Why The hell do so many gamers hate AI?

MagusMajul

MagusMajul

Member
AI will be great if its done well. It's new technology give it another 10 15 years and it will be both gods gift to gamers and game developers as well. Compare the graphics of an old Mario NES game and Compare it to astro Bot on PS5 Pro. In Time things develop and get better its new now so it has clunks in it's architecture.

Just a year ago everyone was whining about hands and fingers in AI and that was the end all be all that would tank the AI industry! What ludites. This is like the light bulb you are not getting rid of it and AI is not going away! You don't like it? Stop driving cars and using smart phones, that was revolutionary technology as well.

QQ more.
 
It's all about how developers implement AI.

If done right, it can create dynamic NPCs, personalized gameplay, and smarter challenges. But if overused or poorly integrated, it risks feeling generic or intrusive.

I, for one, can't wait for non-voiced games and characters to be a thing of the past. Its going to be amazing seeing characters with dynamic, natural dialogue that adapts to player choices

The days of reading text boxes or having robotic NPCs are numbered, and I think we'll soon be seeing fully voiced, interactive worlds that feel way more immersive and alive.
 
MagusMajul said:
AI will be great if its done well. It's new technology give it another 10 15 years and it will be both gods gift to gamers and game developers as well. Compare the graphics of an old Mario NES game and Compare it to astro Bot on PS5 Pro. In Time things develop and get better its new now so it has clunks in it's architecture.

Just a year ago everyone was whining about hands and fingers in AI and that was the end all be all that would tank the AI industry! What ludites. This is like the light bulb you are not getting rid of it and AI is not going away! You don't like it? Stop driving cars and using smart phones, that was revolutionary technology as well.

QQ more.
Click to expand...

..what should we call you?

..Do you have feelings?
 
Probably that it steals from artists and creators and makes generic output the norm most of the time without giving any credit.

It also takes jobs away from humans that can perform it just fine.

Alas, we can't escape the future.
 
MagusMajul said:
AI will be great if its done well.
Click to expand...


"if" being the key word there. What does "done well" mean? To me, it means developers having access to tools that speed up game development. It doesn't mean AI takes on almost all tasks of game development and makes 90% of people in the industry redundant.

MagusMajul said:
What ludites. This is like the light bulb you are not getting rid of it and AI is not going away! You don't like it? Stop driving cars and using smart phones, that was revolutionary technology as well.

QQ more.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's just people being against technological progression. It's more to do with people being concerned that AI will take over most jobs and replace humans in creating games, music novels etc. That's not a benefit to society in any way at all and people are right to be sceptical.
 
it's been explained a million times, and we have ample evidence that it is not doing any of the things that the shills claim it does

for example see Black Ops 7
 
Last edited:
Because they've been programmed to fear AI.

terminator GIF
 
Peter Thiel about the silicon valley: "We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.". I feel the same here again, they are promising us an "AGI" that will bring felicity but so far what i have seen is nothing more than a glorified tape recorder.
 
Will be interesting to see where this goes. At the moment, anybody using it just a little bit gets piled on. But in a year, those people piling on will be using it as well.

Some predict there will be little need for game developers in the future. AI will be able to make the game I want, when I want it. I can bring back Shepard and play my own Mass Effect game. And since Bioware is incapable of it, that would be nice. But let's face it. AI tools will get more and more expensive and in the end, will probably be worse than what it was before AI. AI will tell me Mass Effect is copy righted and won't make it. There will be so many limitations and cost to use it, I will not likely even use it.
 
your rant at the end there doesn't add up, technology has always build upon previous inventions to build something new or better, but the people still have to do the R&D and iteration.
Creatively all these LLMs do is straight up steal and remix existing works, to "create" things, there's not a single original thing there, the databases are just full of copyrighted works; plagiarism has never been cool so why are you surprised people hate it?
 
Good graphics does not = good games.

Id love to see AI being used for actually beneficial applications in medicine and science. Using it to make more gatcha slop seems worthless at best.
 
I don't hate AI.

I hate clueless execs that see AI as a get rich quick scheme and a panacea for all their issues. An exciting, new shiny things to dangle infront of the board and the investors. I really hate the 'experts' that have crawled out of the woodwork to sell snake oil and bullshit about AI to said clueless, trend chasing execs.

AI is a tool for existing professionals in specific fields to do their jobs better (like medicine). AI is not meant to be a replacement for the arts and culture.
 
Last edited:
Because many of us don't believe in magic tech let alone in greedy suits and mediocre "creators".

Just look at how well AI is implemented in cinema and books. It's working great, right? Nope, it's trash.

A tool that is derivative by design in the hands of mediocre devs. Even a blind man should see why nothing good may come out of it.
 
HRK69 said:
It's all about how developers implement AI.

If done right, it can create dynamic NPCs, personalized gameplay, and smarter challenges. But if overused or poorly integrated, it risks feeling generic or intrusive.

I, for one, can't wait for non-voiced games and characters to be a thing of the past. Its going to be amazing seeing characters with dynamic, natural dialogue that adapts to player choices

The days of reading text boxes or having robotic NPCs are numbered, and I think we'll soon be seeing fully voiced, interactive worlds that feel way more immersive and alive.
Click to expand...
The Cockatrice said:
It wont be done well. Thats the issue.
Click to expand...
Bojji said:
Yes. Zero creativity, just more generative Ai slop we see EVERYWHERE right now. I see this shit in tv (commercials), facebook, youtube etc.
Click to expand...
How does that differ from most games now. most are devoid of creativity.
YCoCg said:
Annnd cut.

That's the problem, it's not being done well, it's being pushed by CEOs and higher ups as an excuse to get rid of the work force, not aid.
Click to expand...
The only reason it can be used to replace those in the work force is because they are not creative. If they were they wouldn't be replaceable by AI.
 
It's a tool and like every other useful tool, manking will find a way to misuse it. It isn't a new tool, but the latest push is mostly misuse. So enjoy the harmful impact it will have environmentally, economically, creatively, socially, and intellectually.
 
I don't hate technology, but how people will use it for cheap ass is why i hate it
You see COD with ghibli art?
For me, it's really bad because it is not cool to see art clashed in the one screen like that example.
one artstyle is realistic for game with war theme, on other hand, it's ghibli nature as peaceful and cozy look theme
not only that, You might already heard that some studio use AI to kick their game devs already
other example is the ai is really souless, no matter how they look, it's kinda samey

If they want to use AI in creative way, that would be like other user said above, in NPC interaction side or something

and also some people said, it will harm nature because of water

lot of issue here, and capitalism will make it worse
 
I could tell Expedition 33 used AI right from the first trailer. Not from the quality of it but from the composition, which is what AI is pretty good at for concept art. I believe they only left a few generated assets in by accident. For indies with some talent I'm all for it being used.

I don't care what AAA studios use it for since their games are dead to me regardless until the entire space can show they're capable of fixing other fundamental issues.
 
It sucks that people lose their jobs but I think it will be common place in the near future and be accepted the same way digital only libraries are being accepted today. At first there was way more push back about losing physical media.
 
The games industry was born in technology and hyperconsumerism. People try to say they are art and that "authentic art" should be protected but it was always the case that games are built on highly "inauthentic" relationships between brands and consumers. We also see even more consumeristic behavior emerge since the early days of gaming when it comes to people collecting games they don't even want to play just to show them off in their accounts and stack up achievements. Why are people not bothered by this as much as AI being used to cut development costs?
 
Dont care unless its for replacing voice actors or ingame art .then its slop and no buy. I actually dont mind it for anything else.
 
Generative art is usually generic or looks bad. Generative code is usually poorly optimized (and gamers just love poorly optimized games). Generated stories are often incoherent. Generated voices are poor compared to talented voice actors.

In short, it mostly sucks. It will probably get better. But how much better, how soon, and what's the cost thereof?
 
Last edited:
It's a major threat to humanity. Generative AI is all fun and games when its porn or cat videos. Not so much when it's able to generate material that can compromise people. Everyone is worried about muh artists, while i'm worried about our legal system collapsing when evidence ceases to be useful once we can no longer tell what's AI-generated or not. Major leaps have been made in just a couple of years, with models like Nano Banana Pro already having people struggle to tell the difference from reality.

It also creates massive problems for news media and democracy in general. We're already awash with slop misinformation which we can just dismiss - for now. Imagine in two decades or so when all that fake news really does become indistinguishable and can no longer even be fact checked effectively. Fake AI videos will be declared real by biased AIs and the circle of bullshit will be further reinforced.

We are already living in a time where people seem to live in separate reality bubbles from each other, and this is only going to be accelerated by AI. There's potential for AI to mold minds into whatever the people who control the keys want them to think, because it's tuneable to some degree - see for example how Elon Musk can tweak Grok's variables because he doesn't like its answers, or OpenSeek censoring questions critical of the CCP.

For those smart enough to be cautious of AI and even avoid it, they'll still be affected, because they'll be right back in the late 19th / early 20th century where people could only really believe what they saw with their own two eyes. For a while, video and photography could be used to confirm the veracity of events reported. Soon no longer.

It's honestly pretty scary seeing how rapidly it's all playing out.
 
Last edited:
It's a replacement for people because they are lazy and not creative enough. For that reason AI won't be creative either as shown in the examples that have thus far presenten themselves. AI is only interesting to boost behavior of NPC's. You know, the one thing we actually called AI back in the day for the better or worse.

If it potentially adds efficiency and adds to performances, then sure, it's all good. But not for creative purposes, because it just isn't.
 
1. It steals from everyone, you can't generate images and videos without feeding someone's work to it, 99% of the time is without consent. Google ToS for example, states that they used everyone photos stored in Google Cloud to train Nano Banana.
2. It's mindless slop, it has no thought and care put into it the same way Starfield has no thought or care put into it.
3. It undermines the ability of humans of creating something with their own skill and intent by taking away authorship from humans and putting it in the powers of billionaires and evil people who want to control us.
4. It's making my PC parts more expensive.
5. The best application is much more limited than people realize, just look at all the games that has procedural generation and how bad it is.
6. Why do you want to watch fake porn with fake women? :poop:

For gaming it's certainly going to be used anyways to crunch dev time unless they can't for some reason, which I wouldn't be surprised, but it probably won't be affecting cinema, television or anime all that much.
 
Last edited:
Because they're retarded and heard one time that AI was bad and puts people out of jobs.


The retards don't realize it cuts down on costs and makes people's jobs easier and less stressful
 
Ribi said:
Because they're retarded and heard one time that AI was bad and puts people out of jobs.


The retards don't realize it cuts down on costs and makes people's jobs easier and less stressful
Click to expand...

Especially when they have to correct errors that Ai make, I bet it will be stress free:

However, AI tools and the machine learning (ML) algorithms that form them, are not infallible and perfect accuracy is unlikely to be achievable5. Therefore, the introduction of AI will bring not only the aforementioned benefits, but also the pervasive issue of AI tool errors. A report by the European Parliamentary Research service identified patient harm from AI errors as one of the major risks arising from the introduction of AI into healthcare6.
Click to expand...

Understanding the errors made by artificial intelligence algorithms in histopathology in terms of patient impact - PMC

An increasing number of artificial intelligence (AI) tools are moving towards the clinical realm in histopathology and across medicine. The introduction of such tools will bring several benefits to diagnostic specialities, namely increased ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

www.nbcnews.com

Humans are being hired to make AI slop look less sloppy

In the age of automation, human workers are being brought in to fix what artificial intelligence gets wrong.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

Maybe it will create new jobs after all...
 
It's being designed to destroy creativity, remove jobs, and be the ultimate tool to control information. It's trained on stolen material. Everything that is made with it is mindless garbage with no context or meaning.

It's shit, it's ruining the world and consolidating power into the hands of the few, and making everyone dumber and lazier.

Fuck AI and the companies behind it. It sucks.
 
Last edited:
genAI has an issue with people falling for the toupee fallacy. "all toupees look bad" or "all genAI is bad", because you only notice the bad examples. Any good example just goes unnoticed because people assume it's not AI. Sure there's tons of bad AI, but how will you recognize good AI? Only if you're explicitly told.

I think given some time, most people will eventually accept good AI use case examples. Ultimately what's important is the quality of the end product, and how expensive it is.

genAI can be tremendously helpful for smaller teams to realize their ideas in ways that simply wasn't possible before. It's not just about big corpos wielding all the power, there is no such moat unless regulated by law into existence, which is what some seem to want. That's the reason there's so much talk of AI bubble, because they cannot price it high when some Chinese company just immediately comes up with a distilled model for a fraction of the cost. Open source genAI being freely available is what keeps these big players on their toes and why they can't charge an arm and leg for access.
GenAI should always stay open for use given how it is derived from the open Internet. This is also why I deeply dislike the notion of regulating it with copyright laws. Those will never help the lowly "artist". They're only meant to protect corporate IP, and the moment you give them more power to do it you can kiss goodbye whatever fair use rights you thought you had, or whatever open source models are available. The regulation talk is beyond foolish, it's actively spreading your cheeks for the corpos and corrupt government.
 
General Lee said:
genAI has an issue with people falling for the toupee fallacy. "all toupees look bad" or "all genAI is bad", because you only notice the bad examples. Any good example just goes unnoticed because people assume it's not AI. Sure there's tons of bad AI, but how will you recognize good AI? Only if you're explicitly told.

I think given some time, most people will eventually accept good AI use case examples. Ultimately what's important is the quality of the end product, and how expensive it is.

genAI can be tremendously helpful for smaller teams to realize their ideas in ways that simply wasn't possible before. It's not just about big corpos wielding all the power, there is no such moat unless regulated by law into existence, which is what some seem to want. That's the reason there's so much talk of AI bubble, because they cannot price it high when some Chinese company just immediately comes up with a distilled model for a fraction of the cost. Open source genAI being freely available is what keeps these big players on their toes and why they can't charge an arm and leg for access.
GenAI should always stay open for use given how it is derived from the open Internet. This is also why I deeply dislike the notion of regulating it with copyright laws. Those will never help the lowly "artist". They're only meant to protect corporate IP, and the moment you give them more power to do it you can kiss goodbye whatever fair use rights you thought you had, or whatever open source models are available. The regulation talk is beyond foolish, it's actively spreading your cheeks for the corpos and corrupt government.
Click to expand...
You mean like we're currently doing.
 
There are some serious societal implications with this tech. Plus, it isn't very reliable and volatile with its output. Atm, its a sophisticated confidence bullshitter, in many cases, that manages to convey human-readable text with a high degree of assertion and assurance in its language. Making it seem more convincing and factual.

There's also the issue with AI generated visuals being ridiculously generic and derivative. It has no capability of producing something new of its own. Once IP infringement laws around this settle, it will get even more restrictive in what kind of visuals it will be able to produce for you.

Current AI is similar to a gachapon capsule or slot machine. You have no idea what you'll draw and there's no guarantee you'll get the right "answer". The fact it got rolled out the way it did, onto the mass population like a bunch of guinea pigs, is very questionable.
 
Last edited:
IlGialloMondadori said:
Who is "they,"? You're just making shit up that everyone uses garbage genAI.
Click to expand...

"They" would be the gamers referred to in the thread title. For a further explanation "gamers" that think games are art would tell you that you cannot create art when a machine is generating the assets based on user prompts. It is reductive to the creative process. That would simply justify the "Hate" of AI. But a Gamer will gladly use AI to make a silly thing for their own purpose and call it amazing.
 
Angry_Megalodon said:
Because many of us don't believe in magic tech let alone in greedy suits and mediocre "creators".

Just look at how well AI is implemented in cinema and books. It's working great, right? Nope, it's trash.

A tool that is derivative by design in the hands of mediocre devs. Even a blind man should see why nothing good may come out of it.
Click to expand...
I can understand being optimistic about LLMs when they came out a couple years ago but how can someone see this and still be defending it:

3vSuyPCZ7iOdejRN.jpeg

This is one of the biggest corporations of the world not paying artists and instead relying on a shitty, overused LLM prompt (that rips off an art style from actual artists who have spent decades making true art) to generate objectively and subjectively inferior artwork to what existed when the artists were making it. It's totally indefensible and the people who make threads like this don't defend it, they just point to the imaginary benefits of LLM that we haven't seen yet and will not see because this is what we get with LLM in games.
 
Last edited:
AJUMP23 said:
"They" would be the gamers referred to in the thread title. For a further explanation "gamers" that think games are art would tell you that you cannot create art when a machine is generating the assets based on user prompts. It is reductive to the creative process. That would simply justify the "Hate" of AI. But a Gamer will gladly use AI to make a silly thing for their own purpose and call it amazing.
Click to expand...
If you're arguing that people like to use AI to generate slop that they post on the internet and forget about it 5 minutes later, I agree. But we really should aim higher here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Do gamers overvalue map count?
2
62
250
Three replied
Consumer-level AI is rapidly improving - why aren't we getting better "AI" in games?
2
78
105
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
I use AI daily, so why is it bad if game developers use it too?
2 3
120
792
Toots replied
Why the hate for Phil Spencer?
3 4 5 6 7
306
5K
alabtrosMyster replied
Does Ubisoft hate it’s past catalog, why haven’t they brought these games forward?
32
149
Witchilich replied
Top Bottom