AI generation

[Spooky Bunyip]

I've been seeing a lot of people say that they used AI to help design the monsters in this game and I was wondering if anyone could link me an article or something explaining why I should care at all, even a little, if that's true.
Thank you in advance

[Azure Fang]

I've yet to see any of the claimants actually provide evidence that they're AI generated that isn't a vague comment from years back that may or may not be related to the game.

[alan0n]

Source: Trust me bro.

[Bisexual Offender]

Originally posted by Azure Fang:

I've yet to see any of the claimants actually provide evidence that they're AI generated that isn't a vague comment from years back that may or may not be related to the game.

And the vague comment being from one of the devs that he likes AI lol.

[YesItsRyan]

Maybe they just used dali-e and went "Make me a pokemon inspired monster in the ghost type" and then had their 3D modellers go for it...?

[InvectusSupremus]

I think the use of ddls is what's concerning them

[Arenas]

Like or not, AI will be use for everything in the future... As an 3d modeler myself, i know my work is in danger, but i think we must get used to it

[toruvinn]

Originally posted by Spooky Bunyip:

I've been seeing a lot of people say that they used AI to help design the monsters in this game and I was wondering if anyone could link me an article or something explaining why I should care at all, even a little, if that's true.
Thank you in advance

So I don't know much about this game, frankly, so no idea if AI was used or not, but the general idea why using AI to generate assets may not be(morally) great is the usual AI image generation argument.

To have AI generate images for you (or anything else, really), you need to first train that AI on some set of images. Usually those images are not something that people buy from artists, but... just take. For free. The generated images then resemble the style and content of the training material. That's how AI works.

The problem right now is that AI is completely not regulated by law, so technically you could take your favourite artist's music (paying them nothing), train an AI, generate BGM for your game from that and start selling it. That BGM would very much resemble the music you like so much, but obviously would not be the same. Now, do you owe something to those whose music you used to train the AI? Up to you to decide, so far, because - again - not regulated by law. Morally dubious, IMO.

[Higuera]

Originally posted by toruvinn:

Originally posted by Spooky Bunyip:

I've been seeing a lot of people say that they used AI to help design the monsters in this game and I was wondering if anyone could link me an article or something explaining why I should care at all, even a little, if that's true.
Thank you in advance

So I don't know much about this game, frankly, so no idea if AI was used or not, but the general idea why using AI to generate assets may not be(morally) great is the usual AI image generation argument.

To have AI generate images for you (or anything else, really), you need to first train that AI on some set of images. Usually those images are not something that people buy from artists, but... just take. For free. The generated images then resemble the style and content of the training material. That's how AI works.

The problem right now is that AI is completely not regulated by law, so technically you could take your favourite artist's music (paying them nothing), train an AI, generate BGM for your game from that and start selling it. That BGM would very much resemble the music you like so much, but obviously would not be the same. Now, do you owe something to those whose music you used to train the AI? Up to you to decide, so far, because - again - not regulated by law. Morally dubious, IMO.

The bigger problem to the claim is the fact that the designs were revealed in 2021, a year before Generative AI really became a thing :V

[Bisexual Offender]

Originally posted by toruvinn:

Originally posted by Spooky Bunyip:

I've been seeing a lot of people say that they used AI to help design the monsters in this game and I was wondering if anyone could link me an article or something explaining why I should care at all, even a little, if that's true.
Thank you in advance

So I don't know much about this game, frankly, so no idea if AI was used or not, but the general idea why using AI to generate assets may not be(morally) great is the usual AI image generation argument.

To have AI generate images for you (or anything else, really), you need to first train that AI on some set of images. Usually those images are not something that people buy from artists, but... just take. For free. The generated images then resemble the style and content of the training material. That's how AI works.

The problem right now is that AI is completely not regulated by law, so technically you could take your favourite artist's music (paying them nothing), train an AI, generate BGM for your game from that and start selling it. That BGM would very much resemble the music you like so much, but obviously would not be the same. Now, do you owe something to those whose music you used to train the AI? Up to you to decide, so far, because - again - not regulated by law. Morally dubious, IMO.

Or they could hire an artist make them draw art and then train AI model on said art to create variations upon it. Most people screaming about generative AI know dickall about it.

[Amatsu]

Originally posted by Spooky Bunyip:

I've been seeing a lot of people say that they used AI to help design the monsters in this game and I was wondering if anyone could link me an article or something explaining why I should care at all, even a little, if that's true.
Thank you in advance

The main evidence being tossed around is a Twitter post made by the lead developer of the game commenting that AI could be used to make Pokemon-like creatures...so people are assuming it was used to create the Pals. Except...the first pictures and footage of this game were out well before Stable Diffusion, the most popular image AI software was available to the public. And it shown quite a few of the Pals...

[Misa Velvet]

You shouldn't care, this is just a propaganda as i can see. They will tell you that you should care about how awesome it is to regulate intellectual/body(?) property in the interests of people, you know like think about a poor artist or a voice actor they say but real meaning is to help corporations generate money from AI because in the end mostly only they will have resources to deal with all these rights stuff after they apply all the regulations ofc, meanwhile regular people would suck ass coz they will be forbidden to freely generate stuff themselves coz everything is suddenly a someone else's property, in most cases it will be corpo's property and its workers on unequal contracts.

Some popular artists will make tons of money passively with the rights on "their very own style which they definitely created out of nowhere without copying and combining stuff like AI does" but thats it, many non popular artists would lose their job anyways. As i undertand they force this opinion in both left and right wing circles

[Freyar]

Until there's direct evidence showing unethically trained (IE: Not trained on properly licensed content or internal), this is just fear mongering. Everyone likes to pile on the "AI Bad" bandwagon even if there's no real evidence that it's been used in a project.

[Bruno]

What I don't get, is that they are not the first developers to have used AI to generate art and models. So, I don't get why people are so scandalized this time?

[Revakara]

Whether or not the concept art for this game was AI generated is at this point a moot point that is only really to be argued by Palworld and Nintendo's legal teams. The Pandora's Box that is AI art is open and cannot be shut no matter how much we may wish it. It will render some artists obsolete and effectively force them out of the space if they can't adapt to use it as the tool it is. Those who can use it will work wonders, as they have here.

Aside from the talk about AI, it needs to be recognised that AI tools did not make the 3D models, animate them or do the other many myriad tasks that entail game design. Palworld is a solid game in and of itself and it should be celebrated that we've gotten a game this good, even in an early access phase, at a point where the industry seems to be flagging and growing stagnant because the big AAA devs refuse to innovate and instead churn out game after game that is pretty much the same thing but with better graphics.

Palworld may be legally dubious but it will doubtless provide the proverbial kick in the teeth Nintendo direly needs to wake up, realise there is a market outside of the Switch and many, MANY Pokemon fans who were enraptured by the original games but put off by Gamefreak's lazy design ethos. At this point if Pokemon wants to thrive as it once did, or indeed as it could do, it needs to expand beyond the quaint little handheld RPG we all used to play back in the early thousands. The IP needs to be given to people other than Gamefreak so that we can get the weird, wacky and in some cases darker and more adult themed games that older fans have been dreaming of for years now, just imagine how much better Nintendo could likely make a game like Palworld due to it's design talent and resources!

So yes, the concept art for the Pals was likely made through the use of 'AI' tools (read: programming and design tools trained and conditioned by human interaction and input). Do we really care if it results in something like Palworld that can provide a net bonus to the gaming industry and give gamers the games they actually want? Nope.

[Magicktech]

Even if it is true, you should not care. All that matters is if you enjoy the game or not.