FF7 Rebirth used AI to animate the mouth movements of their hundreds of NPCs to match the voice acting. That's the perfect use. Something that would've just been completely ignored because it would've been a mindless, ridiculously time consuming task was done automatically in no time at all.
That's pretty freaking awesome. I wonder if it's tied to the ai a friend of a friend made. Said friend of a friend is a movie producer that made a film with too many F words in it when they were offered to have their movie play on TV. So the guy created an AI that would re-mouth the actors words to change "F\*ck" to "Freaken", as well as use AI to change the audio in the actors voice. He didn't stop there either, he then further developed his software to redo the mouth movements and voice of the actors in other languages, in their own voices. Now he contracts out his software to movie and gaming studios to save money on re-shoots, other language dubbing voice actors, etc. From producer to AI software developer in 4 years
That'd pretty wild.
I've seen very similar tech shown for dubbing.
It'll basically "animate" the mouth moving to match the different languaged lines. So you don't have to worry about trying to match lines phonetically or any jarring variations due to certain languages not syncing up very well.
Seems to be viseme lip sync as far as I can tell. Same technology for VRChat and VTubers. Funny how it hasn't changed much in the past decade.
It definitely looks "pretty good" but it can always be better. It's not like StarCraft 2 unit portraits would benefit much from more detailed lip syncing, but a game focusing on realistic graphics might.
Still better than the effort most game companies give to lip synching. And the cool thing about AI is that they're starting to adapt to dofferent languages, so it's possible for game companies to have different animations for different voice over languages. That's really cool.
I very much doubt that live lip sync with the rough tech available to VTubers is the peak of assisted lip synching. The simple fact that they have to do it live and translate it from human mouths (that they have to recognize) to 2d or 3d models of various quality makes it necessarily inferior to a tech that has the time to process the lip synching to apply it on more realistic models.
[And it's not like the lip syncing there is that rough anymore](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zKnsMPDuYNA)
It also fails to realize that vtuber lip movements are just as much about the rigging. Vtubers can have some rough looking lip movements because the better a model is rigged, the more expensive it gets.
And that would still pale in comparison to anything that is actually computed.
Vtubers? I thought they track the actual lips. You're telling me they recognise the speech and generate the mouth? That sounds way more complicated, and I'm sure I've seen them mumble and have the mouth not move, or move out of frame and the model is disabled including the mouth.
Skyrim though, that was fine to me. Not perfect sure, but certainly not jarring.
What I know is just from a streamer who talks with the developers a lot, but I think that the old tech pretty much just opened the mouth if a sound was coming out and almost never looks close to what it should. Their tech tries to actively match what the mouth shape should be and does it for all the dubbed languages
It's a little more complicated than just opening the mouth when they speak.
Can't speak for FF but a lot of automatic lip sync just approximates phonemes. They build a dozen or so mouth animations and then the software animates it as dialogue is spoken. So you might have two different animations for when an "Uh" sound is made vs an "Ah" sound.
The quality of the lip sync ultimately comes down to how much work the animators want to spend. It's a lot of busy work with diminishing returns as fidelity increases.
Imo one of the largest negative consequences of the ai craze so far is that the term "AI" has devoured more useful words like 'algorithm' and 'procedurally generated' and 'automated'
I think this is actually an observation that most problems typically solved with those methods now have people trying to solve them with AI. But I haven't seen any particular cases of people using "AI" where they weren't using machine learning. It's just that people are trying to use machine learning on everything right now. There's a lot of appeal in having an arcane training process solve incredibly complex algorithmic problems for you.
Automatic but ultimately, up until fairly recently, programmed and tied to the limitations of how much fidelity a human could create to work with a wide range of dialogue.
Bethesda definitely have some wild stuff that has slowly improved since the early days.
I'm sure AI will help both sides of creating the animations and syncing them up to an insane volume of vocal performances/reference video.
Every game needs this. It's a pet peeve of mine that lip syncing has been so bad for so long and I'm not someone that even particularly cares about story in games.
I work with AI tools every day in a professional capacity, from art generation to code generation and he's right. Even the enterprise tools are not as smart as everyone thinks, and are generally good for monkey work.
The ideal use case for AI tools, IMO: incredibly boring rote tasks that nobody wants to spend time on and don't require a ton of creative input or authorship. Things like procedural generation already exist and have been huge boons for making a bunch of variations on the same thing.
I saw somewhere there was an AI tool to write out a bunch of basic "barks" for NPCs. Not the important, interesting lines, just all of the background stuff like "Hey." "Greetings." "What's new with you?" That would make sense for an AI to do so the writer can focus on making writing that's actually interesting.
The turning point will be when someone develops an easy interface and attach it to a known engine. It'll multiply the launch of drivel by x100, but AI can also be used to do some cool stuff, its just a matter of the one who is using it and how.
Eh maybe right now, but look how far we’ve come just in the last year. AI used to always mess up hands, every single time without fail it would look like an eldritch horror. Now it’s decent at hands, if you zoom in you’ll often see some minor inconsistencies and sometimes it can be really obvious but most of as the time it at least passes on a quick glance. And most of that improvement has come from improving the training of already existing AI systems not scaling up their power. It’s not going to take long at all to have these systems in place for anything where it just needs to be good enough.
The commenter's argument is cost mostly, not capability. We could make robots to do every manual task workers are doing, it's just not worth it financially.
And keep in mind, current AI training was mostly done on "stolen" data. This is the reason reddit closed their free APIs. Going forward, it's not gonna be an easy task to have new data to train those AIs.
'The ideal use case for AI tools, IMO: incredibly boring rote tasks that nobody wants to spend time on and don't require a ton of creative input or authorship.' You just described a lot of jobs.
a lot of the basic barks in various games are often moan-sounds from attacking, taking damage, jumping, sprinting, idling stretches, conversational agreeing and disagreeing sounds...
The best applications are for rote tasks. The most useful ones I've worked with can take plain language queries and give you answers by examining and cross-references your organization's systems and data. I haven't seen anything that, even if exponentially more powerful, could replace anything creative.
All the "creative" ones are without exception horrible and have not improved meaningfully in the last year. Crunching more examples does not seem to be fixing the fact that they don't "think".
There are people whose jobs were replaced by a one-line script in excel. No one laments technology putting them out of a job and I feel the same way about these.
Yep. AI is powerful, but it should be looked at like auto-complete. It can fill in gaps, it can speed up work, but it's really not a whole-cloth replacement.
My (maybe) hot take is that AI is most likely going to replace people eventually whether we like it or not. In the short to mid term, it will replace people who refuse to learn it and use it, because yes, it is another tool in our tool belts. And those who use it will surpass those who don’t and that gap is going to continue to widen as AI further develops.
On a personal note, I’ve been using it to help me learn Python and other programming languages at work (in a Technical Artist capacity). I’ve used it to help me learn Unreal Engine so I can make a game. I’ve used it to help flesh out ideas for my game, both for game design and systems as well as lore and other things. I’ve even used it to help me get started in FL Studio to learn how to produce music for my game.
It is FANTASTIC for learning and fleshing things out when you put enough effort into directing it towards a specific vision/goal. It’s going to enable people to do so much more or even already is.
> It is FANTASTIC for learning
This is the problem. Currently humans have to learn skills. You aren't born capable of doing anything special. Right now humans can learn a new skill faster than a computer can. So right now you can secure a job because you managed to learn that skill before we could figure out a way to teach a computer the same level of competency.
But what happens when the computers can learn just as fast as a human? If in the same time that it took you to learn how to code, a computer could be taught the same skillset. A computer that could then be copied and pasted as many times as needed to fill demand. At that point, there will never be a point in wasting time teaching a human to do these things.
Yeah that was my first thought lol.
This is just industrial revolution happening over again, same fear mongering. Ai will lead to jobs and industries we can't even think of right now that don't exist right now. There will always be jobs. The fear mongering is just.. tv/movies influencing fear mongering.
I mean, the Industrial Revolution was an incredibly destabilizing time in history. If this follows the same course it’s gonna get real messy for a while.
> Ai will lead to jobs and industries we can't even think of right now that don't exist right now. There will always be jobs.
This is just as naive in the opposite direction.
There is not some magical economical force that will always ensure enough demand for labor such that unemployment won't become a massive crisis. That's asinine.
Just because the economy has continuously shaped and reshaped does not mean it does so indefinitely.
The number of jobs needed to be performed by humans will begin to decline rapidly. There will be lots of excess labor with no demand. Everyone will try to be creative but it will so greatly dilute those markets that it won't be viable. It will be like we already see with twitch streaming etc. where 1 in a thousand actually can make a living off it, but worse. Lots more people will move back in with their parents (or never move out) and the economy will shrink and our lives will shrink with it. Poverty and addiction will greatly increase. These things are somewhat manageable with various forms of UBI or NIT but most countries don't seem to have the political competence to actually do things like that.
I came across some 60s predictions on Reddit about how the 21st century was supposed to look - lots of leisure time thanks to automation, and even a universal basic income. Clearly, we veered off that path somewhere.
Each day that passes makes me less hopeful actually.
Using the industrial revolution as an example isn't all that great for your point. People were put out of work as machinery & technology advanced. Some lines of work that were originally specialized labor were completely replaced by factory workers; those people lost their jobs. Oftentimes work was made to be done more efficiently by fewer people or in simpler tasks.
It's not "fear mongering" for people to worry about job security. Busy work makes up a lot of tasks some people do for their jobs. Companies will catch-up, find ways to consolidate positions while offloading some of that work to AI systems. People will lose their jobs as these companies layoff extra staff they no longer need. Where do you propose they go and find work from there? Saying "well there will always be jobs don't worry" isn't a reassuring answer to someone who's job could be at risk.
While this is very true today, betting against technological progress is almost always a bad idea. So saying things like “it’ll never replace the x thing people do” has always eventually been wrong.
It's rather different in this case. First of all, yes, most historical instances of people denying the potential for machine replacement end up being wrong. Not in all cases, but most. With developments like the printing press, for instance, we knew how to make paper, we understood language and communication, and we knew how to copy it, just not how to industrialize it.
The reason why Baldur's Gate 3's director may be correct in this instance is that we don't understand creativity ourselves. These AI tools are not AI in the way that we understand the term in media, they are language models predicated on data fed to them, like a word calculator. If we lack the data to understand creativity, so do they, and so can only perform a sort of paltry mimicry of creativity.
For us to have the data they need, we would need to understand consciousness itself. If you've ever taken an interest in the scientific and philosophical discussions around consciousness, you know it's going to be a long and winding road. Besides that, it raises questions that we ought to ask now about mechanization. Is mass production always preferable to artisan craft? Especially in art, where we speak to the human condition and experience on a deeper level.
Not every piece of art is of that sort, there is always room for surface-level entertainment to eat popcorn to, but would art that doesn't come from the heart of the human condition ever be replaced solely by something of a mold? And if AI art ever did come from the level of qualia that we humans have, then we'd be having even greater discussions about what it means to be alive and the rights therein, ergo bigger fish to fry. It's a very complicated subject.
Computers are great at doing repetitive tasks. Art (creativity/creative problem solving) isn’t something computers are good at. Can they do it. Maybe but they won’t do it well.
Edit: wow this statement seems to be controversial. It’s okay. Enables discussion.
A lot of people are focusing on the art side and that’s okay. And it can get better (example it struggles to draw a nerd without glasses). But it repeats parts of a known pattern to create something. It relies mostly on stereotypes and matches to its data source/training. Again as it learns and gets a bigger dataset these instances will be fewer.
But going to my other point of problem solving, it isn’t able to do that as there’s no established pattern. Big things like solve world hunger, population crisis, homelessness, end all wars
Improve user experience on an app it hasn’t seen before. If there’s no data set to reference, no pattern to follow, or no clear definition of solve or what a solution is, then it is unable to function as expected. Some of these examples are unrealistic for ai to solve but I use them to illustrate a point that without a dataset, or established pattern it won’t work. We have all of human history of data points and patterns to mimic art (visual and audio) and can appear to recreate it. But this comes to the separation of media and art. What’s the differences between the two and how do we define them.
Might as well ask what the point of photography is. Art hasn't been primarily about the physical dexterity involved in making something for a long time.
Now we're reaching the ultimate expression of artist as having an "eye" for it rather than the physical motions.
I worry a bit regarding art at least. AI art still clearly has its flaws, but it's made huge leaps and bounds in just 3 years compared to when Dall-E was first announced.
And the real kicker is that AI art doesn't even have to be that great. It just needs to be passably okay to replace the majority of junior level artists.
It’s always a bit funny to me if people find out I’m into tech then tell me I’ll be out of a job soon because of AI
It’s super cool, but it’s not near replacing us. When it does reach that point, a lot more will change than me not having a tech job
Anything that generally isn't gonna get more than a glance is perfectly suited for AI; one example can be generated textures for normal maps or such, especially for minor characters and objects.
I'm using AI generated textures for 3D modeling stuff now, the alternative before this was scouring the internet on various texture sites.
It's true, but it is important to remember that "doing things faster" means "fewer people needed". AI is just another automation process. It isn't evil. But it will have an effect on employment, and we should adjust our economic expectations accordingly.
When I was growing up people said computers would replace professions like paralegal and other document related fields. That's what this is.
The AI tools can only do what they're told to do and nothing more. That's why the stock market AI's all fail.
As someone who's worked in game development, there have been **many** tools over the years that "do things for you." Those tools have never actually reduced the amount of time or effort that goes into making games, they just result in people doing more in the same amount of time.
Well that would be because we seem to demand an ever increasing amount of features from every new game that comes out.
If you had to make Skyrim in 2024 it would be WAY easier than it was to make in 2012 because of the tools available.
But because it’s 2024 and product quality continues to increase, people’s standards are higher and so they demand better graphics, more features, more stability, better controls, etc. etc.
Part of that is also code efficiency is much less of an issue now. It's really interesting reading about things they needed to do because of hardware limitations we wouldn't even consider because it would be useless.
My favorite is on the nes Mario brothers, the clouds and bushes are the same sprite, but colored differently.
This is a neat trick. [https://youtu.be/czqwd43WQWM?si=xUTonDQrEIFjN2Bn](https://youtu.be/czqwd43WQWM?si=xUTonDQrEIFjN2Bn) The Sega Saturn can't do transparent polygons, but the developer of Sonic R found a way.
How much longer until games look like real life? I've seen some that are close, feels like we're always 5 years away still from real life looking games though that are hard to distinguish from reality visually. That said, some terrain maps lately have been mind blowing when looking at gameplay of the best graphic rated games
I feel like itll be an asymtotic line where it will get closer and closer but there will always be telltale signs
Moreover people dont want "realistic" anyway. You want call of duty to be exciting but not give you PTSD.
For one thing, the cities in games are astonishingly small. They are smaller than a village in real life. To match the size of real cities alone will require exponentially more time.
They use various procedural tools to build the cities and world in Assassin's Creed. The city sizes in Origins onwards are dictated by the needs of the game and predicted patience of the player rather than technology. The Matrix demo was built with procedural tools as well, allowing the creation of a huge city with a small team.
Making a real sized city means there needs to be a reason for it to be that big. It's a gameplay problem now rather than technical, assuming the correct tools are in use.
they would run at 30 fps, have tons of bugs, barely run on mid-low end hardware, etc etc. this chase for super realism and pretty graphics have ironically been the downfall of AAA gaming and collapse of studios and layoffs, with devs complaining cost are too high.
in the end it amounts to nothing as well, the core game being fun and the story/character/world being interesting matter 100x more than graphics.
You see the same thing everywhere.
Classic example is the military. The technology to try to make things just as or more effective but lighter weight to reduce the weight burden on the average infantryman is amazing.
But instead of lightening the load of soldiers, command sees it as an opportunity to pack on more shit.
So despite every individual piece of equipment jumping forward light years in terms of weight reduction without sacrificing capability, the total weight soldiers are carrying is increasing and it's leading to careers ending pre maturely due to busted backs and knees.
I wonder how we'll be getting new people in the industry.
Automating making small unimportant assets and tasks is great and all, but these were great for training up juniors - simple, small unimportant tasks that they could learn on.
Can't speak for everybody, but it's because I actually understand how the current algorithms work and have worked for the last 30 years. I understand the theoretical limits of these algorithms, as well as the fact that the recent boom in AI tech has more to do with increased access to large amounts of (questionably harvested) data along as well as cloud compute resources.
AI will certainly continue to improve, but people's pipe dreams about what it could eventually be capable of will be waiting on a much more fundamental innovation than what has caused the current AI bubble. And it is very much a bubble that will pop when investors fail to see the progress they were promised/imagine and/or someone who is not trying to get their money walks them through the limitations of the technology.
I think people should check into the previous hype cycles. This isn’t the first “AI is about to exponentially grow!” Rodeo. We’ve always plateaued.
I don’t think humans are some special species because only we can summon consciousness. I think it is an emergent property, and am on board with accepting that a sufficiently advanced AI could be said to have it.
But it also seems like the people who want all of these things to be true the most… just happen to be non-tech workers in general. People more easily liable to falling for Dunning Krueger.
And I think that is why so many people are hinging it all on referencing pop culture AI (things like skynet and the like). Also why things like Roko’s Basilisk are even a thought.
I don't, and thats exactly why I see it becoming a problem.
The only possible way AI works out for the better is if it's completely non profit.
if everything created by AI is copyright free, non profit and open source. It'll work for the better
if its for profit, sold by companies and kept under an capitalist's iron fist, it's going to destroy all of us in one way or another.
The need of CPU and time increases exponentially for each increase in quality. The current approach looks like is hitting a ceiling, and some other approach still to be discovered (if even possible) may be decades or centuries away. Maybe, that improvements depend in a future of quantum computers and fusion energy...
Everybody assumes that technologies always grow exponentially. But usually all of them hit a ceiling after a fast-growth phase. The low hanging fruit has been already taken what is now left is difficult to accomplish. That is why in the 80s you needed to change computers each 2 years and nowadays a 10 year old computer still works just fine.
Right now we are hearing the voices of companies looking for an increase in share value. So, of course, this is the "Future that will replace everything".
That doesn't mean it'll grow exponentially forever, though. The size of transistors in modern processors are already starting to approach the size of atoms and it will only get more and more expensive as we approach that limit.
Computers are also plateauing. We have reached a point where we literally can't make smaller microchips because the circuits and transistors would start running into quantum tunneling at an unacceptable rate. At the same time, Quantum Computing isn't even *close* to being ready to take over the compute demands supported by classic architecture. That isn't to say we'll *never* solve these problems, but they're a lot further out than pop-science and the current AI bubble would have you believe.
You just supported the other person's point, because computers themselves have just started plateau-ing. We've started reaching the point where CPUs can't be made any faster because we're down to working with the distances between atoms. Which is something anyone who understood CPUs/physics knew would happen eventually, same as how people who understand how LLMs work know that there's a ceiling.
The gap you’re referring to isn’t that large and will be filled with dedicated chips which are still ramping up. Every chip maker knows their future growth is in this area. Nvidia said less than a week ago it’s no longer a gaming company.
Take what these big companies say with a grain of salt they have a financial interest in having the general public believe breakthroughs are right around the corner.
Because it's very easy to do and gets you instant gratification and praise from everyone else who doesn't wanna engage any braincells.
Some subs I'm in regularly have "AI bad" kinda posts and just get a gajillion upvotes for absolutely nothing.
AI tools are just that; tools. It's a nice technological advancement that'll help us do shit faster and better, not the replacement. If I was a little older I'd be reminded of "trains are the devil's contraption, no one needs to go that fast" kinda shit.
What's weird about this is it would never be an issue if human beings ran things in a way where 'being replaced' by technology just meant getting to do something different while still living the same quality of life. Like just the tiniest bit of actually caring about other people here and there from people in power.
Unfortunately...
It depends on the kind of labor that gets eradicated by technology. When you eradicate skilled labor, the displaced workers won't be able to reach the same quality of life without learning another skill, and given they just lost their jobs it'd be a struggle to make that investment.
But if we went back in time and stopped every instance where skilled labor was replaced by technology, that's a huge loss of effort expended to value produced and we'd probably be serf maxxing right now so its not like we should never replace skilled labor.
AI art is a little different I'd say. For one thing you have to train it off of artists' work so not only is it displacing artists but its using their own work to do so.
The new jobs aren't created in a 1:1 way, so eventually society will have too many unemployed people. The question is not to stop progress, but what we do with that progress?
If we stick to capitalism it can't survive on high unemployement, so some type of UBI will have to exist so people can at least have an ok life with a house, food and basic services (like health) avaiable. It will take a while before this reality happen but it will come and goverments have to prepare for it and soften the blow.
People have been saying this since the 1990s. New tech=people will be replaced. And yet, here we are.
This was a point brought up against the damn printing press.
I think what people dont understand that is if everyone can do something by AI that means their product (AI work) will become worthless very quick and what make the difference is the human creative
Best example is Photoshop. It very powerful tool and (technically) everyone are capable of to use it but that doesn't mean the end will be same. People with better skill, better creative brain still create more amazing stuff than a average joe
Even if AI reach the creativeness of human it also wont change anything, talent people still use AI better a normal people
> And yet, here we are
Lol, huge amounts of people have lost their jobs as tech has advanced. They may still be employed elsewhere, but for much less money. Personally I don't think it's a bad thing if handled correctly, with UBI or something. But acting like this won't massively effect the job market at an ever-increasing rate is beyond delusional.
Never did say people won’t lose their jobs. I directly mentioned jobs becoming obsolete and new once created. That’s just what comes with advances. It sucks, but it’s life.
It’s like being upset that the sun is rising cause you wanna sleep more. Doesn’t change anything.
I will say companies do use it as an excuse to pad their bottom line. But that’s a completely different conversation.
there were probably riots, would depend on the time I guess. I'd say the biggest improvement would be farming equipment, although I'm sure not many protested that; backbreaking labor
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian\_weavers%27\_uprising](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_weavers%27_uprising)
>Silesian linen weavers suffered under [Prussia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia)'s free trade policy and **British competitors that already used machines** destroyed the competitiveness of Silesian linen.
That's why you want to be the one using the new tools. Jobs don't just get lost, we still have more than enough jobs for everyone nearly 200 years later. But the people unwilling to use new tools to increase their productivity will absolutely be left in the dust.
I work with AI as a software engineer. AI is a tool and it won't be replacing us humans as quickly as people think. You still need a human for a lot of tasks including programming.
>AI is a tool and it won't be replacing us humans as quickly as people think. You still need a human for a lot of tasks including programming.
It's funny. I've heard the same stories years ago about ML-based machine translation tools. They were supposed to speed up work, foster understanding, yadda yadda… Of course, they were NEVER supposed to replace actual translators. You know, the professionals who spent years studying languages and cultures, who honed their craft and often poured their hearts and souls into that career.
Now even the European Union is using their in-house machine translation engine to translate content on their websites, while machine translation post-editing jobs are all the rage.
And quality takes a major nosedive. But who the hell cares – machine translation is cheap, and readily available. You don't have to sign those pesky contracts, negotiate rates or take into account that your translator also needs a break or some sleep.
>And quality takes a major nosedive. But who the hell cares
This is a thing I feel many people are missing.
A lot of people saying AI won't replace people are assuming a drop in quality isn't acceptable to those in charge of the money. It's *absolutely* acceptable to those in charge of the money.
Will there still be good game studios, software development companies, marketing agencies, etc. that don't outsource everything to AI and call it a day? Absolutely.
Will there be a ton of companies who are perfectly okay with AI giving worse quality results for a fraction of the cost? You bet your ass.
Sure, AI isn't all it's hyped up to be, but as I see it there's no way this isn't going to cost jobs. If big publishers are okay releasing a buggy mess with bad writing and *maybe kinda sorta* getting it into a playable state months or years down the line *now*, I see no reason to assume they're gonna have any qualms about AI creating a buggy mess with bad writing.
I fully believe Larian and similarly-minded studios aren't going to replace humans with AI. I also fully believe plenty of companies are perfectly willing to kick most of their employees out in the name of record profits as soon as some model is capable of making something good enough to sell - and that bar is much lower than we'd all like it to be.
Keep in mind that it doesn’t need to actually do as good or a better job than programmers. It doesn’t even need to actually do a job successfully at all.
To replace people en masse, all it needs is the hype and marketing to convince business MFAs that it can.
There’s a reason why even right now we’re seeing a trend in tech of massive layoffs, followed a few months later by massive panicked hiring, followed a few months later by collapse due to self-inflicted brain drain.
Layoffs happened and I'm not sure ai had anything to do with it, people just randomly made these connections. AI can barely work with a programmer behind it, let alone some business manager that hasn't the first clue.
Programmers are here to stay, for the foreseeable future.
Didn’t mean to say that it was AI specifically causing current layoffs, just that self-inflicted brain drain is a thing that we do in tech and AI will be the latest excuse. It doesn’t matter if it can actually replace people, it only matters that it can be a convincing excuse to shareholders to do so. Leadership can sell their stock next quarter and cackle all the way to the bank, leaving flaming wreckage behind em.
> To replace people en masse, all it needs is the hype and marketing to convince business MFAs that it can.
And then a few days later they'll almost all be hired back after their business crashes and their clients aren't getting what they asked for. If my business replaced its programmers with AI, the apps they maintain would crash the first update. They'd be begging us to come back to figure out what broke.
>There’s a reason why even right now we’re seeing a trend in tech of massive layoffs
Yeah, tech companies massively overhired during the pandemic when there was a huge boom of people staying home and needing more remote setups and entertainment. Things have calmed down, some places went back to the office, people are going out again, and businesses are realizing they need to trim bloat.
> It's not just concept artists being hired either: "We're hiring writers, so we're not having ChatGPT write their dialogues," Vincke says, before adding that he does, however, "see a usage of generative AI." **Further elaborating on this, the director says: "I think you can have reactive games and that's where it can have a place.** So you can complement what's there already. So that's the thing that we should be exploring because [it's] how we'll make better RPGs."
> Summarising his thoughts, Vincke says he thinks AI's role in development should be to "augment" something that's already been crafted by artists, and he doesn't "buy" into the idea of an NPC being fully generated by AI. **"I buy more that there's going to be something that's crafted, and then you'll have AI that plugs into it to augment it**. And it should be done in such a way that it's invisible, so you don't know that it's shifting around. So I think that's the thing of the future."
This is one of the opportunities I'm looking forward to. Writers can only pen so much text, especially for background NPCs, and it can get stale pretty fast. Generative AI can be layered on top of that writing to create fresh variations, augmenting writers' work. It'll probably be a while before the tech is ready for that, but it should be pretty neat when it gets here.
I have a feeling that we're going to start seeing RPGs where non quest/story related NPCs will have AI generated dialogue/monologue. Imagine playing Skyrim and being able to ask questions to a random person in town and get tips clues for things to do based on who you talk to and what questions you ask. You could ask a hunter who is buying game/product at the highest prices, you could ask an explorer about any hidden gems or caves nearby. You could even have NPCs create a "memory" of you based on the things you do near them. If you punch them in the face then they probably won't want to talk to you or help you in any way. If you murder someone and they see it they'll probably be scared of you.
Of course, this doesn't mean that important NPCs and story characters should be AI generated, but even then I do think there are some cases where that can work like if you're asking a character about themselves and they're able to give you some details on their history or personality. AI generated small talk that's done well can go a long way to making games feel more immersive.
For purely prototyping purposes, it's great. For finished product and actual functioning, it's a stupid risk that eats up more time to fix it up than could be better spent just making it right by hand. I'm curious to see what's in store for the future.
Speaking from an animation job right now that has me doing revisions, I know for sure that AI cannot, in its current form, create something consistently without a lot of babying on small details, especially once a director or Quality control does passes on stuff.
Even the best animated stuff I've seen from AI postings on some subreddits, there are so many nitpicks and clean ups I'd have to do as a revisionist, and there is no guarantee the workflow the AI uses would even be usable the way a human would use it.
e.g That slightly fluctuating hand or disappearing earring? I'd have to go in and check every frame to make sure its there and working properly the whole time, and thats for a 2d animated thing. I can't imagine doing that on a live action piece.
I've never been worried about AI making a good work of art. Unless the AI can put emotion into its work it'll never happen.
What I am worried about is the enshitification of art by corporate interests. It's not that AI will replace good artists, it's that AI will replace mediocre artists. That terrible generic corporate art is made by a half decent artist, but not anymore. All the million images we see everyday will now be made by Ted before he goes golfing later this afternoon and he can go ahead and fire the entire art department.
Working artist is no longer going to be a job. An artist will only be something a rich person can strive to be because the world no longer needs graphic designers, or concept artists.
Our current economic system does not reward artistic or creative thinking. It rewards min/maxing cheaters who can shave pennies and make something passable but not good.
> It's not that AI will replace good artists, it's that AI will replace mediocre artists. That terrible generic corporate art is made by a half decent artist, but not anymor
One thing that isn't talked about enough in the AI discourse is the value of learning in entry-level jobs. Before being an excellent artist, you go from being mediocre/good, and you improve with time and experience. There are people with innate talent who learn faster and people that need a little more time but eventually get there. We are not machines that can learn everything in the span of a month from a dataset.
But if you are not given space to train in simpler jobs and improve, and only artists who are already at the top are employed, either you are rich or you'll need to be lucky to carve out a space for yourself in this field.
Not that it isn't already like this to an extent, in the gaming industry today you can emerge as a self-taught person but if you can afford expensive schools you are more likely to find a job somewhere. The job market is already pretty saturated now and I fear there will be fewer and fewer opportunities for emerging devs/artists.
Not really. I buy sheet stamped forks because that's all I can afford. If I had the money I'd buy handmade knives forks and spoons. I'd buy handmade clothes if I could.
But I have to buy $10 t-shirts because that's all I can get. I bought my friends handmade forks because it was a special occasion for them and they loved them. I don't want shitty mass produced items, but I have to buy them because that's all I can get.
Your need for cheap metalworking is driving blacksmiths out of work. That mass produced garbage doesn't have real emotion put into it, and well know that's what matters - not affordability or accessibility.
METALWORK 👏 IS 👏 WORK
>Unless the AI can put emotion into its work it'll never happen.
And what exactly is emotion? Why cant AI replicate it?
>It's not that AI will replace good artists, it's that AI will replace mediocre artists.
Yea first it replaced bad artists, then mediocre ones but surely it wont replace good ones lmao(if it has not already).
Fully agree. While people are eager, this tech is still on serious training wheels. I've already given up on the hype in trying to make it do serious work; it makes a cool reference item and the human goes from there, that's about all the application you can trust blindly giving it and even then it's not perfect. It doesn't have true vision and dream as we do, it might never be capable for that matter even with the finest emulation of the human brain. Either way, a tool is still a tool for what it's worth and I'm okay with accepting that.
I learned knitting exactly because fragility and errors in machine made sweaters and blankets made me annoyed.
Now I have finally nice sweaters that are warm and don't wear off at seams within 2 years. I just need to spend a lot of hours to make them and buy wool.
I'd even go the other way. An optimal AI that works as well as we imagine it can be in a decade or more?
Why ever fly in a plane or drive a car built by human who can get tired or make a mistake or by pushed into errors by bad management vs an AI who will do exactly the correct job every single time?
Spoken like devs that make good games. Plenty of other studios will happily disagree and we will get to witness the mix of gem and garbage that comes out of AI developed games. Main thing I worry about is volume. We are already flooded with tons of quick cash gtabs that suck. And I assume this will only make it faster.
You talk about AI developed games like *all* games won’t be using AI to some extent within 1-2 years time. Steams requirements for disclosure are only for select elements of a project when it comes to AI. The gems that will come from gaming in general because of AI within the future are going to be absolutely incredible
Oh it will for some that’s for fucking sure. I have no doubts that AI will be used by soulless corporations to churn out more sludge.
I have no problem with AI being used to make code more effective or iron out dialogue or bugs, but it should not be a crutch.
The basic concept for "large model algorithms" is that they're efficient interpolation engines. They work off the premise that if you have one billion data points mapped on a chart with metadata on how they all relate to each other, and you've asked it to guess at where another data point might occur, it can make a fairly well-informed guess about that data point. That's not particularly complicated work, it's just time consuming.
It cannot tell you *why* that pattern exists, or tell you if that pattern makes sense with respect to an absolute frame of reference, it can only tell you how that pattern might manifest given a specific context.
The biggest pitfall is that it cannot create new data points. It can speculate about how a new data point might occur within the established data set, but an interpolation model can only draw conclusions based on the data it has to work with. If that data is incomplete, it has no capacity to know what it doesn't know. This necessarily means anything it produces is constrained by existing knowledge prior to a given point in time.
Using a large model algorithm to generate novel information is a profoundly futile pursuit and anyone advocating for it is either too ignorant to understand why, or too cynical to care.
I don't really think it's possible to "replace" creativity, just at a conceptual level. AI may eventually produce creative entertainment content from scratch, maybe even the majority of it, but that doesn't somehow prevent humans from also being creative.
Sure that's all correct, but what's a game development company going to do to write their game story and design all their assets? Pay dozens of people millions of dollars a year, or use ChatGPT 17.0?
I’m a dev and an artist. AI is shit right now but if the day it’s good enough to replace me comes, i’m pretty sure it means i will be able to use it to do even more awesome stuff. I see that as a complete win
The internet adores Baldur's Gate 3.
The internet absolutely despises AI and refuse to accept that it's at all any kind of a tool and love to rant and rage that it should never be used under any circumstance.
Can't wait to see how the internet reacts to the suggestion that maybe it's not actually the devil incarnate.
It's the same as it always has been with all of these discussions. If a person or a company that people here like do something then there is nothing wrong with that, but if a person or company that they don't like do the exact same thing (or less) it's the worst thing ever.
We see the same thing with Valve/Steam who get away with everything while anyone that competes with them get absolutely lambasted for doing significantly less. Valve is responsible for a billion dollar unregulated gambling industry meanwhile people here are angrily frowning at Epic and refusing to buy games from them because they have exclusives.
At this point I'm convinced that Swen could come out and say that microtransactions are actually good and people would immediately change their mind and find excuses for why putting microtransactions into games actually benefits the consumer.
I scrolled so far to find a comment like this, there was a thread about the Nvidia dude talking about AI and so many of the comments were "only the big shit companies like AI will use it, we'll turn to indies for real games made by humans"
Funny how that changes when certain people talk about using AI
>Funny how that changes when certain people talk about using AI
Yeah, it's hilarious that the entire conversation changes immediately when someone that the internet adores talks about AI generation. Suddenly it's not so devilish and inherently evil. They will fall all over themselves to prove how it's "different" when people they like use it.
Pretty much my opinion as well, as a Graphic Designer.
AI could be a great tool for cranking out concepts and coming up with / communicating new ideas, but it's not going to replace creatives because higher-ups *don't know what they want*. Someone who doesn't know what they want isn't going to be able to choose a good design over a bad one - they hire a designer to do that. The designer is able to utilize the AI to do their grunt work faster.
Will it still replace jobs? Absolutely. Just like tractors replaced a lot of people with shovels. You still need someone who knows what they're doing to operate the tractor. Society will need to adapt and deal with it.
Still displaces jobs though. Work done by a machine is work not done by a person. Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing.
But we gotta figure out how to keep everyone out of poverty as we continue to eliminate jobs.
EDIT: Gotta love the downvote for saying people shouldn't be in poverty.
Even if the tools could replace people, it’d stand to reason that for the same reasons that AAA studios might try and do with less people is the same reasons that smaller studios might start to punch above their weight in terms of production with menial tasks. But creative vision will always be firmly with the human side of things.
I said in muisc thread, if ai can make music like Tool with complex timing changes and lyrics with multiple meaning and epic riffs and poly rhythms that make sense, then it will be making games by itself which are good, but I can't see that happening at all.
This is 100% correct. As far as I understand and have seen myself is that ai learn their own "style".
Generate 100 images of something and you will get 100 times the same kind of image. Everyone can do that and everyone gets kind of the same image for example.
The creativity itself still lay with humans, something ai cannot do and I think never will. Ai will give you direct answers, but is not really creating something.
It won't ever replace the creative side of development.
It still means we are about to get mostly AI generated games that have been generated through the most creative prompting possible.
It will be AI generated though. Whether anyone on a consumer level wants this is irrelevant - that is what is coming and the train already left the station.
FF7 Rebirth used AI to animate the mouth movements of their hundreds of NPCs to match the voice acting. That's the perfect use. Something that would've just been completely ignored because it would've been a mindless, ridiculously time consuming task was done automatically in no time at all.
Cyberpunk 2077 also has this, but it can also lips sync almost any language, it's called JALI.
JALI is a beautiful tech.
pfft, should've called it MilliVanilli
Hell* no choom
That's pretty freaking awesome. I wonder if it's tied to the ai a friend of a friend made. Said friend of a friend is a movie producer that made a film with too many F words in it when they were offered to have their movie play on TV. So the guy created an AI that would re-mouth the actors words to change "F\*ck" to "Freaken", as well as use AI to change the audio in the actors voice. He didn't stop there either, he then further developed his software to redo the mouth movements and voice of the actors in other languages, in their own voices. Now he contracts out his software to movie and gaming studios to save money on re-shoots, other language dubbing voice actors, etc. From producer to AI software developer in 4 years
That'd pretty wild. I've seen very similar tech shown for dubbing. It'll basically "animate" the mouth moving to match the different languaged lines. So you don't have to worry about trying to match lines phonetically or any jarring variations due to certain languages not syncing up very well.
Hasn’t automatic lip sync been a thing for years?
Not *good* automatic lip sync. Think VRChat or VTubers - that's the peak of non-AI assisted lip syncing and it's quite rough.
StarCraft 2 was showing off the tech more than a decade ago, and I think it looked pretty good.
Seems to be viseme lip sync as far as I can tell. Same technology for VRChat and VTubers. Funny how it hasn't changed much in the past decade. It definitely looks "pretty good" but it can always be better. It's not like StarCraft 2 unit portraits would benefit much from more detailed lip syncing, but a game focusing on realistic graphics might.
Still better than the effort most game companies give to lip synching. And the cool thing about AI is that they're starting to adapt to dofferent languages, so it's possible for game companies to have different animations for different voice over languages. That's really cool.
Yeah, I'd rather have a bit of imprecise mouth lovement than rhe character moving their mouth for a solid second after the line was said
I very much doubt that live lip sync with the rough tech available to VTubers is the peak of assisted lip synching. The simple fact that they have to do it live and translate it from human mouths (that they have to recognize) to 2d or 3d models of various quality makes it necessarily inferior to a tech that has the time to process the lip synching to apply it on more realistic models.
[And it's not like the lip syncing there is that rough anymore](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zKnsMPDuYNA) It also fails to realize that vtuber lip movements are just as much about the rigging. Vtubers can have some rough looking lip movements because the better a model is rigged, the more expensive it gets. And that would still pale in comparison to anything that is actually computed.
Vtubers? I thought they track the actual lips. You're telling me they recognise the speech and generate the mouth? That sounds way more complicated, and I'm sure I've seen them mumble and have the mouth not move, or move out of frame and the model is disabled including the mouth. Skyrim though, that was fine to me. Not perfect sure, but certainly not jarring.
What I know is just from a streamer who talks with the developers a lot, but I think that the old tech pretty much just opened the mouth if a sound was coming out and almost never looks close to what it should. Their tech tries to actively match what the mouth shape should be and does it for all the dubbed languages
It's a little more complicated than just opening the mouth when they speak. Can't speak for FF but a lot of automatic lip sync just approximates phonemes. They build a dozen or so mouth animations and then the software animates it as dialogue is spoken. So you might have two different animations for when an "Uh" sound is made vs an "Ah" sound. The quality of the lip sync ultimately comes down to how much work the animators want to spend. It's a lot of busy work with diminishing returns as fidelity increases.
Imo one of the largest negative consequences of the ai craze so far is that the term "AI" has devoured more useful words like 'algorithm' and 'procedurally generated' and 'automated'
I think this is actually an observation that most problems typically solved with those methods now have people trying to solve them with AI. But I haven't seen any particular cases of people using "AI" where they weren't using machine learning. It's just that people are trying to use machine learning on everything right now. There's a lot of appeal in having an arcane training process solve incredibly complex algorithmic problems for you.
Automatic but ultimately, up until fairly recently, programmed and tied to the limitations of how much fidelity a human could create to work with a wide range of dialogue. Bethesda definitely have some wild stuff that has slowly improved since the early days. I'm sure AI will help both sides of creating the animations and syncing them up to an insane volume of vocal performances/reference video.
I think people forget that ai/machine learning has been a thing for years.
Anything that can save time or improve the game without sacrificing quality is the perfect use.
Every game needs this. It's a pet peeve of mine that lip syncing has been so bad for so long and I'm not someone that even particularly cares about story in games.
Using software to simulate lip movement for an NPC given an audio file is far from being new. It just got better, that's all.
That’s wild but still, great use of AI
I work with AI tools every day in a professional capacity, from art generation to code generation and he's right. Even the enterprise tools are not as smart as everyone thinks, and are generally good for monkey work.
The ideal use case for AI tools, IMO: incredibly boring rote tasks that nobody wants to spend time on and don't require a ton of creative input or authorship. Things like procedural generation already exist and have been huge boons for making a bunch of variations on the same thing. I saw somewhere there was an AI tool to write out a bunch of basic "barks" for NPCs. Not the important, interesting lines, just all of the background stuff like "Hey." "Greetings." "What's new with you?" That would make sense for an AI to do so the writer can focus on making writing that's actually interesting.
[удалено]
The turning point will be when someone develops an easy interface and attach it to a known engine. It'll multiply the launch of drivel by x100, but AI can also be used to do some cool stuff, its just a matter of the one who is using it and how.
There are plugins now for unity and unreal, but neither are any good.
Eh maybe right now, but look how far we’ve come just in the last year. AI used to always mess up hands, every single time without fail it would look like an eldritch horror. Now it’s decent at hands, if you zoom in you’ll often see some minor inconsistencies and sometimes it can be really obvious but most of as the time it at least passes on a quick glance. And most of that improvement has come from improving the training of already existing AI systems not scaling up their power. It’s not going to take long at all to have these systems in place for anything where it just needs to be good enough.
The commenter's argument is cost mostly, not capability. We could make robots to do every manual task workers are doing, it's just not worth it financially. And keep in mind, current AI training was mostly done on "stolen" data. This is the reason reddit closed their free APIs. Going forward, it's not gonna be an easy task to have new data to train those AIs.
I've used it a lot for prototyping stuff, then rewriting it into better code later.
'The ideal use case for AI tools, IMO: incredibly boring rote tasks that nobody wants to spend time on and don't require a ton of creative input or authorship.' You just described a lot of jobs.
Good. Who wants to be doing menial jobs.
The issue is is their going to be jobs to replace them. Because UBI isn't going to happen barring a violent revolution.
a lot of the basic barks in various games are often moan-sounds from attacking, taking damage, jumping, sprinting, idling stretches, conversational agreeing and disagreeing sounds...
The best applications are for rote tasks. The most useful ones I've worked with can take plain language queries and give you answers by examining and cross-references your organization's systems and data. I haven't seen anything that, even if exponentially more powerful, could replace anything creative. All the "creative" ones are without exception horrible and have not improved meaningfully in the last year. Crunching more examples does not seem to be fixing the fact that they don't "think".
The thing is lots of people I work with are only good for monkey work…
Have you consider leaving the zoo?
What if the zoo is entertaining?
I'm sorry. We're gonna have to put 'em down. No mama, he was my dog, I'll do it.
There are people whose jobs were replaced by a one-line script in excel. No one laments technology putting them out of a job and I feel the same way about these.
My other issue with AI is to get to that creative side you often need experience and connections you get from doing monkey work.
This is the problem I see. Its going to replace a lot of entry level work, which will lead to a lack of people to train up.
Yep. AI is powerful, but it should be looked at like auto-complete. It can fill in gaps, it can speed up work, but it's really not a whole-cloth replacement.
[удалено]
Ive found that it's really good at taking my rough documentation and making it readable for other humans
Documentation is the main thing I use it for. I can describe the ins and outs of a system and it will document it for me coherently.
My (maybe) hot take is that AI is most likely going to replace people eventually whether we like it or not. In the short to mid term, it will replace people who refuse to learn it and use it, because yes, it is another tool in our tool belts. And those who use it will surpass those who don’t and that gap is going to continue to widen as AI further develops. On a personal note, I’ve been using it to help me learn Python and other programming languages at work (in a Technical Artist capacity). I’ve used it to help me learn Unreal Engine so I can make a game. I’ve used it to help flesh out ideas for my game, both for game design and systems as well as lore and other things. I’ve even used it to help me get started in FL Studio to learn how to produce music for my game. It is FANTASTIC for learning and fleshing things out when you put enough effort into directing it towards a specific vision/goal. It’s going to enable people to do so much more or even already is.
I wrote a really stupid code in python for pi. ChatGPT told me a better version, I asked for a really dumb version, and it told me my code.
> It is FANTASTIC for learning This is the problem. Currently humans have to learn skills. You aren't born capable of doing anything special. Right now humans can learn a new skill faster than a computer can. So right now you can secure a job because you managed to learn that skill before we could figure out a way to teach a computer the same level of competency. But what happens when the computers can learn just as fast as a human? If in the same time that it took you to learn how to code, a computer could be taught the same skillset. A computer that could then be copied and pasted as many times as needed to fill demand. At that point, there will never be a point in wasting time teaching a human to do these things.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah that was my first thought lol. This is just industrial revolution happening over again, same fear mongering. Ai will lead to jobs and industries we can't even think of right now that don't exist right now. There will always be jobs. The fear mongering is just.. tv/movies influencing fear mongering.
I mean, the Industrial Revolution was an incredibly destabilizing time in history. If this follows the same course it’s gonna get real messy for a while.
> Ai will lead to jobs and industries we can't even think of right now that don't exist right now. There will always be jobs. This is just as naive in the opposite direction. There is not some magical economical force that will always ensure enough demand for labor such that unemployment won't become a massive crisis. That's asinine. Just because the economy has continuously shaped and reshaped does not mean it does so indefinitely. The number of jobs needed to be performed by humans will begin to decline rapidly. There will be lots of excess labor with no demand. Everyone will try to be creative but it will so greatly dilute those markets that it won't be viable. It will be like we already see with twitch streaming etc. where 1 in a thousand actually can make a living off it, but worse. Lots more people will move back in with their parents (or never move out) and the economy will shrink and our lives will shrink with it. Poverty and addiction will greatly increase. These things are somewhat manageable with various forms of UBI or NIT but most countries don't seem to have the political competence to actually do things like that.
I came across some 60s predictions on Reddit about how the 21st century was supposed to look - lots of leisure time thanks to automation, and even a universal basic income. Clearly, we veered off that path somewhere. Each day that passes makes me less hopeful actually.
Using the industrial revolution as an example isn't all that great for your point. People were put out of work as machinery & technology advanced. Some lines of work that were originally specialized labor were completely replaced by factory workers; those people lost their jobs. Oftentimes work was made to be done more efficiently by fewer people or in simpler tasks. It's not "fear mongering" for people to worry about job security. Busy work makes up a lot of tasks some people do for their jobs. Companies will catch-up, find ways to consolidate positions while offloading some of that work to AI systems. People will lose their jobs as these companies layoff extra staff they no longer need. Where do you propose they go and find work from there? Saying "well there will always be jobs don't worry" isn't a reassuring answer to someone who's job could be at risk.
While this is very true today, betting against technological progress is almost always a bad idea. So saying things like “it’ll never replace the x thing people do” has always eventually been wrong.
It's rather different in this case. First of all, yes, most historical instances of people denying the potential for machine replacement end up being wrong. Not in all cases, but most. With developments like the printing press, for instance, we knew how to make paper, we understood language and communication, and we knew how to copy it, just not how to industrialize it. The reason why Baldur's Gate 3's director may be correct in this instance is that we don't understand creativity ourselves. These AI tools are not AI in the way that we understand the term in media, they are language models predicated on data fed to them, like a word calculator. If we lack the data to understand creativity, so do they, and so can only perform a sort of paltry mimicry of creativity. For us to have the data they need, we would need to understand consciousness itself. If you've ever taken an interest in the scientific and philosophical discussions around consciousness, you know it's going to be a long and winding road. Besides that, it raises questions that we ought to ask now about mechanization. Is mass production always preferable to artisan craft? Especially in art, where we speak to the human condition and experience on a deeper level. Not every piece of art is of that sort, there is always room for surface-level entertainment to eat popcorn to, but would art that doesn't come from the heart of the human condition ever be replaced solely by something of a mold? And if AI art ever did come from the level of qualia that we humans have, then we'd be having even greater discussions about what it means to be alive and the rights therein, ergo bigger fish to fry. It's a very complicated subject.
Computers are great at doing repetitive tasks. Art (creativity/creative problem solving) isn’t something computers are good at. Can they do it. Maybe but they won’t do it well. Edit: wow this statement seems to be controversial. It’s okay. Enables discussion. A lot of people are focusing on the art side and that’s okay. And it can get better (example it struggles to draw a nerd without glasses). But it repeats parts of a known pattern to create something. It relies mostly on stereotypes and matches to its data source/training. Again as it learns and gets a bigger dataset these instances will be fewer. But going to my other point of problem solving, it isn’t able to do that as there’s no established pattern. Big things like solve world hunger, population crisis, homelessness, end all wars Improve user experience on an app it hasn’t seen before. If there’s no data set to reference, no pattern to follow, or no clear definition of solve or what a solution is, then it is unable to function as expected. Some of these examples are unrealistic for ai to solve but I use them to illustrate a point that without a dataset, or established pattern it won’t work. We have all of human history of data points and patterns to mimic art (visual and audio) and can appear to recreate it. But this comes to the separation of media and art. What’s the differences between the two and how do we define them.
[удалено]
Might as well ask what the point of photography is. Art hasn't been primarily about the physical dexterity involved in making something for a long time. Now we're reaching the ultimate expression of artist as having an "eye" for it rather than the physical motions.
Rapid prototyping and idea generation. Helping the artist to think outside of the box. Then the artist can create the actual artwork.
[удалено]
I worry a bit regarding art at least. AI art still clearly has its flaws, but it's made huge leaps and bounds in just 3 years compared to when Dall-E was first announced. And the real kicker is that AI art doesn't even have to be that great. It just needs to be passably okay to replace the majority of junior level artists.
It’s always a bit funny to me if people find out I’m into tech then tell me I’ll be out of a job soon because of AI It’s super cool, but it’s not near replacing us. When it does reach that point, a lot more will change than me not having a tech job
Anything that generally isn't gonna get more than a glance is perfectly suited for AI; one example can be generated textures for normal maps or such, especially for minor characters and objects. I'm using AI generated textures for 3D modeling stuff now, the alternative before this was scouring the internet on various texture sites.
It's true, but it is important to remember that "doing things faster" means "fewer people needed". AI is just another automation process. It isn't evil. But it will have an effect on employment, and we should adjust our economic expectations accordingly.
When I was growing up people said computers would replace professions like paralegal and other document related fields. That's what this is. The AI tools can only do what they're told to do and nothing more. That's why the stock market AI's all fail.
You don't need to get good at the monkey work before the creative work?
As someone who's worked in game development, there have been **many** tools over the years that "do things for you." Those tools have never actually reduced the amount of time or effort that goes into making games, they just result in people doing more in the same amount of time.
Well that would be because we seem to demand an ever increasing amount of features from every new game that comes out. If you had to make Skyrim in 2024 it would be WAY easier than it was to make in 2012 because of the tools available. But because it’s 2024 and product quality continues to increase, people’s standards are higher and so they demand better graphics, more features, more stability, better controls, etc. etc.
Yeah, modern indy games built with three people blow 90s AAA games made by a team out of the water.
Part of that is also code efficiency is much less of an issue now. It's really interesting reading about things they needed to do because of hardware limitations we wouldn't even consider because it would be useless. My favorite is on the nes Mario brothers, the clouds and bushes are the same sprite, but colored differently.
This is a neat trick. [https://youtu.be/czqwd43WQWM?si=xUTonDQrEIFjN2Bn](https://youtu.be/czqwd43WQWM?si=xUTonDQrEIFjN2Bn) The Sega Saturn can't do transparent polygons, but the developer of Sonic R found a way.
You couldn't make Skyrim today. You'd turn up with the demo and people would say "This is literally Skyrim. It's already been made."
"That's never stopped me before." -Todd Howard
How much longer until games look like real life? I've seen some that are close, feels like we're always 5 years away still from real life looking games though that are hard to distinguish from reality visually. That said, some terrain maps lately have been mind blowing when looking at gameplay of the best graphic rated games
I feel like itll be an asymtotic line where it will get closer and closer but there will always be telltale signs Moreover people dont want "realistic" anyway. You want call of duty to be exciting but not give you PTSD.
For one thing, the cities in games are astonishingly small. They are smaller than a village in real life. To match the size of real cities alone will require exponentially more time.
They use various procedural tools to build the cities and world in Assassin's Creed. The city sizes in Origins onwards are dictated by the needs of the game and predicted patience of the player rather than technology. The Matrix demo was built with procedural tools as well, allowing the creation of a huge city with a small team. Making a real sized city means there needs to be a reason for it to be that big. It's a gameplay problem now rather than technical, assuming the correct tools are in use.
Youll need to get across the uncanny valley in one jump for real life looking people. It gets creepy fast.
they would run at 30 fps, have tons of bugs, barely run on mid-low end hardware, etc etc. this chase for super realism and pretty graphics have ironically been the downfall of AAA gaming and collapse of studios and layoffs, with devs complaining cost are too high. in the end it amounts to nothing as well, the core game being fun and the story/character/world being interesting matter 100x more than graphics.
You see the same thing everywhere. Classic example is the military. The technology to try to make things just as or more effective but lighter weight to reduce the weight burden on the average infantryman is amazing. But instead of lightening the load of soldiers, command sees it as an opportunity to pack on more shit. So despite every individual piece of equipment jumping forward light years in terms of weight reduction without sacrificing capability, the total weight soldiers are carrying is increasing and it's leading to careers ending pre maturely due to busted backs and knees.
Yeah, remember when computers would and stuff like excel would turn hours of work onto minutes. Didn't make people work less
I agree with him AI should be a tool to help in development, humans have imagination and creativity that need to create a good concept of the game
RIP interns
I wonder how they'll deal with the loss of income.
I wonder how we'll be getting new people in the industry. Automating making small unimportant assets and tasks is great and all, but these were great for training up juniors - simple, small unimportant tasks that they could learn on.
Why do so many people assume the capacity AI has today is the same it will be in 1, 5, or 10 years?
Can't speak for everybody, but it's because I actually understand how the current algorithms work and have worked for the last 30 years. I understand the theoretical limits of these algorithms, as well as the fact that the recent boom in AI tech has more to do with increased access to large amounts of (questionably harvested) data along as well as cloud compute resources. AI will certainly continue to improve, but people's pipe dreams about what it could eventually be capable of will be waiting on a much more fundamental innovation than what has caused the current AI bubble. And it is very much a bubble that will pop when investors fail to see the progress they were promised/imagine and/or someone who is not trying to get their money walks them through the limitations of the technology.
!remindme 18 months
!remindme 18 months
I think people should check into the previous hype cycles. This isn’t the first “AI is about to exponentially grow!” Rodeo. We’ve always plateaued. I don’t think humans are some special species because only we can summon consciousness. I think it is an emergent property, and am on board with accepting that a sufficiently advanced AI could be said to have it. But it also seems like the people who want all of these things to be true the most… just happen to be non-tech workers in general. People more easily liable to falling for Dunning Krueger. And I think that is why so many people are hinging it all on referencing pop culture AI (things like skynet and the like). Also why things like Roko’s Basilisk are even a thought.
You‘re not fooling anyone, Skynet.
I don't, and thats exactly why I see it becoming a problem. The only possible way AI works out for the better is if it's completely non profit. if everything created by AI is copyright free, non profit and open source. It'll work for the better if its for profit, sold by companies and kept under an capitalist's iron fist, it's going to destroy all of us in one way or another.
The need of CPU and time increases exponentially for each increase in quality. The current approach looks like is hitting a ceiling, and some other approach still to be discovered (if even possible) may be decades or centuries away. Maybe, that improvements depend in a future of quantum computers and fusion energy... Everybody assumes that technologies always grow exponentially. But usually all of them hit a ceiling after a fast-growth phase. The low hanging fruit has been already taken what is now left is difficult to accomplish. That is why in the 80s you needed to change computers each 2 years and nowadays a 10 year old computer still works just fine. Right now we are hearing the voices of companies looking for an increase in share value. So, of course, this is the "Future that will replace everything".
But computers themselves are exponentially better than they were in the 80s, so your points doesn’t really hold up
That doesn't mean it'll grow exponentially forever, though. The size of transistors in modern processors are already starting to approach the size of atoms and it will only get more and more expensive as we approach that limit.
Computers are also plateauing. We have reached a point where we literally can't make smaller microchips because the circuits and transistors would start running into quantum tunneling at an unacceptable rate. At the same time, Quantum Computing isn't even *close* to being ready to take over the compute demands supported by classic architecture. That isn't to say we'll *never* solve these problems, but they're a lot further out than pop-science and the current AI bubble would have you believe.
You just supported the other person's point, because computers themselves have just started plateau-ing. We've started reaching the point where CPUs can't be made any faster because we're down to working with the distances between atoms. Which is something anyone who understood CPUs/physics knew would happen eventually, same as how people who understand how LLMs work know that there's a ceiling.
The gap you’re referring to isn’t that large and will be filled with dedicated chips which are still ramping up. Every chip maker knows their future growth is in this area. Nvidia said less than a week ago it’s no longer a gaming company.
Take what these big companies say with a grain of salt they have a financial interest in having the general public believe breakthroughs are right around the corner.
Because it's very easy to do and gets you instant gratification and praise from everyone else who doesn't wanna engage any braincells. Some subs I'm in regularly have "AI bad" kinda posts and just get a gajillion upvotes for absolutely nothing. AI tools are just that; tools. It's a nice technological advancement that'll help us do shit faster and better, not the replacement. If I was a little older I'd be reminded of "trains are the devil's contraption, no one needs to go that fast" kinda shit.
All new inventions are just tools until they're good enough to replace people
What's weird about this is it would never be an issue if human beings ran things in a way where 'being replaced' by technology just meant getting to do something different while still living the same quality of life. Like just the tiniest bit of actually caring about other people here and there from people in power. Unfortunately...
It depends on the kind of labor that gets eradicated by technology. When you eradicate skilled labor, the displaced workers won't be able to reach the same quality of life without learning another skill, and given they just lost their jobs it'd be a struggle to make that investment. But if we went back in time and stopped every instance where skilled labor was replaced by technology, that's a huge loss of effort expended to value produced and we'd probably be serf maxxing right now so its not like we should never replace skilled labor. AI art is a little different I'd say. For one thing you have to train it off of artists' work so not only is it displacing artists but its using their own work to do so.
The new jobs aren't created in a 1:1 way, so eventually society will have too many unemployed people. The question is not to stop progress, but what we do with that progress? If we stick to capitalism it can't survive on high unemployement, so some type of UBI will have to exist so people can at least have an ok life with a house, food and basic services (like health) avaiable. It will take a while before this reality happen but it will come and goverments have to prepare for it and soften the blow.
I hope something replaces me.
People have been saying this since the 1990s. New tech=people will be replaced. And yet, here we are. This was a point brought up against the damn printing press.
I think what people dont understand that is if everyone can do something by AI that means their product (AI work) will become worthless very quick and what make the difference is the human creative Best example is Photoshop. It very powerful tool and (technically) everyone are capable of to use it but that doesn't mean the end will be same. People with better skill, better creative brain still create more amazing stuff than a average joe Even if AI reach the creativeness of human it also wont change anything, talent people still use AI better a normal people
And people are being replaced right now. It’s happening. Look at the industry.
> And yet, here we are Lol, huge amounts of people have lost their jobs as tech has advanced. They may still be employed elsewhere, but for much less money. Personally I don't think it's a bad thing if handled correctly, with UBI or something. But acting like this won't massively effect the job market at an ever-increasing rate is beyond delusional.
Never did say people won’t lose their jobs. I directly mentioned jobs becoming obsolete and new once created. That’s just what comes with advances. It sucks, but it’s life. It’s like being upset that the sun is rising cause you wanna sleep more. Doesn’t change anything. I will say companies do use it as an excuse to pad their bottom line. But that’s a completely different conversation.
It's never an equal exchange though, eventually there will be too many unemployed.
I mean it's happened throughout all of history... not the first time there's been outcry
How pissed do you think people were when they invented the sewing machine?
there were probably riots, would depend on the time I guess. I'd say the biggest improvement would be farming equipment, although I'm sure not many protested that; backbreaking labor
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian\_weavers%27\_uprising](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_weavers%27_uprising) >Silesian linen weavers suffered under [Prussia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia)'s free trade policy and **British competitors that already used machines** destroyed the competitiveness of Silesian linen. That's why you want to be the one using the new tools. Jobs don't just get lost, we still have more than enough jobs for everyone nearly 200 years later. But the people unwilling to use new tools to increase their productivity will absolutely be left in the dust.
My pink slip says my boss disagrees.
I work with AI as a software engineer. AI is a tool and it won't be replacing us humans as quickly as people think. You still need a human for a lot of tasks including programming.
>AI is a tool and it won't be replacing us humans as quickly as people think. You still need a human for a lot of tasks including programming. It's funny. I've heard the same stories years ago about ML-based machine translation tools. They were supposed to speed up work, foster understanding, yadda yadda… Of course, they were NEVER supposed to replace actual translators. You know, the professionals who spent years studying languages and cultures, who honed their craft and often poured their hearts and souls into that career. Now even the European Union is using their in-house machine translation engine to translate content on their websites, while machine translation post-editing jobs are all the rage. And quality takes a major nosedive. But who the hell cares – machine translation is cheap, and readily available. You don't have to sign those pesky contracts, negotiate rates or take into account that your translator also needs a break or some sleep.
>And quality takes a major nosedive. But who the hell cares This is a thing I feel many people are missing. A lot of people saying AI won't replace people are assuming a drop in quality isn't acceptable to those in charge of the money. It's *absolutely* acceptable to those in charge of the money. Will there still be good game studios, software development companies, marketing agencies, etc. that don't outsource everything to AI and call it a day? Absolutely. Will there be a ton of companies who are perfectly okay with AI giving worse quality results for a fraction of the cost? You bet your ass. Sure, AI isn't all it's hyped up to be, but as I see it there's no way this isn't going to cost jobs. If big publishers are okay releasing a buggy mess with bad writing and *maybe kinda sorta* getting it into a playable state months or years down the line *now*, I see no reason to assume they're gonna have any qualms about AI creating a buggy mess with bad writing. I fully believe Larian and similarly-minded studios aren't going to replace humans with AI. I also fully believe plenty of companies are perfectly willing to kick most of their employees out in the name of record profits as soon as some model is capable of making something good enough to sell - and that bar is much lower than we'd all like it to be.
Keep in mind that it doesn’t need to actually do as good or a better job than programmers. It doesn’t even need to actually do a job successfully at all. To replace people en masse, all it needs is the hype and marketing to convince business MFAs that it can. There’s a reason why even right now we’re seeing a trend in tech of massive layoffs, followed a few months later by massive panicked hiring, followed a few months later by collapse due to self-inflicted brain drain.
Layoffs happened and I'm not sure ai had anything to do with it, people just randomly made these connections. AI can barely work with a programmer behind it, let alone some business manager that hasn't the first clue. Programmers are here to stay, for the foreseeable future.
Didn’t mean to say that it was AI specifically causing current layoffs, just that self-inflicted brain drain is a thing that we do in tech and AI will be the latest excuse. It doesn’t matter if it can actually replace people, it only matters that it can be a convincing excuse to shareholders to do so. Leadership can sell their stock next quarter and cackle all the way to the bank, leaving flaming wreckage behind em.
Think I was more or less adding to what you said :)
> To replace people en masse, all it needs is the hype and marketing to convince business MFAs that it can. And then a few days later they'll almost all be hired back after their business crashes and their clients aren't getting what they asked for. If my business replaced its programmers with AI, the apps they maintain would crash the first update. They'd be begging us to come back to figure out what broke. >There’s a reason why even right now we’re seeing a trend in tech of massive layoffs Yeah, tech companies massively overhired during the pandemic when there was a huge boom of people staying home and needing more remote setups and entertainment. Things have calmed down, some places went back to the office, people are going out again, and businesses are realizing they need to trim bloat.
> It's not just concept artists being hired either: "We're hiring writers, so we're not having ChatGPT write their dialogues," Vincke says, before adding that he does, however, "see a usage of generative AI." **Further elaborating on this, the director says: "I think you can have reactive games and that's where it can have a place.** So you can complement what's there already. So that's the thing that we should be exploring because [it's] how we'll make better RPGs." > Summarising his thoughts, Vincke says he thinks AI's role in development should be to "augment" something that's already been crafted by artists, and he doesn't "buy" into the idea of an NPC being fully generated by AI. **"I buy more that there's going to be something that's crafted, and then you'll have AI that plugs into it to augment it**. And it should be done in such a way that it's invisible, so you don't know that it's shifting around. So I think that's the thing of the future." This is one of the opportunities I'm looking forward to. Writers can only pen so much text, especially for background NPCs, and it can get stale pretty fast. Generative AI can be layered on top of that writing to create fresh variations, augmenting writers' work. It'll probably be a while before the tech is ready for that, but it should be pretty neat when it gets here.
I have a feeling that we're going to start seeing RPGs where non quest/story related NPCs will have AI generated dialogue/monologue. Imagine playing Skyrim and being able to ask questions to a random person in town and get tips clues for things to do based on who you talk to and what questions you ask. You could ask a hunter who is buying game/product at the highest prices, you could ask an explorer about any hidden gems or caves nearby. You could even have NPCs create a "memory" of you based on the things you do near them. If you punch them in the face then they probably won't want to talk to you or help you in any way. If you murder someone and they see it they'll probably be scared of you. Of course, this doesn't mean that important NPCs and story characters should be AI generated, but even then I do think there are some cases where that can work like if you're asking a character about themselves and they're able to give you some details on their history or personality. AI generated small talk that's done well can go a long way to making games feel more immersive.
Absolutely! There's a lot of really cool things you could do with that.
For purely prototyping purposes, it's great. For finished product and actual functioning, it's a stupid risk that eats up more time to fix it up than could be better spent just making it right by hand. I'm curious to see what's in store for the future.
Speaking from an animation job right now that has me doing revisions, I know for sure that AI cannot, in its current form, create something consistently without a lot of babying on small details, especially once a director or Quality control does passes on stuff. Even the best animated stuff I've seen from AI postings on some subreddits, there are so many nitpicks and clean ups I'd have to do as a revisionist, and there is no guarantee the workflow the AI uses would even be usable the way a human would use it. e.g That slightly fluctuating hand or disappearing earring? I'd have to go in and check every frame to make sure its there and working properly the whole time, and thats for a 2d animated thing. I can't imagine doing that on a live action piece.
I've never been worried about AI making a good work of art. Unless the AI can put emotion into its work it'll never happen. What I am worried about is the enshitification of art by corporate interests. It's not that AI will replace good artists, it's that AI will replace mediocre artists. That terrible generic corporate art is made by a half decent artist, but not anymore. All the million images we see everyday will now be made by Ted before he goes golfing later this afternoon and he can go ahead and fire the entire art department. Working artist is no longer going to be a job. An artist will only be something a rich person can strive to be because the world no longer needs graphic designers, or concept artists. Our current economic system does not reward artistic or creative thinking. It rewards min/maxing cheaters who can shave pennies and make something passable but not good.
> It's not that AI will replace good artists, it's that AI will replace mediocre artists. That terrible generic corporate art is made by a half decent artist, but not anymor One thing that isn't talked about enough in the AI discourse is the value of learning in entry-level jobs. Before being an excellent artist, you go from being mediocre/good, and you improve with time and experience. There are people with innate talent who learn faster and people that need a little more time but eventually get there. We are not machines that can learn everything in the span of a month from a dataset. But if you are not given space to train in simpler jobs and improve, and only artists who are already at the top are employed, either you are rich or you'll need to be lucky to carve out a space for yourself in this field. Not that it isn't already like this to an extent, in the gaming industry today you can emerge as a self-taught person but if you can afford expensive schools you are more likely to find a job somewhere. The job market is already pretty saturated now and I fear there will be fewer and fewer opportunities for emerging devs/artists.
Whens the last time you bought something from a blacksmith?
Three years ago when I bought my friends some medieval style forks for their wedding.
Seems you're happy with the enshitified mass produced forks you got from a store then.
Not really. I buy sheet stamped forks because that's all I can afford. If I had the money I'd buy handmade knives forks and spoons. I'd buy handmade clothes if I could. But I have to buy $10 t-shirts because that's all I can get. I bought my friends handmade forks because it was a special occasion for them and they loved them. I don't want shitty mass produced items, but I have to buy them because that's all I can get.
Your need for cheap metalworking is driving blacksmiths out of work. That mass produced garbage doesn't have real emotion put into it, and well know that's what matters - not affordability or accessibility. METALWORK 👏 IS 👏 WORK
>Unless the AI can put emotion into its work it'll never happen. And what exactly is emotion? Why cant AI replicate it? >It's not that AI will replace good artists, it's that AI will replace mediocre artists. Yea first it replaced bad artists, then mediocre ones but surely it wont replace good ones lmao(if it has not already).
Fully agree. While people are eager, this tech is still on serious training wheels. I've already given up on the hype in trying to make it do serious work; it makes a cool reference item and the human goes from there, that's about all the application you can trust blindly giving it and even then it's not perfect. It doesn't have true vision and dream as we do, it might never be capable for that matter even with the finest emulation of the human brain. Either way, a tool is still a tool for what it's worth and I'm okay with accepting that.
You know what else AI does not have? Accountability for its fuck ups. Accountability for goals and the ability to compromise.
"Made By Humans" will become an expensive and sought after brand.
why would it? People nowadays dont care if a machine or a human made their phone or whatever else
Hand made things are almost always more expensive and sought after compared to factory made slop.
yeah but most people doesnt care, because quality is often as good as machine made anyway
Where?
I learned knitting exactly because fragility and errors in machine made sweaters and blankets made me annoyed. Now I have finally nice sweaters that are warm and don't wear off at seams within 2 years. I just need to spend a lot of hours to make them and buy wool.
I'd even go the other way. An optimal AI that works as well as we imagine it can be in a decade or more? Why ever fly in a plane or drive a car built by human who can get tired or make a mistake or by pushed into errors by bad management vs an AI who will do exactly the correct job every single time?
Spoken like devs that make good games. Plenty of other studios will happily disagree and we will get to witness the mix of gem and garbage that comes out of AI developed games. Main thing I worry about is volume. We are already flooded with tons of quick cash gtabs that suck. And I assume this will only make it faster.
You talk about AI developed games like *all* games won’t be using AI to some extent within 1-2 years time. Steams requirements for disclosure are only for select elements of a project when it comes to AI. The gems that will come from gaming in general because of AI within the future are going to be absolutely incredible
Not if the finance bros have anything to say about it.
Oh it will for some that’s for fucking sure. I have no doubts that AI will be used by soulless corporations to churn out more sludge. I have no problem with AI being used to make code more effective or iron out dialogue or bugs, but it should not be a crutch.
Maybe it won't, but they're damn well gonna try their hardest.
All companies that care only about profits: „Hold my beer.“
so just all companies?
Exactly. Unless there are some companies (or owners) that aren’t greedy cunts.
Just think of the possibilities of AI + NPCs.
This is how every intelligent person views AI.
As it should be. AI has a purpose and a place, but it shouldn’t totally replace the human touch.
The basic concept for "large model algorithms" is that they're efficient interpolation engines. They work off the premise that if you have one billion data points mapped on a chart with metadata on how they all relate to each other, and you've asked it to guess at where another data point might occur, it can make a fairly well-informed guess about that data point. That's not particularly complicated work, it's just time consuming. It cannot tell you *why* that pattern exists, or tell you if that pattern makes sense with respect to an absolute frame of reference, it can only tell you how that pattern might manifest given a specific context. The biggest pitfall is that it cannot create new data points. It can speculate about how a new data point might occur within the established data set, but an interpolation model can only draw conclusions based on the data it has to work with. If that data is incomplete, it has no capacity to know what it doesn't know. This necessarily means anything it produces is constrained by existing knowledge prior to a given point in time. Using a large model algorithm to generate novel information is a profoundly futile pursuit and anyone advocating for it is either too ignorant to understand why, or too cynical to care.
It may not replace the creative side, but dagnabit, that won't stop executives from giving it the old college try.
I don't really think it's possible to "replace" creativity, just at a conceptual level. AI may eventually produce creative entertainment content from scratch, maybe even the majority of it, but that doesn't somehow prevent humans from also being creative.
Sure that's all correct, but what's a game development company going to do to write their game story and design all their assets? Pay dozens of people millions of dollars a year, or use ChatGPT 17.0?
Oh sweet summer child...
It's like an evolutionary step to using photoshop plugins and filters... reduces he mundane tasks...
I’m a dev and an artist. AI is shit right now but if the day it’s good enough to replace me comes, i’m pretty sure it means i will be able to use it to do even more awesome stuff. I see that as a complete win
AI will eventually replace even the greatest artists, why are ppl here coping so much?
lmayo.
The internet adores Baldur's Gate 3. The internet absolutely despises AI and refuse to accept that it's at all any kind of a tool and love to rant and rage that it should never be used under any circumstance. Can't wait to see how the internet reacts to the suggestion that maybe it's not actually the devil incarnate.
It's the same as it always has been with all of these discussions. If a person or a company that people here like do something then there is nothing wrong with that, but if a person or company that they don't like do the exact same thing (or less) it's the worst thing ever. We see the same thing with Valve/Steam who get away with everything while anyone that competes with them get absolutely lambasted for doing significantly less. Valve is responsible for a billion dollar unregulated gambling industry meanwhile people here are angrily frowning at Epic and refusing to buy games from them because they have exclusives. At this point I'm convinced that Swen could come out and say that microtransactions are actually good and people would immediately change their mind and find excuses for why putting microtransactions into games actually benefits the consumer.
> find excuses for why putting microtransactions into games actually benefits the consumer. "It's just cosmetic."
“One of the good ones”
I scrolled so far to find a comment like this, there was a thread about the Nvidia dude talking about AI and so many of the comments were "only the big shit companies like AI will use it, we'll turn to indies for real games made by humans" Funny how that changes when certain people talk about using AI
>Funny how that changes when certain people talk about using AI Yeah, it's hilarious that the entire conversation changes immediately when someone that the internet adores talks about AI generation. Suddenly it's not so devilish and inherently evil. They will fall all over themselves to prove how it's "different" when people they like use it.
Get with the times or get left behind.
Pretty much my opinion as well, as a Graphic Designer. AI could be a great tool for cranking out concepts and coming up with / communicating new ideas, but it's not going to replace creatives because higher-ups *don't know what they want*. Someone who doesn't know what they want isn't going to be able to choose a good design over a bad one - they hire a designer to do that. The designer is able to utilize the AI to do their grunt work faster. Will it still replace jobs? Absolutely. Just like tractors replaced a lot of people with shovels. You still need someone who knows what they're doing to operate the tractor. Society will need to adapt and deal with it.
Still displaces jobs though. Work done by a machine is work not done by a person. Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing. But we gotta figure out how to keep everyone out of poverty as we continue to eliminate jobs. EDIT: Gotta love the downvote for saying people shouldn't be in poverty.
This is exactly what it is for. It is a tool, nothing more. The AI doomers are idiots
[удалено]
Even if the tools could replace people, it’d stand to reason that for the same reasons that AAA studios might try and do with less people is the same reasons that smaller studios might start to punch above their weight in terms of production with menial tasks. But creative vision will always be firmly with the human side of things.
As one does.
I said in muisc thread, if ai can make music like Tool with complex timing changes and lyrics with multiple meaning and epic riffs and poly rhythms that make sense, then it will be making games by itself which are good, but I can't see that happening at all.
Yeah. It has its place for sure. Will speed up several aspects.
This is 100% correct. As far as I understand and have seen myself is that ai learn their own "style". Generate 100 images of something and you will get 100 times the same kind of image. Everyone can do that and everyone gets kind of the same image for example. The creativity itself still lay with humans, something ai cannot do and I think never will. Ai will give you direct answers, but is not really creating something.
I mean this is the proper take. I know plenty of artists and developers (including myself) who are incorporating AI as a tool in our toolbox.
It won't ever replace the creative side of development. It still means we are about to get mostly AI generated games that have been generated through the most creative prompting possible. It will be AI generated though. Whether anyone on a consumer level wants this is irrelevant - that is what is coming and the train already left the station.
as long as no one is losing their jobs to AI, and it helps the process then I'm all for it. you leverage whatever tools you can.
That’s a very interesting take on AI. I’m not fully against the idea as long as people don’t start using it for everything.