Support NeoGAF

[Draugoth]

​

Strauss Zelnick's argument is precise. AI is built on datasets. Datasets are backward-looking. Creativity is forward-looking. A model trained on everything that already exists cannot, by definition, produce something genuinely unexpected. And all hits, by their very nature, are unexpected.Asset creation and hit creation are not the same thing. AI is getting very good at the first one. The second one is what actually makes money, builds franchises, and changes culture.

Nobody has shown AI can do that yet.The derivative property problem is real. You can clone GTA with existing technology. You could do it before AI. It would take 3 years and look identical. It still wouldn't sell. Because it isn't GTA. It's a clone of GTA. And consumers, despite what the industry occasionally pretends, can feel the difference between something genuinely new and something assembled from the residue of things that already worked.Thousands of mobile games ship every year. 0 to 5 hits get made. The same studios make them every time.

The technology to make more games has been commoditized for years. It didn't democratize hit creation. It just flooded the market with more forgettable product.The Silicon Valley thesis that AI unlocks game creation for everyone is true in the same way that cheap cameras unlocked filmmaking for everyone. They did. And the same 5 studios still make the movies everyone watches.What Zelnick is saying, without quite saying it, is that the thing AI cannot replicate is taste. The instinct for what hasn't been done yet. The cultural antenna that detects the gap in the market before the data can see it.Data tells you what people wanted. Hits tell people what they want next.Those are different jobs.

 

[apple_of_enlightenment]

For now...

 

[The_hunter]

What he's saying is right, a hit has to be forward looking and unexpected, not data driven and backwards looking.

There have been many GTA clones over the years, but GTA and read dead are always on top due to pushing the games in creative unexpected ways.

 

[amigastar]

True dat.

What he's saying is right, a hit has to be forward looking and unexpected, not data driven and backwards looking.

There have been many GTA clones over the years, but GTA and read dead are always on top due to pushing the games in creative unexpected ways.

Yep, what he says is true with AI looking backwards instead of forward.

 

[FIREKNIGHT2029]

He's right.

 

[Zacfoldor]

He's saying this to kiss gamers butts because of how we have reacted to AI. He just wants to sell a lot of copies.

Because adoption is going so smooth in the east, it's only a matter of time before we normalize AI. It's only a matter of time.

Most people's problem isn't that AI art isn't good enough yet(it will get better very quickly). It's that AI is going to replace them and they don't like that.

 

[bender]

horseshit

 

[Hypereides]

This was pretty evident from the onset. But, some conceited suits and tasteless IBs wanted to convince the public of otherwise. Its usually those who don't have a single artistic bone, and blind to stylism and individualism, in their body who'd claim this.

AI can only replicate. It can't create originality.

 

[AJUMP23]

For now...

For EVER....

 

[TheRedRiders]

An actual brilliant response by Strauss.

 

[amigastar]

He's saying this to kiss gamers butts because of how we have reacted to AI. He just wants to sell a lot of copies.

Because adoption is going so smooth in the east, it's only a matter of time before we normalize AI. It's only a matter of time.

Most people's problem isn't that AI art isn't good enough yet(it will get better very quickly). It's that AI is going to replace them and they don't like that.

In this world everyone has an agenda it seems. I guess we have to accept that and look for the truth in statements people say.

 

[Zacfoldor]

I'll also respond directly to what he is saying. He's saying that AI is backward looking and AI can never create art without looking upon its training for inspiration.

First, only a Sith speaks in absolutes. AI today is not the AI of tomorrow and it is lightyears ahead of 2024. Many human artists stand on the shoulder of giants, but that's not really the right argument here.

The right argument is that we aren't making the Mona Lisa.

Let me clue you in. You want to make GREAT "original" human art, you should use AI to do it easier. Just generate AI art, then use that art as inspiration for your own art. Nobody will ever know and people will be so shocked at how good your writing is.

Guess what, nearly every author and writer is already doing that. That's right. They get AI to write an article on the subject, review that article, then rewrite it segmentally to create your own unique work using the AI as inspiration. It's like a good lie. You have to sprinkle in the truth a bit. Write parts that intentionally show your own humanity in order to prove to your reader you aren't AI, then just paraphrase AI for the rest. Its how I can trick any human into believe work that AI did was my own work. And because art is arbitrary nobody will even suspect. A first time college kid might get caught but an AI expert never will. It's a victimless crime. The people who you are competing with in the market will need to leverage AI too or they won't compete. In fact, they will think that I am just better and smarter than I actually am. 99.9% of the crappy art we need for day to day society won't be remembered in 100 years, it won't be remembered in 1 year. So why should a business today spend 100,000 dollars per piece of arbitrary art when they could get AI to generate it almost for free. Why would a writer have writer's block ever again? Riddle me this, since AI, does writer's block exist anymore? Can't you tell these articles we read, almost all of them, started as AI slop? People do it on the forum all the time. You catch some of them until they learn how to use AI well, then you never know.

 

[mdkirby]

Bit disingenuous there, because, well yeah, it needs a human with taste to tell the ai what to do. It's arguably the most critical skill/talent in the ai era and determines when something made with ai is slop, and when it's not. The ai can create anything, but its weighting in its dataset makes it naturally inclined towards the derivative, unless a creative hand guides it to be otherwise.

I've seen far more creative works from artists using ai in the last year than the derivative slop produced by much of the games or film industry. Conversely I've seen far far more derivative slop than ever before because of ai, because it makes that very very easy.

 

[CentralScrutinizer]

AI is going to be a beaultiful technology and create a great life for the 1 Billion Humans permitted to stay alive in the world it creates.

 

[Glass Prison]

The issue is in the fact that AI is being crammed into practically every aspect of human life, and in a few years this whole discussion if it can or can not create something original will be totally non-sensical.

It doesn't matter if AI can't create something original, because it will be able to create highly personalized experiences in an individual level. Generative AI will slowly take our imaginative minds from us by drip feeding these highly personalized experiences based on our tastes (which by the way in a few generations will be influenced by AI as well).
The goal from these companies is not to make AI a tool for human use, but an agent who constantly gathers and influences our actions based on experiences we share online.

I would be curious to ask Zelnick how he would feel if AI could create a highly derivative GTA:London for example, based on GTA VI or any other games it has access to.
Isn't one of the most popular GTA games highly derivative as well? (Vice City, San Andreas).

 

[Karim]

​

He is right but their games not exactly represent the people tastes in the gameplay design.