I'm Getting Real Tired Of Not Being Able To Trust That A Video Game Doesn't Have AI Crap In It - Aftermath
-
What do you think you're """"accomplishing"""" by overusing """"quotation"""" marks like this, other than making yourself look like a """"clown?""""
Probably some new dog whistle. Triple parentheses has been a racist dog whistle for a while so i wouldn’t be surprised if triple quotes are something similar.
-
Some video games have been trying to use generative AI for years now, and for the most part people simply have not been having it. Why would we? It's lazy, it's ugly, it's an ethical black hole and it's being driven by an executive class desperate to lay off even more workers. While earlier and more brazen attempts at employing the tech were obvious, lately it's becoming more common for studios to slide a little AI-generated content in without drawing attention to it.
Jurassic World Evolution 3 launched with some AI-generated character portraits, then got bullied into removing them. Clair Obscur, which will be a lot of people's game of the year, appeared to quietly launch with some AI-generated art then just as quietly patch it out. I was going to review the city-building grand strategy game Kaiserpunk until I saw they were using AI-generated images for their dialogue sections, after which I promptly uninstalled it.
The latest culprit is The Alters, which has found to have shipped not only with AI-generated placeholder text in-game, but also employed AI-generated translations in some of its side content as well. None of this was disclosed prior to the game's release; it was all discovered later, by players, and has prompted an explanation of sorts from the developers which tries to calm everyone down, but which has just made things worse, because if it took people discovering these specific instances to find that 11 Bit had used AI-generated content in the game's development, how do we know there's not more of it?
I don't really care? Is that allowed?
I'm old enough to remember when computers started to be used for art, and how traditional artists were complaining about how soulless the end product would be, and how unskilled people could 'fake' being good artists because the computer does most of the work for them. I mean the undo function of a computer on its own is putting incredible creative power into the hands of even the most useless digital artist, power that da Vinci himself would have creamed his little loincloth over. And the copy & paste function - and all of the other everyday functions all PC users depend on - cut down the production time by orders of magnitude compared to traditional painting/drawing. This isn't even getting into the incredible transformation tools on offer in Photoshop (or even MS Paint 1.0).
Remember matte painters who painted incredible photorealistic chunks of the screen in films? Do Photoshop users of today feel any qualms about having extincted the fuck outta those people? Would they have even entertained the woes of those artists if they were around at the time? Would they have been calling for government intervention to prevent non-traditional matte painters from taking those jobs?
What about sculptors and stop-motion pros? Movies have been riddled with worse-looking CGI replacements for those things for half a century. Any shits given about those artists who spent their lives perfecting their craft only to be supplanted overnight by a cunt with a Pentium who produces objectively worse results?
AI is just the latest sabot-magnet disruption, and it won't be the last, despite the apocalyptic language around it. Either find a way to live with it and exploit it, or lay down in the Artists of Christmas Past mass grave and pull the clay in over yourselves. Or, you know, go ahead and try to uninvent it or whatever it is you're proposing
And if you really wanna go hardcore, uninstall all of your digital art tools, get yourself an easel and see what you can do in the "real world" with your "real talents" without recourse to time-saving, labour-deleting, instantaneous bespoke-brush-manifesting technology. -
Some video games have been trying to use generative AI for years now, and for the most part people simply have not been having it. Why would we? It's lazy, it's ugly, it's an ethical black hole and it's being driven by an executive class desperate to lay off even more workers. While earlier and more brazen attempts at employing the tech were obvious, lately it's becoming more common for studios to slide a little AI-generated content in without drawing attention to it.
Jurassic World Evolution 3 launched with some AI-generated character portraits, then got bullied into removing them. Clair Obscur, which will be a lot of people's game of the year, appeared to quietly launch with some AI-generated art then just as quietly patch it out. I was going to review the city-building grand strategy game Kaiserpunk until I saw they were using AI-generated images for their dialogue sections, after which I promptly uninstalled it.
The latest culprit is The Alters, which has found to have shipped not only with AI-generated placeholder text in-game, but also employed AI-generated translations in some of its side content as well. None of this was disclosed prior to the game's release; it was all discovered later, by players, and has prompted an explanation of sorts from the developers which tries to calm everyone down, but which has just made things worse, because if it took people discovering these specific instances to find that 11 Bit had used AI-generated content in the game's development, how do we know there's not more of it?
Getting really tired of this moral performance people put on to look cool to their peers.
-
Some video games have been trying to use generative AI for years now, and for the most part people simply have not been having it. Why would we? It's lazy, it's ugly, it's an ethical black hole and it's being driven by an executive class desperate to lay off even more workers. While earlier and more brazen attempts at employing the tech were obvious, lately it's becoming more common for studios to slide a little AI-generated content in without drawing attention to it.
Jurassic World Evolution 3 launched with some AI-generated character portraits, then got bullied into removing them. Clair Obscur, which will be a lot of people's game of the year, appeared to quietly launch with some AI-generated art then just as quietly patch it out. I was going to review the city-building grand strategy game Kaiserpunk until I saw they were using AI-generated images for their dialogue sections, after which I promptly uninstalled it.
The latest culprit is The Alters, which has found to have shipped not only with AI-generated placeholder text in-game, but also employed AI-generated translations in some of its side content as well. None of this was disclosed prior to the game's release; it was all discovered later, by players, and has prompted an explanation of sorts from the developers which tries to calm everyone down, but which has just made things worse, because if it took people discovering these specific instances to find that 11 Bit had used AI-generated content in the game's development, how do we know there's not more of it?
Surprising amount of comments that are OK with this and completely missing the point that Steam requires disclosure of AI asset usage. The devs neglected to tag it as such and people are rightly getting refunds for it.
-
Probably some new dog whistle. Triple parentheses has been a racist dog whistle for a while so i wouldn’t be surprised if triple quotes are something similar.
Wait really? I use (((triple parentheses))) quite often to indicate sarcastic emphasis on a word. Damn racists ruining my punctuation
-
Probably some new dog whistle. Triple parentheses has been a racist dog whistle for a while so i wouldn’t be surprised if triple quotes are something similar.
What? No. It’s just the online left is just a mass of contradictions so I like to emphasize that.
-
I want to distance myself from this oversimplification.
What is the oversimplification? The tech exists, once it’s out there you can’t stop it so you might as well find how to put it to good use, and this is a good use. Protecting jobs is not an argument, it’s just reacting to perceived threats emotionally.
-
What did I say that makes you think I'm in favour of bad things that humans made? I'm anti bad things.
It was all bad anyways so we might as well make it efficient. Games are products. If you want art go to an art gallery.
-
For the thousandth time: Translation is not a 1:1 formula, that can be easily automated by a machine.
They’re not translating Brothers Kamarazov here, you can chill.
-
Wait really? I use (((triple parentheses))) quite often to indicate sarcastic emphasis on a word. Damn racists ruining my punctuation
Exactly, this.
-
I don't play Minecraft. I don't like procedural generation. I didn't bring them up.
GenAI is a lazy shortcut for the untalented or dispassionate. It can help in wireframing for an idea, sometimes, but any more than that and it falls down, in my opinion.
The personal touch was underpaid workers doing cookie cutter work that was hardly better than AI does but more expensive. I don’t see actual talented artists complaining all that much about AI it’s always the assembly line video game artists or even worst some furry fucker who didn’t even have their own style to begin with with. Ie the people who AI was created to replace because they bring nothing to the table.
-
Complete overreaction, but I agree that commercial games should not be using GenAI art. If you're making money out of selling your game, then don't use something which abused to commons to do so. If you're making a FOSS game, I don't see a problem with it.
Are you okay with AAA studios using GenAI that was trained only on licensed works?
-
Some video games have been trying to use generative AI for years now, and for the most part people simply have not been having it. Why would we? It's lazy, it's ugly, it's an ethical black hole and it's being driven by an executive class desperate to lay off even more workers. While earlier and more brazen attempts at employing the tech were obvious, lately it's becoming more common for studios to slide a little AI-generated content in without drawing attention to it.
Jurassic World Evolution 3 launched with some AI-generated character portraits, then got bullied into removing them. Clair Obscur, which will be a lot of people's game of the year, appeared to quietly launch with some AI-generated art then just as quietly patch it out. I was going to review the city-building grand strategy game Kaiserpunk until I saw they were using AI-generated images for their dialogue sections, after which I promptly uninstalled it.
The latest culprit is The Alters, which has found to have shipped not only with AI-generated placeholder text in-game, but also employed AI-generated translations in some of its side content as well. None of this was disclosed prior to the game's release; it was all discovered later, by players, and has prompted an explanation of sorts from the developers which tries to calm everyone down, but which has just made things worse, because if it took people discovering these specific instances to find that 11 Bit had used AI-generated content in the game's development, how do we know there's not more of it?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]To me there's a difference between using assets that were generated by AI and a game using generative AI to create assets.
A person hired as an artist to make dialogue portraits could have shoveled some slop to meet a deadline. That's a production issue.
But if the games are being integrated with a generative AI model to cover minor assets, that's a fundamental development issue and I
cancannot possibly see how that's good for anything. -
Are you okay with AAA studios using GenAI that was trained only on licensed works?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I'm not OK with any business practices of AAA studios, and I don't think there's a way for them to get enough educated consent for creations (i.e. not just someone accepting a shitty TOS on deviantart 6 years ago) to make a good GenAI model. But if I were to put aside the first part and assume a magical reality where the second could manifest without coercion and lies, I would theoretically be OK with it as long as that model passed to the commons when the works it was trained on did as well.
-
It was all bad anyways so we might as well make it efficient. Games are products. If you want art go to an art gallery.
It sounds like we disagree on some fundamentals here, so I'm happy to bow out. Have a good midweek!
️ -
Hard to convince a studio to embrace it if this article is the kneejerk response to some PNGs.
Which leads the loudest complainers to act vindicated, because what could it possibly be good for, except the few PNGs they notice?
-
Some video games have been trying to use generative AI for years now, and for the most part people simply have not been having it. Why would we? It's lazy, it's ugly, it's an ethical black hole and it's being driven by an executive class desperate to lay off even more workers. While earlier and more brazen attempts at employing the tech were obvious, lately it's becoming more common for studios to slide a little AI-generated content in without drawing attention to it.
Jurassic World Evolution 3 launched with some AI-generated character portraits, then got bullied into removing them. Clair Obscur, which will be a lot of people's game of the year, appeared to quietly launch with some AI-generated art then just as quietly patch it out. I was going to review the city-building grand strategy game Kaiserpunk until I saw they were using AI-generated images for their dialogue sections, after which I promptly uninstalled it.
The latest culprit is The Alters, which has found to have shipped not only with AI-generated placeholder text in-game, but also employed AI-generated translations in some of its side content as well. None of this was disclosed prior to the game's release; it was all discovered later, by players, and has prompted an explanation of sorts from the developers which tries to calm everyone down, but which has just made things worse, because if it took people discovering these specific instances to find that 11 Bit had used AI-generated content in the game's development, how do we know there's not more of it?
Huh, it's almost like this new tool is fine for placeholder art, and placeholders can be good enough to ship.
Did you know The Rolling Stones' "Satisfaction" was supposed to have a brass section? That driving riff with the fuzzbox guitar was a placeholder. They released it as-is, the song hit #1, and distortion became mainstream. At what point do we stop lamenting all the horn players who were robbed?
-
Some video games have been trying to use generative AI for years now, and for the most part people simply have not been having it. Why would we? It's lazy, it's ugly, it's an ethical black hole and it's being driven by an executive class desperate to lay off even more workers. While earlier and more brazen attempts at employing the tech were obvious, lately it's becoming more common for studios to slide a little AI-generated content in without drawing attention to it.
Jurassic World Evolution 3 launched with some AI-generated character portraits, then got bullied into removing them. Clair Obscur, which will be a lot of people's game of the year, appeared to quietly launch with some AI-generated art then just as quietly patch it out. I was going to review the city-building grand strategy game Kaiserpunk until I saw they were using AI-generated images for their dialogue sections, after which I promptly uninstalled it.
The latest culprit is The Alters, which has found to have shipped not only with AI-generated placeholder text in-game, but also employed AI-generated translations in some of its side content as well. None of this was disclosed prior to the game's release; it was all discovered later, by players, and has prompted an explanation of sorts from the developers which tries to calm everyone down, but which has just made things worse, because if it took people discovering these specific instances to find that 11 Bit had used AI-generated content in the game's development, how do we know there's not more of it?
It sucks that players are having to scour every asset and line of dialogue
Im sorry. But this is pathetic if it's true. And I mean that on part of the players.
-
Some video games have been trying to use generative AI for years now, and for the most part people simply have not been having it. Why would we? It's lazy, it's ugly, it's an ethical black hole and it's being driven by an executive class desperate to lay off even more workers. While earlier and more brazen attempts at employing the tech were obvious, lately it's becoming more common for studios to slide a little AI-generated content in without drawing attention to it.
Jurassic World Evolution 3 launched with some AI-generated character portraits, then got bullied into removing them. Clair Obscur, which will be a lot of people's game of the year, appeared to quietly launch with some AI-generated art then just as quietly patch it out. I was going to review the city-building grand strategy game Kaiserpunk until I saw they were using AI-generated images for their dialogue sections, after which I promptly uninstalled it.
The latest culprit is The Alters, which has found to have shipped not only with AI-generated placeholder text in-game, but also employed AI-generated translations in some of its side content as well. None of this was disclosed prior to the game's release; it was all discovered later, by players, and has prompted an explanation of sorts from the developers which tries to calm everyone down, but which has just made things worse, because if it took people discovering these specific instances to find that 11 Bit had used AI-generated content in the game's development, how do we know there's not more of it?
So I'm in two minds about this. I am a software engineer by trade and have an idea for a game I'd like to try making.
The problem is that I don't even really know how to make games, not do I have any artistic abilities myself. I can't afford to pay a load of artists for work for a game that might never be finished and might never make money.
So I'm stuck in this hard decision of do I try and make my game, invest a lot of money and potentially lose it all, or do I try and find a publisher who can front the money but lose creative control of my game? Or do I use AI to give me a head start in building something that I can use to garner interest in, in the hope that enough people like it that I can fund the development?
Essentially, AI offers me a way to create something that I would not otherwise be able to create and that's really hard to accept.
-
So I'm in two minds about this. I am a software engineer by trade and have an idea for a game I'd like to try making.
The problem is that I don't even really know how to make games, not do I have any artistic abilities myself. I can't afford to pay a load of artists for work for a game that might never be finished and might never make money.
So I'm stuck in this hard decision of do I try and make my game, invest a lot of money and potentially lose it all, or do I try and find a publisher who can front the money but lose creative control of my game? Or do I use AI to give me a head start in building something that I can use to garner interest in, in the hope that enough people like it that I can fund the development?
Essentially, AI offers me a way to create something that I would not otherwise be able to create and that's really hard to accept.
The 20-80 rule really saves your ass when you're a solo dev.
Be really good at the one thing, nail the game mechanics, and then learn the 20% you need to be 80% good at everything else. If the game is kick ass, it'll be forgiven if everything looks like stick figures(but well drawn stick figures, mind)
