Asenna Steam
kirjaudu sisään
|
kieli
简体中文 (yksinkertaistettu kiina)
繁體中文 (perinteinen kiina)
日本語 (japani)
한국어 (korea)
ไทย (thai)
български (bulgaria)
Čeština (tšekki)
Dansk (tanska)
Deutsch (saksa)
English (englanti)
Español – España (espanja – Espanja)
Español – Latinoamérica (espanja – Lat. Am.)
Ελληνικά (kreikka)
Français (ranska)
Italiano (italia)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesia)
Magyar (unkari)
Nederlands (hollanti)
Norsk (norja)
Polski (puola)
Português (portugali – Portugali)
Português – Brasil (portugali – Brasilia)
Română (romania)
Русский (venäjä)
Svenska (ruotsi)
Türkçe (turkki)
Tiếng Việt (vietnam)
Українська (ukraina)
Ilmoita käännösongelmasta
Keskusteluiden säännöt ja ohjeistukset
0 
Ilmoita tämä viesti
You're more of a plague than AI is
Also all my clothing is all hand woven.
My shoes are strictly made of natural materials like leather, from animals hunted in the wild with raw physical strength and hand made spears, crafted by an artisan in his family owned shop, where I walked to buy them.
But even when, ai images have come to stay and actually have quite some good usecases. I don't see a reason neither private people nor for example hobby developers but also some simple textures have any need to pay an overpriced "artist" if chatGPT does the same thing in 2 minutes with a $20 plus subscription.
Only thing I agree, it's not art in the classical meaning, but aside from that, you've to live with that, it will not go away, like cars didn't get away, TV didn't, the Internet does not!
Using AI to generate key assets may be bad on multiple levels, but we are talking of things like characters, dialogue, story, whole backgrounds.
Using AI to generate secondary assets, like some background texture that almost no one will bother to look at carefully, then passing it to human review and retouch before eventual application, who cares about it?
It’s effectively equivalent to making use of a very large library of stock assets.
Yes, I do think they should disclose that on the main page. There are smaller developers out there with smaller games that still will acknowledge the use of AI so I don't think they are the exception, but I don't think you should be that upset. It's clear they put in a lot of effort here. You are getting a solid AA experience.
I also will say that, as somebody who use to have to make things. (Not video games), I get it. I used to make props for film/TV and theatre, and even though it was well before the AI era, if I could have used AI to write newspapers I would have probably done it too. It's so tedious, time consuming, and it takes away valuable resources that can be spent on making more important assets. A 10 foot prop (i.e. a prop that looks good 10 feet away) shouldn't take as much time or effort to make as a close up prop. It also shouldn't be held to the same standards.
These textures are not important enough. Sure, it's great when somebody puts that level of detail in, but it's just not the end of the world if they don't,
You have to be literally sub 65 iq to not instantly detect these posters as AI slop
Hard to see them as anything other than bots when they come into a thread and throw garbage points or are not even looking at the images. I never said everyone that disagrees so don't exaggerated the point, it doesn't look good for you. If you feel it applies to you then I don't know what to say.
Use of AI images no matter how small is a step in the wrong direction. Especially with so many layoffs in the game industry and art industry. People worked hard on the games we loved, and I don't think AI stealing their content and skill is respectful nor ethical. If you have a point other than you don't care, it is what it is but don't hate us because we give a damn.
See, this is the point, no one stole your art. I can agree, the handling of training data, especially in the beginning, was and is quite problematic, but it's not "stealing their content", this is not how ai works.
AI uses this data to learn, so if ai trains on some thousand screens on Ghibli screencaps for example, it doesn't go and copies those to put new images together when someone asks for a ghibli style image. No, what it does is, it goes through the traning data finds the common elements in all those images and weights / priorizes those information, so it can say afterwards, what are the typical elements that make the style that many recognize as 'Ghibli'.
But if it generates an image then, it doesn't need any of those training images anymore, it just needs it's own saved information that tells it, what are the typical elements that make an image look like some work from ghibli. However you look on this, this is not stealing.
Oh, and I honor the work of artists, but on a reasonable level! I can't for example stand, that people call ai generated images "art" and I strongly advocate that ai images are not presented as created art, I love (fan)art and I've favorite artists.
But I can't stand empty claims (like here, I see where they are coming from, but this is at BEST an indication, no proof was brought up) and I don't think you need to pay overpriced money to an artist for some textures for example, that have no artistical value at all, especially if you're on tight budget, or if you're even a hobby developer ... or do you want to tell me, no I can't make an indie game, when I can't make the graphics myself or don't have the $2000 an artists asks for it? ... This whole argumentation is a bit the same as saying, we can't allow cars, cos it makes Carriage drivers jobless.
And another point is, you know, as software developer I can feel the influx of AI none less, the opposite, I adjust or can look for a new job.
Sure, I could now sit there and grumble about ai stealing my job or I can (and do) integrate this new technique into my workflow, recognizing it as valuable tool that can assist me but that's not able to replace me at all (cos as AI is NOT able to generate high quality art, it's also not able to generate high quality code, so you want to replace your devs with ai? Have fun trying and call me later to clean up the mess!).
I do not trust that AI images are sourced responsibly. I don't know why we would consider it not stolen just because it doesn't store the image after scraping it for data. I hate the examples of this transition being similar to the transition from paintings to photos or from horse to cars. Its just not the same. It's a whole different game now that doesn't have a comparison and no does it have an ethical stance as it's built of the backs of artists and continues to take.
Using AI images hasn't saved time or money, it's just downgraded the product. I'd rather nothing be there than trying to look at the details and realise that there's no story to be told and no care at all. Now the argument that DLSS is messing with the texture is the closest thing I've heard to an actual reasonable defence for it not being AI but with all the reports I've seen it doesn't sound likely.
In regards to someone wanting to create a game at a budget, there's SO many ethical resources for free or cheap materials for textures. I also would say if you had crafted some textures yourself, no matter how skilled you are, I would personally appreciate it infinitely more than an AI generated image. I'm sure you could have added more personality and story to those fliers than what we can see in those images.
I want small studios to thrive, but I can't respect this decision and I certainly won't support it. We're heading towards an age where AI slop will take over games as soon as the top publishers/studios realise they can get away with it. We also don't have legal systems that can catch up to regulate the usage and put safeguards in place.