Any proof of AI ?

[luie]

I keep seeing claims of AI but literally zero proof other than they at one point had an AI art game. If the argument is their designs are straight rip offs yeah that's fair.

[Purple Sauce]

Originally posted by Kondrathe:

Originally posted by Flint:

Is the game fun? Why would the AI stuff matter if it was used or not if the end product works.

If an AI was trained using official Pokemon artwork specifically to replicate the design, stylization, and key character elements, that's definitely copyright infringement and art theft. Whether this is the case or not, though, is pure speculation at this point. There's a significant delineation between using art you have licenses to in order to create a generic monster generating AI and using a set of copyrighted art from one specific IP to create a Pokemon generating AI.

^

And it's not helping the devs case that they already admitted to using AI in their game. It should be obvious just look at their characters. They also clearly, and likely, copied the animations of fortnite as well. It doesn't MATTER if you like the game, throw away your biases and look at this objectively.

[Ellis_Cake]

Originally posted by Ellis_Cake:

There is plenty of AI, as in almost all games.

for instance, the pals have pathing and action AI to help them navigate within the palbox sphere, and decide on which actions to take.

I remember games like doom, that also had AI,
clearly all games are stealing from that and use ai for npcs and the like!

like this

[Purple Sauce]

Originally posted by Ellis_Cake:

Originally posted by Purple Sauce:

It's clearly using AI and the Devs admitted to using AI FYI.

AI is needed for npc actions and pathing.
almost all games since the very first ones uses ai.

We are clearly not talking about that type of AI. Why are you playing coy?

[Ellis_Cake]

Originally posted by Purple Sauce:

Originally posted by Ellis_Cake:

AI is needed for npc actions and pathing.
almost all games since the very first ones uses ai.

We are clearly not talking about that type of AI. Why are you playing coy?

then dont use the name of a really old technology and specify to avoid confusion?

[Noeat]

Originally posted by Purple Sauce:

Originally posted by Ellis_Cake:

AI is needed for npc actions and pathing.
almost all games since the very first ones uses ai.

We are clearly not talking about that type of AI. Why are you playing coy?

nah, problem is that you are talking about something what is only in your mind and you dont have any proof for it.
thats the only issue

prove your accusations, if you can.

[S.C.P.D.]

Originally posted by Caridor:

What does it have to do with this game?

Well, if it was AI generated, it would be the canary in the coal mine. It would show that it wasn't a far off hellscape but it was possible and it's success would be it was acceptable. It would have removed the last barriers preventing the corporations from spamming the market with AI generated games and crushing everything beneath their output.

Thankfully, it wasn't AI generated but I fear the widespread belief that it is is going to tell the corporations that it is acceptable to replace all their artists with AI.

Unfortunately I believe it's only a matter of time before everyone spamming market with AI generated content, but it's still the human users who judge the content. If AI are able to make arts better than human artist then it's the survival of the fittest that human artist gets replaced by AI. If you google "Théâtre D’opéra Spatial" you'll see it's an art piece that won the grand prize of a global contest before it was revealed that it was AI generated. It was human who chose it to win. If we deny AI because it's better then we're guaranteed to stuck with the "worse"
But for something like art that's abstract and objective, it will be hard for AI to do so, human factor are still dominant in it's production. AI doesnt know what humans like, humans do. So it's the artist who learned how to use AI will win in the end, same can be said for game productions.

[Purple Sauce]

Originally posted by Ellis_Cake:

Originally posted by Purple Sauce:

We are clearly not talking about that type of AI. Why are you playing coy?

then dont use the name of a really old technology and specify to avoid confusion?

What confusion is there? Clearly NO ONE is talking about how the NPCs behave. Literally no one.

[Caridor]

Originally posted by Purple Sauce:

It's clearly using AI and the Devs admitted to using AI FYI.

Link to the evidence?

[Purple Sauce]

Originally posted by Noeat:

Originally posted by Purple Sauce:

We are clearly not talking about that type of AI. Why are you playing coy?

nah, problem is that you are talking about something what is only in your mind and you dont have any proof for it.
thats the only issue

prove your accusations, if you can.

What proof do you have that they didn't use AI? You can put up the characters side by side and some of them CLEARLY look like pokemon. Saying they didn't rip off Pokemon is pretty laughable and not I'm not a pokemon "fan." That game should have died a long time ago. Years ago.

[Caridor]

Originally posted by Purple Sauce:

Originally posted by Ellis_Cake:

then dont use the name of a really old technology and specify to avoid confusion?

What confusion is there? Clearly NO ONE is talking about how the NPCs behave. Literally no one.

They were clearly making a joke dude.

[Purple Sauce]

Originally posted by Caridor:

Originally posted by Purple Sauce:

It's clearly using AI and the Devs admitted to using AI FYI.

Link to the evidence?

Don't have a link, they did so when they said "AI is the future." In other words, they basically admitted to using AI in that post. Read between the lines but again, some people are going to play coy.

[Caridor]

Originally posted by Purple Sauce:

Originally posted by Noeat:

nah, problem is that you are talking about something what is only in your mind and you dont have any proof for it.
thats the only issue

prove your accusations, if you can.

What proof do you have that they didn't use AI? You can put up the characters side by side and some of them CLEARLY look like pokemon. Saying they didn't rip off Pokemon is pretty laughable and not I'm not a pokemon "fan." That game should have died a long time ago. Years ago.

What proof do we have that they didn't?

The same proof we have that you aren't a pedophile. Let's apply the same logic you are using against them but to you.

Prove you are innocent.

[Purple Sauce]

Originally posted by Caridor:

Originally posted by Purple Sauce:

What confusion is there? Clearly NO ONE is talking about how the NPCs behave. Literally no one.

They were clearly making a joke dude.

The joke was clearly in poor taste "dude."

[Jeremy]

Originally posted by Operator Sandwich:

It doesn't even matter if they did or didn't, that's the neat part. The only one thing important to regular people is the end result.

It matters because Steam has a policy requiring disclosure, and they’d be in violation if they had used it.

Which they obviously didn’t, but that isn’t stopping the angry mob.

[Ellis_Cake]

AI does not mean "artwork generated from datasets trained with use of ai".