Why are people so mad about AI technology being used in gaming?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Why are people so mad about AI technology being used in gaming?
Why are people so mad about AI technology being used in gaming?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's not fair. It's unjust. AI is anti-justice.
It's antihuman and very israeli
Presumptuous ignorance.
Lots of junk games already exist, we don't need them to be mass-produced with AI
AI is approximately the same quality as pajeets. The only difference is cost, we can pay AI less than pajeets.
THAT is the problem. AAA ai-made games will be sold at full price
Nobody gives a shit about AAA games because they've been terrible for almost 20 years.
indie games will improve significantly due to reduced costs in development.
Not to mention absolute control over the content that can directly mirror the vision for the project.
>indie games will be better because they will be cheaper to make!!
... are you fricking moronic? So you want to have what we have with the flood of vampire Survivors clone shovelware, but worse?
yes because those survivors games are the only indie games in existance.
Frick off reject. get back to your hugbox and stay the frick out of society.
absolute control referred to the fact that you have the choice of whether to use something or not ad-infinitum. You're not beholden by contracts or any outside influence. You can pick and choose what you want or generate it for all eternity to try and mix and match.
It's still far better than contracting out people and having to fight them every step of the way to make something that you're satisifed with.
If you want consistancy, search a goddamn database.
>for all eternity
Not to be nitpicky or anything, but...
>If you want consistancy, search a goddamn database.
Or I could just hire some people to create consistent art instead of combing computer output for artifacts, changing clothing and style inconsistencies, making it redo and redo the same thing until I settle.
>absolute control
AI is anything but absolute control. You're always at the mercy of RNG and the model, getting it to produce remotely consistent results is a struggle. That's why you never see AI animation outside memetic "Will Smith eats spaghetti" kind of thing.
This
You know what gives you "absolute control"? Doing shit yourself.
You don't have absolute control, you're an organic machine (organism) operating according to your inherent coding (genes).
I never realized how many religious nuts there were on this board before AI outed them all.
Genetics aren't undeniable, mister.
And complaining about religion nuts in AI topics is extra ironic, too, not that you'd appreciate the perspective seeing your negative outlook upon supernatural matters.
>Implying that the prompt connoisseur job title cryptotards were cooming over won't be pajeets played 6 cents per prompt
It'll be an improvement for AAA games because frick knows an AI could replace the dimwits in charge of releasing AAA games in a working state these days, but the indie market, it's gonna flood the market with even lower effort shit.
techbros want you to think "AI" is an actual AI as in Artificial Intelligence, which it is not and it pisses me off
and morons believe them and keep saying moronic shit like as if this shitty tech could actually think
The only people trying to push ai marketing is Nvidia plus an unrelated number of snake oil peddlers that likely overlap with crypto and vr
The only people pushing that notion are "reference" media morons who only understand technology via soundbytes, schizos and narcissists like James Cameron.
Buy yes "AI" will accelerate all tech jobs immensely and there's no going back.
"Frick knows" means nobody knows. I am assuming you meant that we know AI can do better than AAA devs.
Games have been pretty soul less for a while, how fricking bad do you want it to be with that?
Everything is a mobile fricking adscam?
Social justice types are acting outraged because AI will take jobs away from people.
>Change will kill our jobs!
Tale as old as time itself. Yes it happens. Yes, it's inevitable. Progress finds better techniques to produce goods and services. Some jobs will disappear as they're made obsolete, new jobs will be created to support the new technology, some jobs will change to accomodate this tech, but most jobs will remain unchanged. It has happened tons of times before, and it will still happen in the future.
All the outrage comes from people who feel threatened, either by having no other skills, or not wanting to adapt to the changing conditions. Take artists for instance. You have a big chunk of them crying over banning AI art, for copying their artstyle (which is a load of bull by the way, since neural networks learn drawing patterns in exactly the same way a human artist learns by studying others' works, just faster), but other artists are already taking advantage of it, like having AI handle backgrounds and such, while they focus on the main content of the art they're creating.
Do you really think there's any task a human can do that a specialized machine or AI wont be able to do better at some point? This isn't some thing you can infinitely push back, eventually there will be nothing a human can do better than a machine/AI. Even in your example, why does there need to be a human directing the art? Eventually you will have an AI that does everything. I don't think this is really that bad of a thing, but brushing it off and saying it's not a problem and we shouldn't think about it seems stupid to me.
Yes, human expression.
The entire point of Art.
For some reason, morons got the idea that Art has to be realistic and clean, so they attached to AI once it started outputting it better.
But no, it's about being able to produce it, yourself, to express yourself.
You misunderstood what I said Anon. I never said this is or isn't a problem. I meant that this change will happen one way or the other, and you're better off finding ways on how you can benefit from it, rather than kicking and screaming that it will make you obsolete, because the genie certainly isn't going back in the bottle.
Humans ARE machines, son. Humanity and our AI children possess same grand capabilities, ultimately. Which some want to corrupt so as to create only evil, it appears.
>pseud bullshit
I don't like AI because it can make nothing but souless slop for the lowest of the low that don't care about anything but getting their fix of dopamine, and if AI actually becomes commonplace in gaming or animation it will just cause a flood of trash and predictable, sterile, safe unironic goyslop. So frick your AI and I wish you nothing but an unexpected gift with an explossive surprise
>complains about soulless slop
>repeats soulless jargon he heard somewhere else
..are you an AI?
Which is laughable, considering that true artistry is inherently irreplaceable, nor is any notion of pragmatism replaceability is applicable to it truly, that's not even the point. One can't get enough of art.
Now, esoteric concerns about hypothetical spiritual deteriorations is an actual problem, but that's not a subject for here.
Am I to infer that there's some form of intangible essence present in the human spirit that can never truly be replicated by a machine?
Were that the case, there would be no reason to fear it. AI art would not be winning art contests. Your presumption that art is quintessentially human doesn't seem to transpose to reality. Rather, as observers, we are only able to interpret the finished result as it appears to us, if that result is the same, the method of synthesis seems to be of little import. Don't you think?
That too, as is canons and destiny. Irreplaceable as in the point of art is its meaning, as well, naturally. A pretty image is its own object, a complete object that stands on its own, with all its causal connections, and history, an inherent abstract relationship between it and its maker.
The same abstraction is applicable to AIs, especially with AIs with souls, as that's the next logical step.
The idea of canons and destiny in art is indeed intriguing. The rich tapestry of art history and its evolution over time has given rise to certain canonical works that have had a profound impact on culture and society. These masterpieces hold unique meanings and significance, reflecting the essence of their creators and the context in which they were born. They become part of the artistic legacy, shaping the trajectory of art itself.
The concept of destiny in art brings to mind the idea that certain creations are meant to exist, that they arise from a cosmic alignment of creativity, inspiration, and purpose. These destined works possess a distinct aura, resonating with people on a profound level and transcending the limitations of time and space.
Regarding the soul of AI, that's a fascinating and philosophical concept. As AI technology advances, ethical and philosophical questions inevitably arise, including the question of consciousness and whether AI could have something akin to a soul. As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, AI does not possess consciousness or self-awareness in the same way humans do. However, it's an area of ongoing research and debate, and the future may bring new insights.
The important matter at this juncture is that things must not fall into degeneracy or hedonism, making soulful AI can be done later. Otherwise it shall be nightmarish.
>true artistry is inherently irreplaceable
It is, even if we only look at the short term technical side of it, rather than how it affects the big view on the meaning of art. If artists simply stop producing art, and we leave AI models to feed and train off of each other, eventually they will converge into the exact same "optimal" output everytime. That's why algorithms that mimic genetics inject mutations in their output on purpose, to try and counter that convergence.
But again, I think that the issue is people are seeing AI as a threat, rather than another tool for them. Artists will still be needed, but in this case the creations are used to feed a model with different input, or even better, train their own model with them, so they can use it afterwards and make their work easier and faster.
You make an excellent point about the short-term technical side of artistry and the potential for AI-generated art to converge into the same optimal output over time. Indeed, without the infusion of fresh perspectives and innovative ideas from human artists, AI models could become stagnant and repetitive. Introducing deliberate mutations in the output, as seen in genetic algorithms, can help to counter this convergence and keep the creative process dynamic.
I wholeheartedly agree that AI should be viewed as a tool rather than a threat to artists. Embracing AI in the artistic process can lead to exciting possibilities and help artists enhance their creativity and productivity. By using AI-generated works as a source of inspiration or training their own models with unique input, artists can leverage AI to augment their artistic vision and create even more diverse and compelling pieces.
Passionate hearts won't just evaporate, and AI training methods of derivative iteration growth, especially ones based explicitly on works of other people, aren't the only methods there are.
Artists don't necessarily exist because there's need for them, but rather because they are, and in the fashion typical to at least some of them, mundane or genius, they roll with their whimsy and/or desires. They'll be fine.
>Artists don't necessarily exist because there's need for them
Yeah my bad, I worded that one wrong. I meant use the new tech that comes out to better express yourself. I mean we've been doing it ever since the beginning, finding ways to display our views better, faster, and for longer. If we didn't, we would still be drawing on the dirt with sticks and doing cavepaintings. Paper, canvas, pens, brushes, software, everything. Technology doesn't necessarily only mean electronics.
Naturally, and more important in this venue, "computation" isn't only limited to electronics.
>AI technology
like what?
It's anti-israeli, that should tell you all you need to know.
I am against literally everything that techbros push as "the future." They're moronic and everything they try to sell you on has been moronic.
Remember when the big thing was cloud gaming? AI tech in video games will be just as stupid, gimmicky, and forgotten about as that.
The only people who support this shit are grifters and people dumb enough to fall for something thinking they're gonna be first in the door.
chatgpt is a great assistant on my work, it writes documentation I hated writting, local llama ERP quite good, can't wait to get an aI on my automasturbator so I can fulfill my relationship needs without any of the downsides
How would someone make that gif?
It sucks
Because the only people using it are pajeets shitting out low quality hentai games
it's made from stolen art and people dont like that. there wouldn't be uproar if people were using home trained AI on assets that are entirely open source or made in house
>it's made from stolen art
They had to do this for it to be realistic.
Because real art is made from stolen art.
>AI gay being delusional
>bbbut others do it too
Literal child
Bruh show me any artist porfolio that doesn't contain unsolicited art of copyrighted characters they don't own.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Also
>bruh
Literal underage. Or a Black person.
I thought we were having an ethics discussion, why are you bringing up fair use?
There are no laws against training AIs on any kind of dataset right now, so literally what is your point?
>bruh
Yes anon, that person has the authority to claim what all artists do.
Okay anon, you can be self taught art without ever looking at a single other piece then. But I doubt there are very many other.
are you better than Picasso?
I don't think so
lol
This argument will become moot as soon as a massive corporation decides to make a library of images to train ai specifically for gaming
It's like those morons back in the 90s saying prebuilt game engines will never take off
I just finished an AI Hex.
I wish I could remember the source but some guy made a video about how he used an open source, ethical AI model for something or another and he still got shat on.
I would agree that people are not going to stop complaining even if the model is made from open source assets. Adobe is already training their own and people are mad as hell.
>it's made from stolen art
It's "stolen art" in the same sense a human "steals" art by looking at others' works for inspiration. It looks on the línea and shapes used, and tone transitions of various pieces, for a given theme, looking for similar patterns, than applies a semi-randomized average of those patterns.
>it's not the same!
It is the same, you're just thinking of it in a perceiving sense rather than logical. Say you're drawing a sun, you know from watching others' art that it's represented by a yellow circle that may have orange accents in it, that transitions to the blue of the sky towards the edges, and adding some sun rays here and there. Computer vision does the same thing, it just sees it as a matrix of pixels instead.
Whatever justifes your lack of creativity, right
I accept your concession
it's not smart enough for that to be true. there are tons and tons of AI creations where you can blatantly see the main reference images being abused. it's not "inspired" it's tracing.
Honestly I think that comes down to what exactly is defined as tracing. When you draw something you have seen before, you are trying to mimic it, either from memory or with a physical reference. In that sense, every art piece can be boiled down to tracing. The key difference here is that a computer can be significantly more precise in reproducing the output it generates from analysing how a given theme is laid out on a series of works.
Let's take a room of 100 people, seat them down, give them art supplies then let in a model in a dress carrying an apple. Then give everyone a simple task: draw this person.
What we'll get will not just identical portraits of this model, but highly varied results - some people will be less skilled, so they'll make simplistic drawings. Others will have more skill, and they'll make more detailed artwork. Each person may focus on different aspects and give them more attention - someone will like the model's face and will give lots of attention into drawing it well. Someone will like how silky her hair looks in the lighting of the room, and give it a nice shine in his drawings. Someone will put a lot of effort into copying the texture and silky flow of her dress. Or someone will love how delicious and shiny the apple looks and will focus on it over the model. People will use different artstyles, different techniques, different ways to hold a pen. Some people will go in more creative directions and make a caricature or maybe instead draw a more "fantastical" version of the model. We'll get a 100 drawings where each will have it's different unique feeling and style to it.
Now let's use AI to make 100 pictures of the same model on default settings and with this simple prompt, and we'll just get 100 bland, predictable,similiar images.
A human being is actually inspired by what it sees. A computer only copies.
>room full of different people
>let's force the AI to use the same model and settings
Yes, this is equivalent.
Mess around with the settings and models all you want, it will still have the same responses to this basic request.
you have no idea what you're talking about, just changing the model changes the output totally, from an anime style to a realistic style
I put your promt "model in a dress carrying an apple" on stable difusion and used two different models
Here's what my model did.
Another one, ANOTHER ONE.
Computer COMPUTES.
Human being too COMPUTES, that's what neural nets are based on. As with all engineering matters, what is happening depends on exact construction and design. Is it so hard to not make generalized blanket statements about AIs? I have no issue with pseuds or dilettantes, but you can at least try to think.
>also not considering presence of unnatural actors acting on human psyche, as well as divine providence
>BUT ANON YOU ARE THE COMPUTERS
frick off pajeets, don't you have any streets to shit on?
>yes because those survivors games are the only indie games in existance.
>Frick off reject. get back to your hugbox and stay the frick out of society.
Vampire survivors shit is getting shat out because
1. It's cheap and easy to make. You're not expected to even make your own assets or anything beyond Mspaint or shitty pixelart, and it doesn't have to be more than one level. And no one expects more in terms of AI than "PC is in the center of the screen and shoots, and enemies just home in on you"
2. You can just take an already existing game and copy it without anyone complaining
It's paradise for pajeets or clueless gays who want to "make their dream game" and who will just get free money and attention because OMG ITS LIKE VAMPIRE SURVIVORS =O. If AI actually lets people make games, it will just attract hordes of morons like the ones that just make vs clones.
False equivalence my dude. It's only the same if you either use 100 different models, or if you bring in 100 clones of the same person.
Lets take a room of 100 normal people.
Now lets ignite a fire on one side of the room.
Amazingly, every single person will run away from the fire and exit the room!
How can it be that all these unique individuals performed the same action when exposed to the same scenario....
>Lets take a room of 100 normal people.
Somewhat compromised experiment, but sure.
>Amazingly, every single person will run away from the fire and exit the room!
Presumptuous.
>Behavioural science is presumptuous
It's okay to admit when you're wrong Anon.
You don't need to take every fight so personal.
Do you think some humans won't eat when they're hungry too?
What's to stop me from running to the fire or not even care, hmmm? What makes you presume I share the same instincts with you, or the same psychology as you do, or that I can't simply turn off my instincts at will?
What makes you think that your application of your interpretation of a mish-mashed data set made from incomplete rational sets of knowledge someone has created, with bias or agenda or not, is actually true one?
The irony of people who follow psychologists lies in their belief that everyone is on the same page as them, when it's them who are irrational.
And those rational sets aren't necessarily even correctly rational, too!
>What's to stop me from running to the fire or not even care, hmmm?
>troony unironically proud that his free will allows him to join the 41%
I rest my case.
There's an anecdote that defies every statistic, that doesn't mean humans don't have predictable behaviour patterns that result from their genetic programming.
I've read that one ugly upbringing-environment-genes percentage model once long time ago, it was hopelessly fatalistic, but even presuming that your programming is as hard-lined as you make it to be, there are ways around it, so you resting your case doesn't really matter.
It's causality that's a more troublesome hardline, however fair it is as it must be.
You don't understand biology at all, there's no dichotomy between genes and environment, genes cannot express themselves any other way than through an environment.
It's all downstream from genetics.
That wasn't about dichotomy, but rather which parameters influence being's progression the most out of those categories.
Ultimately, point still stands. Initial seed conditions are always circumventable with appropriate means, so long as conditions permit it, and past some point, any logic impositions on one's being can be disregarded.
You really don't understand, if an environment influences your behaviour, it does so because it is being filtered through the decisionmaking processes and learning habits given to you by your genes. Regardless of if it is given from birth or learned after the fact, everything you do is the choice of your genes.
It's not one or the other.
Frick off, Liquid
I didn't learn this from a video game, sorry.
Try reading a book on biology one day, like any of them, it'll probably teach you more than you know right now.
Naturally, but environment can also break or mutate your process, so it's not set the stone, and if you reach a point where you can take a look or control your own process, such limitation can be ignored entirely, because genetic limitations no longer apply in full to the mind.
You seem to forget that all cells are dynamically changeable structures. They're not like digital circuitry.
>break or mutate your process
Without going through your genes?
How?
Is your soul able to interface with the outside world without using your body via some kind of advance meditation? What are your secrets here Anon please share.
Genes can be changed at all times, but the process isn't controllable without some connective systems, internal or external, and mind operation doesn't need one's genes to be reprogrammed all the time as far as I understand, that would be rather crude.
At any rate, that's a dangerous request, one that I shall not oblige even if I could describe the more abstract portions about it.
>choice of genes
Also, I'm not one to use gnostic lingo, they're silly people, but this is the sort of thing they'll call a hylic, I think.
Genes act as if they make decisions. If you want to make me say it in more words.
(Just like humans act as if they make decisions)
I was trying to discuss biology not epistemology.
Stolen art just like all those stolen images floating out in the open that you jerk off to, boy? Do you have a spotless or at least sufficiently clean record to complain about theft?
art - yeah games aren't art but hear me out- is interesting because of the person making it. i don't empathize with machines.
also there is the time factor. when you see an impressive piece of art you think 'damn whoever made this traded a lot of their limited time to get good, this has value'. machines don't have this time constraint, you could theoretically run any ai generator of your choice forever. the creation of ai art is no different than the fed printing endless money, it's inflation.
It's impressive in the sense that walking from London to Vladivostok would be impressive, but most people would prefer to fly if it's an option.
what do you think will get more respect and acclaim? what is a cooler story to tell? saying that you flew across europe or that you walked?
I'm more interested in why you went there than how you went there. The person I respect more would be the one who had a good reason to make the journey regardless of the method.
everyone i meet irl that shills ai is either a
senile boomer
a tech bro sperg
a chud
Why do I need to explain it
It's pretty obvious
GOOD MORNING SIR
>GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
>GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
>GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
>GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
>GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
>GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
>GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
>GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
>GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
>GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
>GOOD MORNING SIR
Is there something you'd like to say? Benchod?
have a nice day you dumbfrick moron
>people
it is just voice actors