http://dbd.game/killswitch
Generative AI? Really?
Not gonna lie, this is the most stupid thing you guys have done.
Comments
-
*shakes fist at sky* ARRRGgG TECHNOLOGY!!!?
-16 -
Literally
-12 -
As with all technological advancements, the question is how it will be used.
People are familiar with one or two applications of generative AI for things such as art or animation, but the potential of the technology is not limited to that scope, and it would be highly presumptuous to assume what the role is for.
While it does raise an eyebrow, and voicing a concern about the implications for use of this technology in the known manners is not unreasonable... to get outraged about it is such a waste of energy and just making a mountain out of a molehill.
1 -
Not technology. Blatant theft.
0 -
It's trained off of data to replicate an art style. It's transformative. The only difference from the art world is that it's a script doing it and not a human.
-16 -
You would call a tattoo artist a thief for using a style he didn't create American traditional or new school despite them learning those styles by completely copying people who came before them.
Christopher Paolini. The author of Eragon wrote that book at age 15. His book is about dragons and a coming of age story that if I'm gonna be honest is a blatant rip off of star wars yet it's popularity grow to even get adapted into movies.
People have no problem with " blatant theft" they have a problem with technology and fear of obsoletion.. no one is crying that every anime for the last 20 years uses all the exact same character art but a computer doing it?!? "It's a thief !! It's plagiarizing!! It can't do that!!!"
-9 -
There are plenty of uses of AI that are not theft.
-1 -
Because everything you just mentioned is all human and everything has a history of some sort of emotion or story behind it and there is no computer that can replicate that. Its soulless and defeats the purpose of what art is.
11 -
But people need to use AI detection programs to discern what is AI gen'd and what isn't. So clearly humans as a whole are really bad at see "soul" or the computer can emulate it well enough that it doesn't matter.
Ultimately the absolute best AI work is made by professionals, real people who use this tool like any other tool to make their vision a reality faster.
-12 -
Exactly this. Humans build on each other's work. That's the whole history of art. AI is just turning it into lifeless data and regurgitating it. There's no point to art without purpose, thought, or emotion.
10 -
That same AI tool also isnt perfect and can easily mistake something thats real and something that isnt.
To make it easier for you to understand the issue with AI art, its essentially like someone going into a game with cheats and claiming to be just as good as those who spent thousands of hours perfecting their skills. Theres nothing impressive about it, just a loser with a computer who doesnt want to put in the time to learn how to do something themselves.
10 -
Not necessarily. You can blame every company forcing Ai into everything ever for people's knee jerk reaction to it. People who understand the dangers of how AI is currently being used in multiple ways by multiple companies find themselves agreeing with luddites who think its the devil. Thats just kinda how opinions work sometimes, people can come to the right conclusions for the wrong reasons.
That said, its a nuanced situation. It is completely fine for automating mundane functions to increase efficiency. It is not ok for automating human labor in a way that creates excess and/or redundancy, especially due to its real world impacts. Most people have been conditioned to see the latter more than the former.
Thats about as transformative as a kid copying someone else's answer in school and just wording it differently to avoid being caught. Artistic expression in any medium is just that, expression. When someone writes a story, it has been molded by their life experiences. Same with movies, music, paintings, any medium of art. In many ways, it is a view into the creator's mind.
There will always be people who just do it for the paycheck, but the entire point of expressive mediums is to expand your perspectives based off of what was conveyed. When you automate or devalue that it becomes bad enough, but when you do so with a model that learns off of how it is programmed to perceive that expression it becomes downright insulting. Anyone who genuinely appreciates a piece of media wouldn't care if it was made with crayons and paperclips if its impact is profound and its perspectives genuine.
Huge false equivalence. A tattoo artist is still an artist, they are working on emulating an existing piece, but their creation of it is personal and unique. It would be closer compared to a cover of a song, which can sometimes meet or even exceed its original. AI learning would be closer to creating a way to detatch a style from its creator by way of attempting forced obsolescence, treating creativity and lived experience as a piece of technology to be replaced in a more clinical yet brutalist fashion.
Christopher Paolini. The author of Eragon wrote that book at age 15. His book is about dragons and a coming of age story that if I'm gonna be honest is a blatant rip off of star wars yet it's popularity grow to even get adapted into movies.This is known as inspiration. We can only convey our own perspectives, but we can use the perspectives of others to bolster our own. Plato preached famously on this, as when our perspective is challenged by contradiction, we adapt our original perspective to the new information that is introduced. We then adapt to an understanding where both are equally valid. Its the foundation of critical thinking, and the reason why many stories share many motifs and even tropes.
Things like "The Hero's Journey" tie the foundation of stories together throughout history. Its also where the saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" comes from, and why many artists who draw genuine inspiration are happy to discuss it. The only thing that makes it morally or ethically incorrect is when that inspiration is denied, or the idea is passed off as original, which people rightly call out.
AI does none of that. it is the equivalent of asset flippers on platforms like steam.
no one is crying that every anime for the last 20 years uses all the exact same character art but a computer doing it?!?Animation has trends. Since you brought up anime, you can see common styles ebb and flow throughout various points in time. People often equate it within decades, but there are also specific artists with specific styles, even when they share commonalities with others within styles. Mangaka like the late Toriyama are a great example. The same can be said for western animation as well, from the styles of the 80's and 90's saturday morning cartoons to the more modern proliferation of CalArts graduates. That said, there are plenty of people who dislike many of the technological injections into the field, especially when it would come at the cost of things like animation fluidity (aka less rigid and more expressive) and even framerate to cut down on animation cels and instead overemphasize key frames. Another famous western example of the former would be the evolution of The Simpsons, with very clear visualization when comparing even the intro across seasons.
And again, AI animation then creates the worst of all of the above, with a superficial appearance emulating the work that those people dedicated their lives to.
4 -
Someones responding a bit late. They already clarified what that job meant, and it has nothing to do with generating in game content
1 -
Using chatGPT in a argument about AI I can only clap.
-7 -
In a video game you are playing for the experience. When you watch a movie or see a imagine you do not see or know the ease or difficulty the artist went through to create that you see simply the end result. You as the consumer should be looking forward to the results not the journey to get there. Valid complaints are AI still struggles with certain details which I'm sure will be fixed over time. Just like you wouldn't want your door dash driver to show up 2 hours late on a skate board you shouldn't be cheering for an artist to spends days on an imagine he could generate in 5 mins and touche up in 20. If the results are completely equal.
And before you claim it's killing artists and people will discard the arts because of this change. People still sew knit, they plant and grow food. Almost everything that is a hobby that has grown obsolete by just going to a store and buying something with higher quality that was made in a fraction of the time and priced lower then the labor it would cost you to do your self. Is still practiced by people who just enjoy it.
-5 -
This is where we're at. Seeing structured or nuanced arguments as generated text is going to be the witch hunt du jour.
9 -
its a shame the other topic got removed, there was a very insightful comment about the sheer eco waste generated by AI usage, its rapid growth and lack of foreseeable plateau. Its an interesting point that never seems to get brought up, especially when hyperbolizing legitimate arguments to attack. If you actually want education on the topic, start your research there. I'm getting the feeling this isn't being seen as the platform for the discussion, so probably best not to force arguments on the topic here.
5 -
I think on a base level, without even considering the new job position and BHVR's insistence that Ai will not make it into the final game, I cannot approve of BHVR using AI to snot out concept art for Tomb Raider and DnD.
That work should have gone to an actual person being paid money, and to see how much the final product resembles that concept art trained off of stolen images…
It honestly makes me mad to see BHVR act so anti Ai but seemingly ignore these instances of them using it maliciously. When people were talking about the death of creative integrity and the loss of jobs, this is what they meant. Ai can be used for good things, but so far, BHVR hasn't used it right.
1 -
When you watch a movie or see a imagine you do not see or know the ease or difficulty the artist went through to create that you see simply the end result.
Wrong. There is a reason why people praise good practical effects in movies and call out bad CGI in their reviews. Good practical effects take effort, creativity, and thorougness — which is always noticed. Good acting and writing keep people hooked and invested in a story, while cookiecutter writing and hiring famous celebrities who have a face and are trending for being good-looking (while not being able to act to save their lives) turn a movie into a snore fest. There is a reason why global cinema attendance is dropping — there is nothing worth watching on a big screen and nobody cares to make an effort anymore.
Just like you wouldn't want your door dash driver to show up 2 hours late on a skate board you shouldn't be cheering for an artist to spends days on an imagine he could generate in 5 mins and touche up in 20. If the results are completely equal.
These are two different jobs? A DoorDash driver doesn't cook the food you order, they deliver it — their task is to navigate their movement and manage time efficiently. An artist goes through several stages of creating an image (from trying out concepts to final touches), each of which is necessary for creating an impactful visual.
And before you claim it's killing artists and people will discard the arts because of this change. People still sew knit, they plant and grow food. Almost everything that is a hobby that has grown obsolete by just going to a store and buying something with higher quality that was made in a fraction of the time and priced lower then the labor it would cost you to do your self. Is still practiced by people who just enjoy it.
Except that people spent years and years training, practicing and learning to draw, illustrate, and animate with a very clear and specific goal to work for industries that inspired them. Many of modern artists have been learning and practicing before GenAI was even a thing. And now you suggest they should just accept that the years of their effort, all the time and money they invested in becoming professionals is going to be flushed down the toilet because corporate and business-owning idiots in suits decided they don't need artists anymore because they have an artstyle regurgitating machine that can replicate their work? Do you understand how that sounds?
Not to mention that artists aren't even going to be comfortable with posting their work online for self-promotion or trying to be their own brand — because corporate idiots and AI developers aren't going to bother themselves with such silly concepts as "copyright" and will feed works of other people to AI engine.
2 -
The way how this vacancy were written and Mandy’s respond on its own concerted me more. It's not what do u expect from actual Senior Full Stack to do and the skills are definitely focusing on something more than internal work processes and related to games.
1 -
It's also an innovation. Innovative discoveries we don't fully understand are always intertwined with other things we don't understand, whether that's the afterlife or our untimely demise as a species. AI covers both right now. I expect the outcry and the fatigue is more than real. It's the over-reaction that feels like people are huffing their own farts.
That's just not true. I know there's this narrative that AI steals art and repackages it, but it does what any human does—it studies the medium, whatever it is, and does its best to replicate it. It's never perfect but it does its best. We don't get angry when an artist does a study on another artist's work and replicates one or more of their pieces as closely as possible (which AI only does via upscaling), we don't get mad at eyeballing and tracing (unless you don't know how to grid), but we get mad at AI for it. Suddenly these pieces we wanted to be shared with the public and appreciated are so sacred that they might as well be private. We don't even know who is being studied unless a specific model is made for that person. But going back to the fear of innovation, there's this hysteria over the idea that any one of us has been marked when it's really not that deep at all.
I do get the sentiment there as well. But my counter to that is that art has been devalued for generations. Turning it into a career killed the creative expression of it. And listen, I'm not against someone making money off of their talent. But when we see the state of art now, I find it more than ironic that AI is the hill we're willing to die on. We aren't angry at the art schools that only take in talented young people, teach them how to deconstruct their style and their process into the most basic function, and then ship them out into the industry with a bland and simple art style that can be recreated by anyone so that they are more easily replaced (or even worse—cultivate their natural talent and charge them 100k minimum to learn skills they could've mastered on Skillshare) where they barely make enough to survive; we aren't angry at the other side of that industry that takes in young people, puts them up in galleries, gaslights them into believing their work is worth more than it is via money laundering, exposes them to the depraved underworld of high art, and then chews them up and spits them out; so on and so forth. We don't have to save the world every single day. I'm just saying. There are way bigger fish to fry and way more wrong with the art industry, but our ego has to make it all about ourselves and that's the performative part of the AI outrage (in my opinion).
-2 -
If @Ryuhi piece was chatGPT, its over and we've lost and the computers are coming.
4 -
People complain about bad CGI.. again a note on the end product movies like Avatar on release were praised for the CGI and the visuals..
You mention cookie cutter scripts and decrease in writing quality idk what that has to do with AI persay but it's highly possible AI could even help that cause. I'm a mediocre song writer my self (exclusively parody songs that I created for friends and my kids) but AI can really assist once you have the vision at good foundation but can't fill in some of the gaps in ways that sounds and make sense for the theme of your song. This can easily help a bad creator Ok good great. I'm unsure if it can help the people at the peak of the creative world as I'm not one of them so I can't speak on that.
As for skills people worked on for years. Yeah it's sad people in certain industries will no doubt be negitvely affected by this technology. But you really should consider the idea of capability with technology as a mountain. With low technology everyone no matter their capabilities are useful. Mining tilling fields and manual labor. But as technology advances your move closer to the top of the mountain where the peak narrows and less capable people will fall. So many thousands of jobs have been killed by technology over the course of industry revolution to modern day. Gabe Newell said it well instead of reading articles about it and worrying about how it's gonna effect you rush to the races and get involved.
As for the copyright issue. The minute you post something online in a public space expect some one to have learned from it. And by law as long as it's not being used to directly infringe on your IP or branding it is completely legal. Artist have literal been fighting for fair use laws their whole life but the minute it's used against them the script flips completely lol
-2 -
but AI can really assist once you have the vision at good foundation but can't fill in some of the gaps in ways that sounds and make sense for the theme of your song
But why do you think you should be able to make something if you can't, say, read or write music or lyrics, play an instrument, or compose a song? Why does everyone feel entitled to free and fake creativity? If you can't make music but want to, learn.
And the idea that everything is about money is the problem with a lot of mindsets. I've been painting and writing fiction for years. I haven't even tried to get the writing published because it's not about money. It's about making something that's my own. It came from tons of learning and correcting, and from decades long accumulation of thoughts and experiences that make up my existence. If it gets to the point where no one can tell the difference and people care about consuming products instead of appreciating creativity, then what is the value of the human experience?
3 -
People complain about bad CGI.. again a note on the end product movies like Avatar on release were praised for the CGI and the visuals..
That's what I said, though? That people notice when a work was done badly and/or carelessly? Also, Avatar is a good example how the quality CGI overshadowed the quality of writing. The movie left its mark, but so very few people can really come up with any memorable quote or any iconic scene. Everybody praises the visuals, but not everyone can recall anything aside from the basic plot.
I'm a mediocre song writer my self (exclusively parody songs that I created for friends and my kids) but AI can really assist once you have the vision at good foundation but can't fill in some of the gaps in ways that sounds and make sense for the theme of your song. This can easily help a bad creator Ok good great. I'm unsure if it can help the people at the peak of the creative world as I'm not one of them so I can't speak on that.
There are many bad creators who gathered quite an audience. There are many good and amazing creators who are only known by small groups. There are people who only make music or art for their friends and family — and to their friends and family they are good creators because this is the side of them they know and it's exclusive experience they get to cherish.
Meanwile, the entire celebrity industry is rooted in promoting and hyping mediocre or downright bad actors or singers. There are singers who need seven separate songwriters to write a simple song for them, there are singers who write and compose their own songs.
AI can't really assist there because creators (regardles of their affinity) grow through their experience and expanding their knowledge. However, using AI doesn't encourage them to do so. Why try different genres, listen and compare works, or practice, when you can have AI do all the work or fill in the gaps so you don't have to? That's also the moment when any creative diversity wilts away because AI usually offers very generic and repetitive options.
As for skills people worked on for years. Yeah it's sad people in certain industries will no doubt be negitvely affected by this technology. But you really should consider the idea of capability with technology as a mountain. With low technology everyone no matter their capabilities are useful. Mining tilling fields and manual labor
People will be negatively affected because higher-ups will decide that AI can replace them (even though it can't) and will destroy their lives and cause great harm by replacing them with AI. AI is a tool. It's not sentient, it's not a great cybermind, it's not even intelligence. It's a bunch of algorithms that lack critical thinking. It only does what it's taught. It can be useful for working with data or tackling information barriers, but it can never have the same level of trust and experience employees have. And especially, it can't make content. Content requires perspective and reflection. Even "so bad it's good" works in media still hold a special place for viewers because the are entertained or intrigued by the train of thought that led to ridiculous or silly scenes. AI doesn't have a train of thought — it mindlessly churns up responses to prompts.
Also, the way corporations and businesses nowadays try to use AI has nothing to do with improving things for people as whole — because CEOs try to use AI as a mean to make them richer (i.e. cut jobs, remove "unnecessary employees", turn AI into an eternal employee that never complains, never takes days off or needs sick leaves, can't say "no" and doesn't need to get paid). It's not about AI improving the life of workers, it's about AI improving the pockets of billionaires who don't give a single damn about the quality of life of ordinary people.
Big studios that want to use AI don't care that people are going to be exposed to soulless slop as long as it allows to fire a couple of departments and put more billions in C-suites' pockets.
Healthcare insurance companies don't care how many people will die because they replaced their entire analytics department with the AI trained to skew results in their favor because the money "saved" by denying insurance are worth it.
Major traveling companies don't care if their AI bot provided false information that caused unnecessary stress and loss for their clients — because it saved them resources on workers and the only real issue is how to get away from litigations and shift accountability.
Currently, we're not in the industrial revolution. We are in the environment where the incentive to learn creative skills (or any skills for that matter) is killed because what's the point?
As for the copyright issue. The minute you post something online in a public space expect some one to have learned from it. And by law as long as it's not being used to directly infringe on your IP or branding it is completely legal. Artist have literal been fighting for fair use laws their whole life but the minute it's used against them the script flips completely lolThere is nothing fair about how AI "learns" from other people's art. It doesn't learn. It copies. It stores it in its datasets, uses it as a template — a template for other people who never were even close to producing an original drawing to earn money from. When an artist learns from someone's art, they incorporate someone's style into their own, but still they use their own ideas and their drawings have their personal touch — they also acknowledge the people who inspired them. This process is healthy and normal because people explore techniques and expand their knowledge — and artists welcome this. They don't mind if more people get inspired from their works and start drawing by learning from them.
AI is like a person who basically directly traces other people's drawings and then boldly presents and monetizes them as their own. This is a spit in the original artist's face and a reason why it's hated in the community. Also, this is not really legal — if the original artists takes the image tracer to the court and provides the proof of plagiarism, they will win their case.
Gabe Newell said it well instead of reading articles about it and worrying about how it's gonna effect you rush to the races and get involved.
So, everybody needs to be an AI developer now, since there is no point in mastering any other job that can be fed to AI? Is that how Gabe sees it?
3
