Support NeoGAF

[DR3AM]

I use ChatGPT and Copilot daily at work. It made my life so much easier.
If game developers want to create assets, translate captions, or whatever to make their job easier and cheaper using all these AI tools, why is it a big deal?

 

[Skyfox]

What do you use them for?

 

[Fbh]

It's not.
Like most of these tools, it all comes down to how it gets used

 

[Team Skoda]

When it comes to art, humans' desire to see what the mind and the hand of the artist come up with; style and substance, there's simply no match to the creativity.. If the artist is passionate enough, they can reveal parts of their innermost soul, which AI clearly doesn't have.

When it comes to programming and testing for bugs, I think it would help a lot to crunch numbers and playable outcomes.

 

[SJRB]

It's not bad at all when it's used as a support tool.

Things get iffy when AI replaces human coding, writing or asset creation (albeit that last one to a lesser extent because I see no problem having AI-generated textures under certain circumstances, for example).

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Who said it's bad if developers use them? As long as it gives a positive result

 

[Mortisfacio]

When it comes to art, humans' desire to see what the mind and the hand of the artist come up with; style and substance, there's simply no match to the creativity.. If the artist is passionate enough, they can reveal parts of their innermost soul, which AI clearly doesn't have.

When it comes to programming and testing for bugs, I think it would help a lot to crunch numbers and playable outcomes.

If a human uses AI to create art, the human then makes up a story to what the intricate details mean and people believe the fake story around the meaning of the art, what's the difference? The difference between human and AI art, as AI art gets better, simply comes down to the illusion of meaning.

 

[Sybrix]

The argument is it's less creative and/or lazy to have an AI developed game than a traditional one.

Would you listen to AI generated music rather than from a real musician?

Would you read an AI generated book rather than one written by a real person?

 

[poodaddy]

The argument is it's less creative and/or lazy to have an AI developed game than a traditional one.

Would you listen to AI generated music rather than from a real musician?

Would you read an AI generated book rather than one written by a real person?

The answer to both of the bottom questions is yes, if I find the media compelling I will partake.

 

[crackajack]

When it comes to art, humans' desire to see what the mind and the hand of the artist come up with; style and substance, there's simply no match to the creativity.. If the artist is passionate enough, they can reveal parts of their innermost soul, which AI clearly doesn't have.

I'll never understand the sentiment that only humans can be creative. When some of the less photorealisitc art is just throwing paint at a wall... any monkey can do that and I can then pretend to interprete some deeper meaning in the color choice, layers and effect on me.
Customers will anyway decide if it's "good", which is highly subjective, but AI isn't in its final form yet. Not even close but with huge progress every few months. So the idea it will never rival humans is funny and imho just ignorant. Like with other things humans could prepare themselves, but this attitute prevents us from being ready once it really hits the job market. AI is in its toddler years, eg drawing without much sense, too many fingers, clipping in motion, people and objects morphing, but already nailing hair in animation. That's child genius level of development in human years.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

I use ChatGPT and Copilot daily at work. It made my life so much easier.
If game developers want to create assets, translate captions, or whatever to make their job easier and cheaper using all these AI tools, why is it a big deal?

Because if it is mandated by top execs it's by clueless tools that think AI can do the same thing developers can. Now if they are idiots (they are) they will at some point fire the devs, and then shit goes down fast.

I was in discussion with one of the largest companies in the world in a specific segment. They wanted a tool for make significant changes to digital assets - top execs were thinking that AI does this, and it will cost them close to $0.01 per asset. I tried explaining countless times AI model like that doesn't exist, and they can do their own diligence. At the end the project died, because even if they agreed that is the case "AI develops so quickly we will get there soon". Now apply the same to game development.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

When some of the less photorealisitc art is just throwing paint at a wall... any monkey can do that and I can then pretend to interprete some deeper meaning in the color choice, layers and effect on me.

Obvious response - then why don't you do it if it's so easy? An AI will never come up with an idea to throw paint at the wall because it is not a logical thing to do. They will instead make a pixel perfect, perfectly symmetrical piece of art that is an approximation of all the most popular trends at the time.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

If a human uses AI to create art, the human then makes up a story to what the intricate details mean and people believe the fake story around the meaning of the art, what's the difference? The difference between human and AI art, as AI art gets better, simply comes down to the illusion of meaning.

Because a real creator would never let a machine being an important part in his creation. Those are pretenders, not artists.

AI's not art, to start with. Art involves willingness, reflection and self-awareness, traits that a machine lacks. And equally important, to create something good requires EFFORT. Effort is a key part of the equation.

Lazy mindsets inevitably lead to mediocre slop. Nobody will achieve in one year what Team Cherry did in seven to create an artistic masterpiece. Thats delusional.

 

[kpopSuperstar]

On a moral basis, it would be because its usage will destroy jobs and hurt others.

From a skillset point of view, it makes you worse by relying on a software to do your heavy lifting.

In reality, most are using it if helps them do things faster and easier.

 

[Exentryk]

I judge the result - if the game is fun and good, that's all that matters. If devs want to use AI to make it easier/faster/etc, go nuts.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

... well, that's the testament of how AI reflects its user.

 

[Shifty1897]

I don't know how to respond to OP without being mean but if you rely on AI to do most of your job, you either are replaceable with AI or aren't doing a very good job, either way sooner or later your employer will find out and you'll be gone.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

It's bad because if you have it simply generate something you need to use creatively, it's basically just a giant copyright infringement pit; it's also not going to get exactly what you want, you will need to prompt many times and then settle for "close enough", and even then needing retouching/editing etc.

It's fine as a tool to increase productivity, that's what all tools are for; just don't hit "generate" and present it as is as yours.

 

[Sakura]

AI is fine as a tool for some things, but it isn't that great at coding. You often spend more time fixing the hallucinations/bugs it outputs, and even if it works it isn't always the greatest code. Replacing devs with it is likely to just lead to worse results for the end user.
For asset generation, it isn't particularly good at that either. On the surface it might be convincing, but it really struggles with more complex scenes, consistency, original ideas, etc.
There are still a lot of improvements needed, and companies need to understand what it is actually good for, and implement it in meaningful ways.

 

[Holammer]

I'm pro AI, always has been.
I think it's going to become increasingly common where developers train a bespoke LORA with character sheets and concept art for each entity [like Mario or a Goomba], then apply OpenPose ControlNet to get the desired art. Once you get the pipeline going it's going to save 1000s of hours of tedious 2d sprite work.

2-3 artists will be able to churn out art that would need dozens.
It's going to replace the rigged puppet based animation we see in shows like Rick & Morty.

 

[RoboFu]

AI CAN be a great doc refresher .. better than a normal search for sure. as a software developer going on 30 years working with a lot of different programming languages and scripting over those years I cannot remember every single syntax for everything.

But its hardly ever 100% accurate.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

The argument is it's less creative and/or lazy to have an AI developed game than a traditional one.

Would you listen to AI generated music rather than from a real musician?

Would you read an AI generated book rather than one written by a real person?

I agree with you and I'm not surprised to see people shooting you down. I think the question (and this will likely sound snobbish) is "do you enjoy artlessly created derivative media" because that's what AI created content will be.

And, the answer will be that films with lots of explosions but little plot, pop songs that are written on a production line by producers and trashy novels all have found their place in the world.

But the worry with AI is that, everything is that. We've already seen how risk averse games publishers have become, as have film studios, and book publishers, etc. etc. AI could be viewed as the ultimate "risk reducer" : "Gemini describe a game that will appeal to as many people as possible and with an economic model that is as profitable as possible..."

[Fortnite Copying Intensifies]

I kinda wonder if short term you could say "Well if that happens, we'll just hire all the game producers, artists and coders again and make something original that'll take over the world - just like [insert title] did.

But I think there's a very real chance that certain skills could disappear - and if you look at any skill that has been abandoned you can see a very real chance that the knowledge disappears relatively quickly.

This is a pessimistic view, but I think if you look at other technologies that have been said to democratise production in various fields, you can see that it doesn't put power in the hands of individuals, it transfers it to a smaller and smaller group of people. Which is also a bad thing for artistic creations - it might be easier for independent ideas to be realised, but getting them in front of people gets harder and harder, partly because the publishing and marketing becomes the problem and partly because there is a tsunami of competing ideas and designs that are vying for attention.

 

[DreamcastSkies]

Some people just don't find AI generated assets appealing.

 

[Sub_Level]

I use ChatGPT and Copilot daily at work. It made my life so much easier.
If game developers want to create assets, translate captions, or whatever to make their job easier and cheaper using all these AI tools, why is it a big deal?

I'm fine with AI usage by game devs too, but fyi critics specifically have a problem with generative AI of imagery and music. I don't think anyone serious minds using it for captions.

I don't know how to respond to OP without being mean but if you rely on AI to do most of your job, you either are replaceable with AI or aren't doing a very good job, either way sooner or later your employer will find out and you'll be gone.

Many peoples jobs for the past couple decades have involved just googling shit. Just because its something the customer can do on their own doesn't mean they won't pay someone else to do it lol

 

[SJRB]

I don't know how to respond to OP without being mean but if you rely on AI to do most of your job, you either are replaceable with AI or aren't doing a very good job, either way sooner or later your employer will find out and you'll be gone.

What a weird thing to say. Good use of AI can 10x productivity in many ways. That doesn't mean someone is replaceable.

Besides, you think a company can just go "Hey ChatGPT, do this employee's job"?

 

[xrnzaaas]

It all depends on how it's used. If it's meant to help with some mundane tasks and saves time & money while giving the same or very similar result - I'm okay with it. And sure, it will take away many jobs, but it's always been like that with progress. We used to have jobs 20 or 30 years ago that have become non-existent or super niche.

Anything creative-related with AI and I'm out. That's the line I'm not willing to cross.

 

[crackajack]

An AI will never

Using "never" with a concept that is in its infancy and very much work in progress is just crazy.

You understand how AI models in their current form works, but you seem to not be open to envision how AI in a future form will possibly and imho probably work. Humans don't really understand how the human mind works (inventing free will imo nonsense... determinism ftw) but I think it is safe to say that until it properly learned something it is also quite dumb. A baby will never... you judge an artifical baby while we both can have no exact idea how it will behave in 10 months, 10 years etc...

What a weird thing to say. Good use of AI can 10x productivity in many ways. That doesn't mean someone is replaceable.

Besides, you think a company can just go "Hey ChatGPT, do this employee's job"?

In a future form, if its evolution is going forward as it has the past months and years it is imho unlikely it could not replace every job on earth. Office jobs are certainly easier to replace- mine too- than blue collar jobs, since robots will be expensive and ressources to power them kinda limited.
Which is of course a huge problem for society and how things work and how we keep AI under us, when they are better than us...

 

[MagnetoWasRight]

Using AI to make art is like taking a picture of a JPEG infinity times. It will be the end of creativity.

 

[WaterOnix]

You mean just from the customer side, right?
Huge questions of quality aside, I don't view it as bad as long as you decrease your price accordingly. If someone can make a cheap $10 game they couldn't have made art for without AI, I'll barely blink. But I won't pay $60+ for a game if you lowered (and bragged about lowering) your input costs. When I hear AI, my thinking is that this should be dirt cheap then since AI's entire argument is lowering labor costs. And if it's not cheaper, there's no value proposition for me as a customer; I'm just getting worse art for the same (or even higher) price. Customers don't care how much you save on costs if they aren't passed down.

 

[ViciousAgenda]

I will never use AI in any of my music creation. The whole point of creativity is sharing human experiences.

I also have no faith or trust that the people creating these tools have our best interests at heart.

 

[forsakkenSoul]

I think most people don't really mind AI being used as a supporting tool in game development. The main issue usually comes when AI replaces the creative side of the process, when you remove the human element entirely and let AI handle everything on its own.