“Goonswarm games”
/me an EVE Online Player feeling kinda suspicious and not that surprised by the allegations.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
I don’t see anything to suggest AI was used in the making of the game, but I also don’t see anything that suggests it was going to be a good game. So it may not have taken much pressure to get them to fold.
Fuck this site and their forced redirections.
type 1: EXTREME SUSPICION THINK EVERYTHING IS AI GENERATED. Thrash wildly when presented all images, audio, text, and movies in a desparate attempt to prove whether it’s ai and should thus be shunned and hated.
type 2: not really care
I don’t mind AI as long as it’s filtered through humans. Like don’t just generate something and ship it directly to the consumer. Use AI generated content as a stepping off point for what you want to create.
Most visual art I consume I’m not getting anything out of it that is diminished if it were not created by human hand.
It’s mostly comics and “cool shit” and AI images are just as capable of being the illustration of a cool story. And the same rules apply - if a real artist draws wonky proportions or an extra finger, it might look a bit off but probably doesn’t bother the viewer much as long as it’s not all the time.
There are other situations where AI or any kind of simulation of humanity doesn’t work. An ai generated story won’t have the same kind of emotional connection, for example.
Watch out, you might trigger the AI haters.
Why should we care about the tools they use? Results are important.
I do not believe that you think results are the only thing that matter, methods be damned. I think you do have a line you would draw somewhere. The rest of us simply draw ours in a different place than you do.
Because that tool was built by committing the largest IP theft in history. Not to mention the loss of jobs, the waste of water, waste of energy, spiking hardware prices, potential to dumb down all future generations.
But yeah, just a tool, same as wrench…
“But if we don’t do it, they will. And then they will win.”
IP theft
People learn in the same way
the waste of water, waste of energy,
People consume that too. Even while not working.
dumb down all future generations
Human specialists also let other people stop being specialists. When did specialisation become the norm? In the early paleolith? Earlier?
People consume that too. Even while not working.
That’s not a waste, though. I’d want them around even they weren’t working.
What a bunch of Bullshit no we don’t learn the same way as we don’t have perfect recall. And we do not consume the amount of energy AI data centers do. They consume a cities worth or more of energy to make a select few rich. Whatever we are done as a species it was a good run. All this fucking consumerism and must have infinite growth on a finite planet. We are to stupid to realize we are dead.
Ironically AI doesn’t have perfectly recall either, and that’s kind of one of the main problems with it and hallucinations. It can easily get poisoned by a handful of data points in it’s training set. But even then, it can only really blend 2 data points together, it’s got no ability to extrapolate and think outside the box.
People consume that too. Even while not working.
That is correct, but you completely miss the scales, not to mention the lack of learning when the AI makes a mistake.
When a human makes a mistake, they can learn from it, understand what went wrong and improve, when an AI makes a mistake it is just being told “bad”, it is really difficult to define why you rejected a specific response.
So not only does AI use more energy, far more is wasted
Getting off topic but these comments have me wondering, how much fresh water do we actually use to survive? Obviously we consume water to drink. And use it in our kitchens and bathrooms. But we know that’s just a small percentage of water use. The largest use is agriculture. I’ll count that as our consumption as well, because we eat the food produced. But I wonder what percentage of overall use goes to things that do not directly contribute to our survival. Like landscaping e.g. watering lawns. Especially in desert areas. Golf courses, that sort of thing.
On the other hand, the human will grow old and the hard learned information will die with him.
Computers? The software will be there forever.
Now, that IP should be FOSS of course.
Humm, have you ever heard of the concept of teaching or books?
Both are methods of knowledge transfer.
You still have to teach and learn.
When you die, that knowledge has to be re-learned by someone else, taking maybe tens of years.
What are you talking about?
Knowledge can and is in fact far easier to transfer when you are alive.
but you completely miss the scales,
I don’t. I see no reason to believe that machines use more energy than humans while achieving comparable results.
- We are talking about to vastly different entities, to even consider that they would be equal in terms of energy use for a similar task is dumb. That would be like expecting the energy use for transporting box by truck or by ship to be equal. That just doesn’t work.
- The results are not even comparable.
Just to play devils advocate, how much energy goes into growing our food, processing our food, transporting our food. Our education, and entertainment. All of which go into the output we produce. I wondering if at that point the numbers get closer.
When talking about these data centers, they often use the term enough to power a “small city.” So how much output could a “small city” of people produce? You’d have to break the result down into required man hours, and spread that across the population, as obviously the AI will do things faster than individual humans.
Along with the other comment, it’s also soulless. Not that the postal series had much in the way of artistry to begin with, even that series is still more artistic than anything generated by a program.
soulless
I am an engineer, not a priest. I don’t understand this terminology.
Our degrees didn’t rob us of the ability to understand metaphor - that’s just you.
I don’t understand this
That much is abundantly clear.
Oh go away
