The analogy sucks because it implies AI is in any way beneficial.
Yeah it’s a bad analogy because aimbots actually get good results.
But they also suck out the joy and soul of games, so it’s pretty apt.
Depends, honestly. I think for solo indie devs, AI is going to be huge because they can create high-quality assets like models, terrain or music without having to learn all the individual programs and skills which could take another couple of years, and if we’re honest - if you don’t propagate that you used AI for assets, barely anyone will notice it.
Until a few years from now, when someone can just describe the exact game they want and it’s just poofed into existence with no human intervention and everyone is just playing their own isolated AI generated slop.
First of all, it’s gonna take a while until we’re at the point that games are just “poofed” into existence. AI can barely generate mods for existing games, let alone full games.
And second - well, yes. If it’s good slop, it’s not an issue tho?
Im being hyperbolic on the timeline, yes, but the end result is the same, and it’s sad as hell imo. Don’t get me wrong, Im not some AI luddite, I think it has it’s uses, but I fear how it will take the human element out of our art and stories, something that is fundamentally so human.
With all due respect, but there already is no “human” in AAA productions. And indies will still produce good games, just a bit faster because AI takes over a lot of work.
Nothing will change, in total.
Generative AI or AI in general?
Because AI has tons of uses that are actually very beneficial.
AI is a misnomer anyhow. It’s been pretty definitively proven that these machines aren’t using intelligence of any kind, just really efficient search algorithms that are designed to smash things together in a way that looks like something resembling human speech and human made art. But that is the absolute limit of their ability and their potential.
It’s been pretty definitively proven that these machines aren’t using intelligence.
You would have to be able to concretely define what "intelligence " is first before you can do that.
just really efficient search algorithms that are designed to smash things together in a way that looks like something resembling human speech and human made art.
That’s an OK analogy for basic LLMs but that’s not at all how stable diffusion works.
But that is the absolute limit of their ability and their potential.
Not at all. AI models are constantly developing. Compared to even a year ago they’re so much more advanced and there’s no reason to believe we’ve hit any sort of peak. And from what I can from my freinds that are still in Acedemia and places like deep mind, there are some truly groundbreaking changes coming pretty soon.
You would have to be able to concretely define what "intelligence " is first before you can do that.
The Turing test is not a valid determiner because the thought process behind it is 80 years out of date. Intelligence has to be capable of actually processing data on its own without external sources to draw from. Otherwise it’s just copying and pasting in approximation of language and art. See article below:
https://www.techradar.com/news/calm-down-folks-chatgpt-isnt-actually-an-artificial-intelligence
As the article states, these things should be called GANs but that doesn’t sound as sexy as AI.
This goes for Stable Diffusion as well as every other generative art program in existence.
Not at all. AI models are constantly developing. Compared to even a year ago they’re so much more advanced and there’s no reason to believe we’ve hit any sort of peak. And from what I can from my freinds that are still in Acedemia and places like deep mind, there are some truly groundbreaking changes coming pretty soon.
It’s all hype in order to get investment dollars. These will never become AGI or anything close. They don’t “think”, they simply search their databases based on inputs and then output the closest approximation of what the user is asking for. It’s why AI art always looks wonky and LLMs output made up garbage.
A very small example: First Person Shooters and other action games would be very boring without enemy AI.
Don’t get confused here. That kind of “AI” has nothing to do with the AI we’re talking about here. We had NPCs decades ago in games when AI wasn’t even a thing yet.
That’s what the person I was replying to was asking. NPC scripting is still a form of AI and can get pretty advanced (Alien: Isolation).
When you’re talking about Generative AI it’s important to specify, because there are legitimate forms of AI that aren’t intended to steal jobs.
NPC scripting is still a form of AI
Absolutely not. Not even remotely close. NPC scripting follows a pattern, and no matter how advanced and complex you made these algorithms, that’s all they are - algorithms.
AI is actually “learning”, as in it needs material to get good at something.
Those are two completely different things. The only thing they have in common is that they are both ran on a computer.
Why do people act like generative AI has no uses? AlphaFold2 was a generational leap in protein folding. Alphatensor was used to find previously unknown sparse matrix multiplication algorithms. These are all examples of generative ai being useful on a societal scale.
True, I just didn’t want to get crucified on here.
oh lol just saw the community name
it’s like… yeah you can tweak every single parameter and build your own checkpoints and stack hundreds of extra networks on top of one another and that is certainly a skill, but creating art with intent is an entirely different skill. and the first one won’t give you shit if the contest is about creating art with intent.
This is what will be so sad for the future. I though art was dead years ago, but it’s truly dead now
Somehow they invented a contest that’s more boring than watching paint dry.
I’m shocked i haven’t seen captchas of the form “choose which image is AI generated”
People who use Lemmy would be able to tell the difference most of the time, but the average person would have zero idea.
Just look at any of the YouTube videos with obviously AI generated clickbait thumbnails that get 10s of millions of views. Or all of the shitty obvious Photoshop thumbnails that existed before AI.
It’s the opposite of the OP’s headline.
Aimbot works because being good at games is essentially bending your skills to match a simulation, aimbot can have the simulation parameters written into it.
LLMs are blenders for human-made content with zero understanding of why some art resonates and other art doesn’t. A human with decent skill will always outperform a LLM because the human knows what the ineffable qualities are that make a piece of art resonate.
100% yes but just because I really hate how everyone conflates AI with LLMs these days I have to say this: The LLM isn’t generating the image, it’s at most generating a prompt for an image generating AI (which you could also write yourself)
psa, you get more control this way: instead of asking an LLM to generate an image, you can just say “generate an image with this prompt: …”
idiotic of course that that’s necessary. it’s the kind of thing openai does – you’d think they’d provide “open” access to dall-e.
It’s not useful to talk about the content that LLMs create in terms of whether they “understand it” or don’t. How can you verify if an LLM understands what it’s producing or not? Do you think it’s possible that some future technology might have this understanding? Do humans understand everything they produce? (A lot of people get pretty far by bullshitting.)
Shouldn’t your argument equally apply to aimbots? After all, does an aimbot really understand the strategy, the game, the je-ne-sais-quoi of high-level play?
Prompt engineering is not easy. Getting something as good as a real artist’s work is very hard, especially if you’re not an artist. Of course actual art is going to win every time.
“Prompt engineering” now that’s a new one, what next? Prompt researching?
Vibe coding
Yeah, not only promting, but adjusting temperature, combining different checkpoints and loras, addding additional steps to upscale, redraw certain parts etc.
In the end its very much just a numbers game though, see if you got lucky after 100+ images
I like the artwork, I approve of the message, and this gave me a chuckle.
But c’mon, like, it’s against the rules. If you are annoyed by AI art being submitted to human art contests, you should be annoyed by this too.
The first time I read about AI art being submitted to a human contest and winning, I thought, “how drôle.” Of course, now I see it violates the spirit of competition. AI art should have its own category – and that doesn’t just go one way. Like it or not, AI is a tool and if some people want to explore how to use it to make good content, let’s let them do that in peace. Maybe it will become fractionally less shitty.
Im pretty sure that’s called cheating.
If you listen to the AI preachers at their pulpits, AI gen works the same way that people making art does, so how could it be cheating if they’re the same thing?
