ideas of art and skilled-labor themselves, for your own singular financial gain tells me everything I need to know about you. And then there's your signature, which makes the whole thing even funnier. What I am, dear Shlomo, is a gatekeeper and I definitely am against "democratising" things that should require skill. And I'm right. The best artists in history were "commercial" (with caveats — it's the reason they're remembered, reason they could more freely perfect their craft, and does not mean all their activity was commercial in character) and if you don't understand why that is... read a sodding book why dontcha. I also don't like tech-obsessed proselytising early adopters, they're Steve Jobs level cunts, just poorer.

And again, I fully recognise the potential of this technology and, not going to lie, I am excited what I'll be able to do with it. That does not, however, mitigate the very real problems it's going to pose down the line. To say otherwise is just stupid.

No, Moshe, I call you out as the kike you are because your reaction to tools that unleash human creativity is extremely jewish. No doubt you'd be much happier with the situation if it was safely locked away in the hands of a few giant corporations and Stability hadn't come along and made it available to the gentiles. You also argue in an extremely weaselly manner, focusing on the subjective, on how you feel about things, how you don't like this or don't like that, to avoid facts and practicality. That is fundamentally a jewish method of debate. The White man deals in concrete facts.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

I don't see anything anyone should be worried about in the short term. Since I assume people are interested in the new picture things going around, I'll use that as an example. As it stands, for the most part that's producing big, full-screen graphics or small portraits, which are only a small portion of the kind of assets an Indie dev producing a 2D game would need. It'd be fine if he was trying to make a visual novel, but that's not worth worrying about. But most games need more than one image for a single character and as far as I'm seeing its not possible to really get an AI to draw the same character twice, unless you're imitating some person or character, which has its own problems.
You also have animation, though I'm sure someone is working on a AI tool for that. Its just a question of when that gets released.
This isn't worrying in the short term, because a ton of the output of these tools is uncanny at best, completely broken at worst. Do know that most of the images you see floating on the internet are cherrypicked. If you're making a horror game that isn't necessarily a problem, of course, but if you aren't, it is. These things are still at a state where they're neat things to show once in a while, but making an entire game out of it is as tricky as making an entire game out of public domain paintings. People don't really do that.
And this all assumes its ever going to go past the neat concept idea. Consider that games have had AI-designed levels going back to the '80s, and yet outside of roguelikes or roguelites, they're rarely considered good. We've had AI generated music for some time and nobody's stopped making music. There's probably something else AI generated that hasn't made much of a dent.
In the long term, I can see this potentially discouraging artists towards continuing their craft, which I don't view as a good thing. Oh, sure, there are always the crappy ones whining about this, but people whining on Twitter are going to continue drawing unless something seriously awful happens. Instead people who would actually care about their craft see this and don't see any point in continuing. Its those people who would have created a beautiful looking game or painting, not not some dude who's art looks exactly the same as 5000 other people.

 

[Strig]

With AI art, you express yourself using the tools you have at hand.
With commissions you pay some other dude to express himself.

You choose a style and give guidelines to an outside source of the image with a somewhat unpredictable result. How is this any different from choosing an artist and giving him the same data? The main difference is more and faster revisions, but you still do not create anything. The program produces it for you from your description.

Actual human designers, who are UI/UX professionals, aka people who do it for a living, your supposed bulwark of creativity and quality, are producing utter tripe RIGHT NOW. See Victoria 3 compared to Victoria 2 for the best example of the decline, but modern games in general exhibit it too. The soul is gone. It's all flat, minimal, and/or mobile shit. The idea that AI is going to somehow cause quality to decline is ludicrous. The decline has already happened. If we're not at rock bottom right now, I'll be amazed, but I suspect our human designers will find that absolute nadir of quality far more efficiently than any AI UI designer could, given their track record.

While it is true, it is also true that in many cases it's the top down decision process that causes the decline and not the designers themselves. And I never denied that modern art in general is in dire straits, but there always were vestiges of better things. I'm not as optimistic as you, I don't think we're even near the rock bottom. And let's say we are, I think AI might be the sodding pickaxe for the tards.

No, Moshe, I call you out as the kike you are because your reaction to tools that unleash human creativity is extremely jewish. No doubt you'd be much happier with the situation if it was safely locked away in the hands of a few giant corporations and Stability hadn't come along and made it available to the gentiles. You also argue in an extremely weaselly manner, focusing on the subjective, on how you feel about things, how you don't like this or don't like that, to avoid facts and practicality. That is fundamentally a jewish method of debate. The White man deals in concrete facts.

Cute that you think you're arguing with "facs an' lagic". You don't understand anything on such a fundamental level that the hard not-feeling fact I'm pretty much a fanboy of anything open-source will probably cause some kind of whiplash. It's all or nothing for me, the genie is out of the bottle and it would be far worse to leave the tech in the hands of the corporations. On top of that, if I genuinely believed this would "unleash human creativity" I'd be definitely more on board than I already am (which you convniently ignore just to drag this spat out). Everything I've seen suggests otherwise. There will be a tsunami of absolute garbage that will cover anything worthwhile from people with actual skills. Besides, the best examples from the AI are already mostly generated by people with some artistic background. Most of it, though, is just trash, often noise that just "looks cool" at a first glance and completely melts upon inspection. That does not mean AI can't produce good things already, excellent even, this means that people generating lack the skill to even curate the output.

And your practicality in the greedy pursuit of profit with no regard for the repercussions is what exactly if not a stereotypical trait of a tinyhatted banker or landlord? And your disdain for people with actual talent or skill? You're not only focusing on your subjective experience, you're downright unable to understand any other than your own. It's the pathological individualism modern world reproduces like a virus. AI will disrupt the job market, it's a fact, not a feeling and we're not even talking about the art world exclusively. This will cause problems. That's also a fact. Most of what you write is based on what YOU want. YOU will have your cool pictures and a few bucks more lining your pockets, and this pleases you. That's both a fact and a feeling. YOU feel art "has ended", YOU feel there's nothing worthwhile now, YOU feel skilled artists with years of experience are parasites. You don't deal with facts, you deal with your own expectations and feelings they bring, and you're motivated by what will benefit you the most. No matter the overall cost. I always found such materialistic approach detestable. That's a feeling, but materialists being self-serving cunts is a fact.

The funny thing is that we agree on a lot of things, even if you can't see that. So in bulletpoints:

- AI as an amazing tool that properly used can produce excellent images on par with even the best of artists
- it exists and is easy to use, so people should use it (if they know how in my case)
- modern art and in large part design in general are in shambles
- AI should be easily accessible for anyone and not exclusively a branded product
- affinity for the classical arts

What I think we don't agree on:

- putting profits and personal gain over other people
- the art has "ended", there will never again be anything of worth and it should only serve as a virtual trough for the AI
- AI will "unleash human creativity"
- AI produces art and the promptee is an artist vs. AI generates images with limited input and therefore is not art
- that one can consciously generate and curate good images without at least some artistic background
- good human made art is inherently more valuable as a product of skill and experience

Having said thet if they gave me a button to kill everything connected to the development of the AI, well, I would. I would make Uncle Ted proud.

 

[what am i doing]

With AI art, you express yourself using the tools you have at hand.
With commissions you pay some other dude to express himself.

You choose a style and give guidelines to an outside source of the image with a somewhat unpredictable result. How is this any different from choosing an artist and giving him the same data? The main difference is more and faster revisions, but you still do not create anything. The program produces it for you from your description.

Actual human designers, who are UI/UX professionals, aka people who do it for a living, your supposed bulwark of creativity and quality, are producing utter tripe RIGHT NOW. See Victoria 3 compared to Victoria 2 for the best example of the decline, but modern games in general exhibit it too. The soul is gone. It's all flat, minimal, and/or mobile shit. The idea that AI is going to somehow cause quality to decline is ludicrous. The decline has already happened. If we're not at rock bottom right now, I'll be amazed, but I suspect our human designers will find that absolute nadir of quality far more efficiently than any AI UI designer could, given their track record.

While it is true, it is also true that in many cases it's the top down decision process that causes the decline and not the designers themselves. And I never denied that modern art in general is in dire straits, but there always were vestiges of better things. I'm not as optimistic as you, I don't think we're even near the rock bottom. And let's say we are, I think AI might be the sodding pickaxe for the tards.

No, Moshe, I call you out as the kike you are because your reaction to tools that unleash human creativity is extremely jewish. No doubt you'd be much happier with the situation if it was safely locked away in the hands of a few giant corporations and Stability hadn't come along and made it available to the gentiles. You also argue in an extremely weaselly manner, focusing on the subjective, on how you feel about things, how you don't like this or don't like that, to avoid facts and practicality. That is fundamentally a jewish method of debate. The White man deals in concrete facts.

Cute that you think you're arguing with "facs an' lagic". You don't understand anything on such a fundamental level that the hard not-feeling fact I'm pretty much a fanboy of anything open-source will probably cause some kind of whiplash. It's all or nothing for me, the genie is out of the bottle and it would be far worse to leave the tech in the hands of the corporations. On top of that, if I genuinely believed this would "unleash human creativity" I'd be definitely more on board than I already am (which you convniently ignore just to drag this spat out). Everything I've seen suggests otherwise. There will be a tsunami of absolute garbage that will cover anything worthwhile from people with actual skills. Besides, the best examples from the AI are already mostly generated by people with some artistic background. Most of it, though, is just trash, often noise that just "looks cool" at a first glance and completely melts upon inspection. That does not mean AI can't produce good things already, excellent even, this means that people generating lack the skill to even curate the output.

And your practicality in the greedy pursuit of profit with no regard for the repercussions is what exactly if not a stereotypical trait of a tinyhatted banker or landlord? And your disdain for people with actual talent or skill? You're not only focusing on your subjective experience, you're downright unable to understand any other than your own. It's the pathological individualism modern world reproduces like a virus. AI will disrupt the job market, it's a fact, not a feeling and we're not even talking about the art world exclusively. This will cause problems. That's also a fact. Most of what you write is based on what YOU want. YOU will have your cool pictures and a few bucks more lining your pockets, and this pleases you. That's both a fact and a feeling. YOU feel art "has ended", YOU feel there's nothing worthwhile now, YOU feel skilled artists with years of experience are parasites. You don't deal with facts, you deal with your own expectations and feelings they bring, and you're motivated by what will benefit you the most. No matter the overall cost. I always found such materialistic approach detestable. That's a feeling, but materialists being self-serving cunts is a fact.

The funny thing is that we agree on a lot of things, even if you can't see that. So in bulletpoints:

- AI as an amazing tool that properly used can produce excellent images on par with even the best of artists
- it exists and is easy to use, so people should use it (if they know how in my case)
- modern art and in large part design in general are in shambles
- AI should be easily accessible for anyone and not exclusively a branded product
- affinity for the classical arts

What I think we don't agree on:

- putting profits and personal gain over other people
- the art has "ended", there will never again be anything of worth and it should only serve as a virtual trough for the AI
- AI will "unleash human creativity"
- AI produces art and the promptee is an artist vs. AI generates images with limited input and therefore is not art
- that one can consciously generate and curate good images without at least some artistic background
- good human made art is inherently more valuable as a product of skill and experience

Having said thet if they gave me a button to kill everything connected to the development of the AI, well, I would. I would make Uncle Ted proud.

If you come across as a butthurt kike now, hoo boy, this'll be you in the near future:

 

[rusty_shackleford]

- putting profits and personal gain over other people

How far are we going to go to this, or are you only making an exception for yourself?

Are you going to ban calculators?

 

[Strig]

If you come across as a butthurt kike now,

A silly sod with only "muh moni" on his mind trying to shit on whatever's left of art calling other people kikes. Sad.

Are you going to ban calculators?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

So why are you posting on a forum that would only be possible with advanced calculators AKA CPUs?
You aren't a hypocrite, are you?

 

[Davaris]

Games with lackluster procedural generation have already proven that no amount of AI algorithms can replace human creativity, because hand-made levels >>>>>> proc gen, EVERY SINGLE TIME, no exceptions.

Same with art, same with story. A human has to make it for it to have any value.

Yes, but the point is it won't be made anymore. People accept modern art, architecture and design in general, they consume capeshit from Hollywood etc. This is just another step down the seemingly endless ladder of decline.

JarlFrank
A human has to make something for it to have *meaning*. Playing random generated levels just seems like busy work to me. Why would I want to play against a random dice roll and a formula? I want to play against an intelligent designer.


fork
I read a sci-fi novel written around 40 years ago, where the author predicted AI would end human art. It said, if any human artist created something good and original, the AIs would copy it, make infinite variations, mass distribute it, and the artist would earn nothing. So the human artists gave up. Its amazing to see the predictions of a very old book coming to pass.

Yeah this will make games easier to make than ever, which means a lot crap will be produced, and it will make the good stuff harder to find. It will end big production movie making too. People will be able to make infinite movies to their liking in their homes.

Artists and a lot of other people will be out of work, but everything will become so cheap with AI, it will be virtually free. So people will have free time to do what they like, including making art if they like. If you were a real artist, you will continue to make art even if you aren't paid, because something inside compels you to. If you were only ever an artist for the pay, then in the future you will collect UBI, and go to the beach. In that world, I'll continue to make games regardless. I'll even use AI generated code if it ever gets good, so it doesn't take so long, and I can focus on design instead of bullshit technical details.

But AI isn't there yet. Until it eliminates the need to use 3D engines, and 3D editors like 3D Studio Max/Blender, its snake oil.

 

[Strig]

So why are you posting on a forum that would only be possible with advanced calculators AKA CPUs?
You aren't a hypocrite, are you?

Ah yes, the old "and yet you partake in society" gotcha.
Don't worry, if I ever go full Uncle Ted mode — unkempt beard, cabin and all — I'll send you a package. Manifesto or a surprise, for you it's a fifty-fifty chance because I like you.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

So why are you posting on a forum that would only be possible with advanced calculators AKA CPUs?
You aren't a hypocrite, are you?

Ah yes, the old "and yet you partake in society" gotcha.
Don't worry, if I ever go full Uncle Ted mode — unkempt beard, cabin and all — I'll send you a package. Manifesto or a surprise, for you it's a fifty-fifty chance because I like you.

So you admit to being a champagne socialist?

 

[what am i doing]

If you come across as a butthurt kike now,

A silly sod with only "muh moni" on his mind trying to shit on whatever's left of art calling other people kikes. Sad.

Yeah believe it or not game developers aren't all shekel-grubbing kikes who can afford to hire people to work for us. Some of us only have what we can do solo.

 

[KateMicucci]

One of my art teachers had a comment about the digital artists he was trying to teach. He said, "While these guys are fumbling around trying to fix their mistakes with the lasso and warp tools, I've already redrawn the picture."

When you watch artists work digitally on youtube, it's easy to spot the guys who never learned to draw with pens. They're drawing the same line ten times while mashing ctrl-z.

There's a difference between using the tech as a tool and a crutch. Most of these AI generated images have so many subtle mistakes that it would be faster for a decent artist to just draw the image correctly from scratch than to try and fix them all. An experienced artist is going to be able to use the AI to efficiently help his workflow. For example, even though I only use traditional media I've been using the AIs to basically generate underpaintings. But guys with no art experience and no wish to learn, who think the AI will be their crutch, are only going to produce samey-looking shit that always looks off because they don't know enough about lighting, color theory, perspective or anatomy to find the mistakes. He'll create images that look 80% finished but won't have the skill to fix them.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

One of my art teachers had a comment about the digital artists he was trying to teach. He said, "While these guys are fumbling around trying to fix their mistakes with the lasso and warp tools, I've already redrawn the picture."

When you watch artists work digitally on youtube, it's easy to spot the guys who never learned to draw with pens. They're drawing the same line ten times while mashing ctrl-z.

There's a difference between using the tech as a tool and a crutch. Most of these AI generated images have so many subtle mistakes that it would be faster for a decent artist to just draw the image correctly from scratch than to try and fix them all. An experienced artist is going to be able to use the AI to efficiently help his workflow. For example, even though I only use traditional media I've been using the AIs to basically generate underpaintings. But guys with no art experience and no wish to learn, who think the AI will be their crutch, are only going to produce samey-looking shit that always looks off because they don't know enough about lighting, color theory, perspective or anatomy to find the mistakes. He'll create images that look 80% finished but won't have the skill to fix them.

chad "looks good enough to me" vs virgin "it has to be perfect!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Strig]

So you admit to being a champagne socialist?

I'm not a socialist. As for champagne, mate, I don't even own a smartphone. I literally use the second cell phone I ever got. Like in my whole life. Any appliances I do have I exchange only if they break down (still had a CRT not far back, all my TVs are still boxes and I recently had to buy a new fridge after the old one died... after fourty years) and as for my PC, it's nine years old (still quite good beacause by design I buy a hog with durable parts and I need it to work). I buy locally as much as I can and while I'm not a minimalist because I do own many things (especially books) I rarely buy anything new (excluding books). Mostly because I don't need much. And no, I'm not a poor Polack, it's all by choice. The things I buy and consider indulging myself are nice clothes from time to time for many coins. That's about it.

Yeah believe it or not game developers aren't all shekel-grubbing kikes who can afford to hire people to work for us. Some of us only have what we can do solo.

I know and I wouldn't fault you for that if you didn't decide to shit on commissioned art and its creators like that fox from the grapes... you know... the thing.

One of my art teachers had a comment about the digital artists he was trying to teach. He said, "While these guys are fumbling around trying to fix their mistakes with the lasso and warp tools, I've already redrawn the picture."

When you watch artists work digitally on youtube, it's easy to spot the guys who never learned to draw with pens. They're drawing the same line ten times while mashing ctrl-z.

There's a difference between using the tech as a tool and a crutch. Most of these AI generated images have so many subtle mistakes that it would be faster for a decent artist to just draw the image correctly from scratch than to try and fix them all. An experienced artist is going to be able to use the AI to efficiently help his workflow. For example, even though I only use traditional media I've been using the AIs to basically generate underpaintings. But guys with no art experience and no wish to learn, who think the AI will be their crutch, are only going to produce samey-looking shit that always looks off because they don't know enough about lighting, color theory, perspective or anatomy to find the mistakes. He'll create images that look 80% finished but won't have the skill to fix them.

So much this I don't even know what to do with it. I don't have anything to add, well put.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm not a socialist

Going to guess you're an ESL on top of it?

 

[Strig]

I'm not a socialist

Going to guess you're an ESL on top of it?

Elaborate.

 

[Davaris]

I don't see anything anyone should be worried about in the short term. Since I assume people are interested in the new picture things going around, I'll use that as an example. As it stands, for the most part that's producing big, full-screen graphics or small portraits, which are only a small portion of the kind of assets an Indie dev producing a 2D game would need. It'd be fine if he was trying to make a visual novel, but that's not worth worrying about. But most games need more than one image for a single character and as far as I'm seeing its not possible to really get an AI to draw the same character twice, unless you're imitating some person or character, which has its own problems.
You also have animation, though I'm sure someone is working on a AI tool for that. Its just a question of when that gets released.
This isn't worrying in the short term, because a ton of the output of these tools is uncanny at best, completely broken at worst. Do know that most of the images you see floating on the internet are cherrypicked. If you're making a horror game that isn't necessarily a problem, of course, but if you aren't, it is. These things are still at a state where they're neat things to show once in a while, but making an entire game out of it is as tricky as making an entire game out of public domain paintings. People don't really do that.
And this all assumes its ever going to go past the neat concept idea. Consider that games have had AI-designed levels going back to the '80s, and yet outside of roguelikes or roguelites, they're rarely considered good. We've had AI generated music for some time and nobody's stopped making music. There's probably something else AI generated that hasn't made much of a dent.
In the long term, I can see this potentially discouraging artists towards continuing their craft, which I don't view as a good thing. Oh, sure, there are always the crappy ones whining about this, but people whining on Twitter are going to continue drawing unless something seriously awful happens. Instead people who would actually care about their craft see this and don't see any point in continuing. Its those people who would have created a beautiful looking game or painting, not not some dude who's art looks exactly the same as 5000 other people.

Its not even useful for prototyping 2D grid based games, until they have robots taking pictures of objects in the outside world from all angles, or they start copying games. When someone tells me I have to learn Blender just to use this thing, then it hasn't replaced artists.

"Instead people who would actually care about their craft see this and don't see any point in continuing. Its those people who would have created a beautiful looking game or painting, not not some dude who's art looks exactly the same as 5000 other people."

Its the same with programming. I have been thinking why bother programming, when AI will do it better than any human? Everyone will have problems motivating themselves. Historically, technology has steamrolled all opposition to it. Workers tried smashing factory machines in the past, and did not stop it. It will be the same with AI.

 

[Azdul]

I read a sci-fi novel written around 40 years ago, where the author predicted AI would end human art. It said, if any human artist created something good and original, the AIs would copy it, make infinite variations, mass distribute it, and the artist would earn nothing. So the human artists gave up. Its amazing to see the predictions of a very old book coming to pass.
(...)
But AI isn't there yet. Until it eliminates the need to use 3D engines, and 3D editors like 3D Studio Max/Blender, its snake oil.

I remember reading in the 80's that human ingenuity is necessary to play chess and grandmaster level. Now human grandmasters are panting and sweating trying to understand chess moves made by perfect immortal machine:



Not taking into account snake oil sold today as 'art' - one day creating art masterpieces will be solved problem. Renowned human artists will ineptly copy AI masterpieces to sell as their own - just like Hans Niemann currently tries to convince everyone that he is best of all humans at playing chess - by copying moves from second-grade AI engine.

 

[what am i doing]

Yeah believe it or not game developers aren't all shekel-grubbing kikes who can afford to hire people to work for us. Some of us only have what we can do solo.

I know and I wouldn't fault you for that if you didn't decide to shit on commissioned art and its creators like that fox from the grapes... you know... the thing.

I shit on it to point out your hypocrisy. You act as though it's not a creative outlet to use AI to express yourself, but it IS a creative outlet to pay someone else to express themselves. That's just idiotic, and you are an idiot.

 

[smaug]

who cares, modern art is shit and so are video games

 

[The_Sloth_Sleeps]

I don't see anything anyone should be worried about in the short term. Since I assume people are interested in the new picture things going around, I'll use that as an example. As it stands, for the most part that's producing big, full-screen graphics or small portraits, which are only a small portion of the kind of assets an Indie dev producing a 2D game would need. It'd be fine if he was trying to make a visual novel, but that's not worth worrying about. But most games need more than one image for a single character and as far as I'm seeing its not possible to really get an AI to draw the same character twice, unless you're imitating some person or character, which has its own problems.
You also have animation, though I'm sure someone is working on a AI tool for that. Its just a question of when that gets released.
This isn't worrying in the short term, because a ton of the output of these tools is uncanny at best, completely broken at worst. Do know that most of the images you see floating on the internet are cherrypicked. If you're making a horror game that isn't necessarily a problem, of course, but if you aren't, it is. These things are still at a state where they're neat things to show once in a while, but making an entire game out of it is as tricky as making an entire game out of public domain paintings. People don't really do that.
And this all assumes its ever going to go past the neat concept idea. Consider that games have had AI-designed levels going back to the '80s, and yet outside of roguelikes or roguelites, they're rarely considered good. We've had AI generated music for some time and nobody's stopped making music. There's probably something else AI generated that hasn't made much of a dent.
In the long term, I can see this potentially discouraging artists towards continuing their craft, which I don't view as a good thing. Oh, sure, there are always the crappy ones whining about this, but people whining on Twitter are going to continue drawing unless something seriously awful happens. Instead people who would actually care about their craft see this and don't see any point in continuing. Its those people who would have created a beautiful looking game or painting, not not some dude who's art looks exactly the same as 5000 other people.

Exactly correct, and my sentiments. There is no AI art revolution in games because it doesn't produce much of anything that can be used in games.
I do not understand the stubbornness of the AI fanatics who refuse to grasp this.
If this stuff worked would I use it? Of course! But there's a small catch: it doesn't work.

 

[Davaris]

I read a sci-fi novel written around 40 years ago, where the author predicted AI would end human art. It said, if any human artist created something good and original, the AIs would copy it, make infinite variations, mass distribute it, and the artist would earn nothing. So the human artists gave up. Its amazing to see the predictions of a very old book coming to pass.
(...)
But AI isn't there yet. Until it eliminates the need to use 3D engines, and 3D editors like 3D Studio Max/Blender, its snake oil.

I remember reading in the 80's that human ingenuity is necessary to play chess and grandmaster level. Now human grandmasters are panting and sweating trying to understand chess moves made by perfect immortal machine:



Not taking into account snake oil sold today as 'art' - one day creating art masterpieces will be solved problem. Renowned human artists will ineptly copy AI masterpieces to sell as their own - just like Hans Niemann currently tries to convince everyone that he is best of all humans at playing chess - by copying moves from second-grade AI engine.

I heard about that chess guy. Funny. Why would you put yourself through that, unless there was a lot of money involved? Is there money in chess? I doubt it.

Masterpieces aren't just about looking pretty. Master artists put messages in their work for the audience to decode. So until they solve general intelligence, they won't be able to do that. For example, Stanley Kubrick put hints in his movies his fans are still obsessing over. Much older works of art did this too.

 

[Dexter]

Exactly correct, and my sentiments. There is no AI art revolution in games because it doesn't produce much of anything that can be used in games.
I do not understand the stubbornness of the AI fanatics who refuse to grasp this.
If this stuff worked would I use it? Of course! But there's a small catch: it doesn't work.

Then you have nothing to worry about and should chill out.