The studio behind the Postal franchise just announced that it will be publishing a brand new Postal game, to be developed by Goonswarm Games. Unfortunately, it even more recently announced it would be cancelling said game, due to accusations that Goonswarm had used generative AI in its development.
I read through the article. Apparently the studio shared work-in-progress content to prove it wasn’t made using AI.
I don’t know if they used AI or not, but this type of thing has been happening since the inception of gen AI. Shortly after the release of Stable Diffusion 1.5, moderators of r/Art were banning people who had been around for years because their art suddenly “looked like A.I.” and told they should “Get a better art style.”
In the intervening time, this type of thinking has spread. Just yesterday, I was watching a YouTube video, and they used a certain background in it which they had used before to no note. This time, however, one user claimed that background was A.I. That was all it took to send the comments into a deluge of hatred and accusations.
Here, though… I ask, if work-in-progress PSDs showing the in-progress art don’t meet the burden of proof to sate these accusations, what does? How long will it be until the only safe form of art to avoid these accusations is a photo of a pencil sketch with a hand-written date nearby?
Agreed, this is pretty annoying for me personally.
I don’t even mind ML generated art in certain contexts if there is disclosure.
I honestly couldn’t tell that from the video that the art is ML gen based and I feel like I have a relatively well developed sense for both LLM output and ML gen’d images.
I think you’re missing the point here a little. This bias towards being critical of where something is from is entirely justified. The reality is, there’s more gen AI content out there than ever before, and if you’re not questioning things constantly, things will slip past.
I’m viewing this kind of like a “phobia” vs a “fear”. If you’re genuinely in danger of being mislead by AI slop, then having a paranoia about it is perfectly rational.
This bias towards being critical of where something is from is entirely justified.
it’s funny how that argument is exactly the same one people use to justify racism. seeing as how the dev provided proof it wasn’t AI generated, the argument is just as fucking stupid in this context as it it with racists.
AI has had very measureable negative effects on society in the last several years.
Someone’s race doesn’t have any relation to if they’re good or bad, which is why being racist is irrational and stupid. It’s not the same argument.
In terms of art, it’s the difference between being critical of all art because AI slop is common in general (what I’ve been talking about as rational paranoia) vs only being critical of one specific style because you don’t like it and label all of it as bad AI (maybe the analogy for racism you’re talking about).
The “work-in-progress” video proof in question basically showed some interface similar to a video editing program with assets popping in like layers, i.e. no actual drawing or concepts or anything.
Your point is very valid, but it also reads like you haven’t seen the proof – which, if anything, was even more of a nail to the coffin.
I haven’t seen the proof myself. I searched and couldn’t find it. The article above mentioned that they shared PSDs, so I assumed that was confirmation enough that they actually released PSD files of the work in progress.
I read through the article. Apparently the studio shared work-in-progress content to prove it wasn’t made using AI.
I don’t know if they used AI or not, but this type of thing has been happening since the inception of gen AI. Shortly after the release of Stable Diffusion 1.5, moderators of r/Art were banning people who had been around for years because their art suddenly “looked like A.I.” and told they should “Get a better art style.”
In the intervening time, this type of thinking has spread. Just yesterday, I was watching a YouTube video, and they used a certain background in it which they had used before to no note. This time, however, one user claimed that background was A.I. That was all it took to send the comments into a deluge of hatred and accusations.
Here, though… I ask, if work-in-progress PSDs showing the in-progress art don’t meet the burden of proof to sate these accusations, what does? How long will it be until the only safe form of art to avoid these accusations is a photo of a pencil sketch with a hand-written date nearby?
I hate how I personally have gotten suspicious of certain aesthetics after the flood of AI tools.
Agreed, this is pretty annoying for me personally.
I don’t even mind ML generated art in certain contexts if there is disclosure.
I honestly couldn’t tell that from the video that the art is ML gen based and I feel like I have a relatively well developed sense for both LLM output and ML gen’d images.
the cool thing here is you can, you know, do something about your own biases
I think you’re missing the point here a little. This bias towards being critical of where something is from is entirely justified. The reality is, there’s more gen AI content out there than ever before, and if you’re not questioning things constantly, things will slip past.
I’m viewing this kind of like a “phobia” vs a “fear”. If you’re genuinely in danger of being mislead by AI slop, then having a paranoia about it is perfectly rational.
it’s funny how that argument is exactly the same one people use to justify racism. seeing as how the dev provided proof it wasn’t AI generated, the argument is just as fucking stupid in this context as it it with racists.
AI has had very measureable negative effects on society in the last several years. Someone’s race doesn’t have any relation to if they’re good or bad, which is why being racist is irrational and stupid. It’s not the same argument.
In terms of art, it’s the difference between being critical of all art because AI slop is common in general (what I’ve been talking about as rational paranoia) vs only being critical of one specific style because you don’t like it and label all of it as bad AI (maybe the analogy for racism you’re talking about).
clearly you just wrote this comment with ai… only ai would hyphenate “work-in-progress”.
disgusting….
/s
Ever seen that horror movie where the hand gets possessed? It’s like that but my hand is AI.
Idle Hands
The “work-in-progress” video proof in question basically showed some interface similar to a video editing program with assets popping in like layers, i.e. no actual drawing or concepts or anything.
Your point is very valid, but it also reads like you haven’t seen the proof – which, if anything, was even more of a nail to the coffin.
I haven’t seen the proof myself. I searched and couldn’t find it. The article above mentioned that they shared PSDs, so I assumed that was confirmation enough that they actually released PSD files of the work in progress.
We don’t have General AI yet and the current course doesn’t seem to be the right one to get it. So unless there is a time machine.
Generative A.I.