• deur@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    20 hours ago

    People want pieces of art made by actual humans. Not garbage from the confident statistics black box.

    • Lumiluz@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      What if they use it as part of the art tho?

      Like a horror game that uses an AI to just slightly tweak an image of the paintings in a haunted building continuously everytime you look past them to look just 1% creepier?

      • mke@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        That’s an interesting enough idea in theory, so here’s my take on it, in case you want one.

        Yes, it sounds magical, but:

        • AI sucks at make it more X. It doesn’t understand scary, so you’ll get worse crops of the training data, not meaningful changes.
        • It’s prohibitively expensive and unfeasible for the majority of consumer hardware.
        • Even if it gets a thousand times cheaper and better at its job, is GenAI really the best way to do this?
        • Is it the only one? Are alternatives also built on exploitation? If they aren’t, I think you should reconsider.
      • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Would the feature in that horror game Zort where you sometimes use the player respon item and it respons an NPC that will use clips of what a specific dead player has said while playing count as AI use? If so, that’s a pretty good use of AI in horror games in my opinion.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      18 hours ago

      It’s all virtue signaling. If it’s good, nobody will be able to notice anyway and they’ll want it regardless. The only reason people shit on AI currently is because expert humans are still far better than it.

      We’re just at that awkward point in time where AI is better than the random joe but worse than experts.

      • mke@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The only reason people shit on AI currently is because expert humans are still far better than it.

        Not it’s not! There are a whole bunch of reasons why people dislike the current AI-wave, from artist exploitation, to energy consumption, to making horrible shitty people and companies richer while trying to obviate people’s jobs!

        You’re so far off, it’s insane. That’s like saying people only hate slavery because the slaves can’t match craftsmen yet. Just wait a bit until they finish training the slaves, just a few more whippings, then everyone will surely shut up.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I agree that those are reasons people give for their reasoning, but if history has shown anything, we know people change their minds when it becomes most convenient to use a technology.

          Human ethics is highly dependent on convenience, unfortunately.

    • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Honest question: are things like trees, rocks, logs in a huge world like a modern RPG all placed by hand, or does it use AI to fill it out?

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Not AI but certainly a semirandom function. Then they go through and manually clean it up by hand.

      • skibidi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Most games (pre-ai at least) would use a brush for this and manually tweak the result if it ended up weird.

        E.g. if you were building a desert landscape you might use a rock brush to randomly sprinkle the boulder assets around the area. Then the bush brush to sprinkle some dry bushes.

        Very rare for someone to spend the time to individually place something like a rock or a tree, unless it is designed to be used in gameplay or a cutscene (e.g. a climable tree to get into a building through a window).

        • TwanHE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          That’s only for open world maps, many games where the placement of rocks and trees is something that’s subject to miniscule changes for balance reasons.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      One of my favourite games used procedural generation to create game “art”, “assets”, and “maps”.

      That could conceivably be called (or enhanced by) ML today, which could conceivably be called AI today.

      But even in modern games, I’m not opposed to mindful usage of AI in games. I don’t understand why you’re trying to speak for everyone (by saying “people”) when you’re talking to someone who doesn’t share your view.

      This is like those stupid “non-GMO” stickers. Yes, GMOs are being abused by Monsanto (and probably other corporations like them). No, that doesn’t mean that GMOs are bad in all cases.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I think the sort of generative AI referred to is something that trains on data to approximate results, which consumes vast amounts more power.

    • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Humans are confident statistical black boxes. Art doesnt have to be made by a human to be aspiring.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          What do you think grammarly is dude? Glorified spell and auto check, which people already utilize everyday. But of course new tools are looked down upon, the hypocrisy of people is amazing to see. It comes in cycles, people hated spell check, got used to it and now it’s prominent in every life, autocorrect, same thing is happening.

          And now the same is happening again. If they want to claim no ai, no spellcheck, no auto correct, and no grammarly for emails. Everyone already uses “AI” everyday. But theirs is acceptable… okay…

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Right but to detect close-enough spellings and word orders, using a curated index or catalogue of accepted examples, is one thing.

            To train layers of algorithms in layers of machines on massive datasets to come up with close enoughs would be that but many times over the costs.

            You would be a moron to use llms for spellchecking.

            To clarify to you, not all programs are equal. Its not all different methods to do the same thing at the same cost.

      • Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        15 hours ago

        That’s not art, that’s a tool. Tools can be made better through a confident statistics box.