Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
3D: camera.look_at(player.global_position, Vector3.UP)
note that Godot uses -Z as "forward", so you may find that your model looks 90 or 180 degrees from the direction you tell it to; possible fixes for that:
camera.look_at(player.global_position + Vector3.RIGHT, Vector3.UP) # rotate right
camera.look_at(player.global_position, Vector3.UP, true) # use +Z instead
https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/classes/class_node3d.html#class-node3d-method-look-at
I definitely advise taking advantage of AI chatbots to get answers and even have it write some code for you.
... I gave roughly the same answer a week ago. Just saying.
Roughly but not the same, and the point was more to encourage the use of AI to get more detailed or well articulated answers, with code and links.
(Copilot is now part of windows 11, and its a great feature to take full advantage of)
To your credit though, the AI actually did recognize this thread and referred to it as one of the links to follow up on. In other words, your contribution was clearly seen by the AI. =)
We were promised robots in food service, but all we got were kiosks. We were promised robots for mining and other grueling tasks, but those never materialized. Someone mentioned that robots could make pictures, and suddenly all the artists are starving... not to mention the sudden uproar in Hollywood about who gets the royalties from deepfakes.
There's an ugly road ahead, my friend. I don't want to live in a dystopia where the robots sing, paint, and write software, while we humans are still doing all the "grunt work".
I don't believe we were promised robots cooking and serving in food service btw lol. If anything you saw some tech demos showing a proof of concept, but that doesn't make it a promise or even practical in most cases.
The use of kiosks for example is far more practical than complex robots with many moving parts that are not only going to be expensive to manufacture and design, but also maintain. You also don't jump right into such advances but take gradual steps towards it until it becomes feasible from a business standpoint.
Despite that, you still see the emergence of more practical uses of robotics, such as robots that mow your lawn and vacuum your house.
On writing software, while you can claim that is creative, its also just a set of instructions you are giving to a computer. The thought process and desired result is the creative part, not necessarily the code itself. If you can be even looser in "coding" what you want, say telling AI to translate your casual text into code, and that code is then translated into something the computer can read, then is it really all that different?
New technology is designed to be disruptive, and its always been the case. The printing press removed the need for writers with good penmanship to make copies, the automobile replaced the need for the horse and buggy, which was its own industry full of breeders, equipment makers, blacksmiths...etc We are just going through another case of this with AI and at the moment it's still a bit awkward. Getting answers and getting code snippits written for you is no different than asking someone on a forum for the same thing, only its more immediate and often more informative.
This is not like the printing press; we're not replacing "writers with good penmanship", we're replacing writers. This is not the camera; we're not replacing "portrait painters", we're replacing artists. Deepfakes are already being used to replace actors and undermine political figures. This rabbit hole goes deep, and has some seriously bad connotations when you factor in that Capitalism says money is worth more than people.
I don't want to get into a big political beat-em-up, I just wanted to say my piece. I'm all for disruption, but we're handing all the good jobs to the bots (and thus the megacorps), while leaving all the scut work for working-class humans... It is my belief that AI should be being used to do the opposite of that.
Are you referring to this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2rktIcLJwo
All that editing and clickbait aside, do you really think it was that simple? He even admitted in the video that none of this would actually be a real replacement. He also had to essentially manage the project, likely fix code, put it all together, and was still doing a ton of work on the backend. In short he did not just snap his fingers and have AI write an entire game for him in one go. He was still doing most of the work to piece everything together and make it functional.
You still need to be able to read the code and understand whats going on in order to make it all work.
Let's look at this from another angle. Would you be against lets say, GameMaker Studio 2 because it has drag and drop tools, which essentially generates the code for the user?
What if there were drag and drop nodes or macros) that automate a lot of the code for common features found in a game? What about features that auto generate a level based on imported assets?
Do you understand that even advances in codeless game dev can be claimed to have "removed" the programmer, even though its really just changing the hat one has to wear while also making it more accessible.
And its not like AI is replacing the designer, the manager, coder...etc, if anything one could argue you need less of said workers and/or their knowledge, not none at all. I do notice you ignored the automobiles replacing the entire industry tied tot he horse and buggy.
You said deep fakes are replacing the actor, but that's been done for years long before AI. Face swaps are common in VFX, the only difference is that a VFX compositor does it using tools in an application like NUKE. Its a tedious process.
The "capitalism says money is worth more than people" line is just silly. Its emotionally charged rhetoric without any understand of the actual subject matter. Money is not value in and of itself, its just a representation of value. People are value as well, their time is value, everything has value. Money is just the tool to trade said value. That's it. Its a medium, a tool for exchanging between things of value, nothing more.
Capitalism is based on the idea of private ownership and the ability to trade value for value. Such concepts go as far back as Aristotle, who disagreed with Plato's position on collectivism and no private ownership. Old concepts, both have been tried, only one really worked well in the end. Nothing is perfect.
I remember back in the day when certain software was deemed hard to use and complex, not to mention expensive. Those who were lucky enough to have access to it and learn it, wanted it to stay that way because it meant they were in high demand and thus their time was worth more, they had less competition from others as well. Many voiced that they did not want more people to learn the software, or for it to be easier to use, because that would hurt their self interest.
That's kind of how you sound right now, even if its not your intent. The so called good jobs are not going away, but they may change a bit over time, and the value they hold may lower (its not guaranteed) because of greater accessibility and ease of use.
In the VFX field, I have seen someone I am very close to train the AI as part of her work to mask and de-age an actors face. Do you think she was worried it would cause her to lose her job? No, because that was a tedious process which was very time consuming. The less time she has to focus on that kind of grunt work, the more time she has to focus the rest of the composition, getting the shots out sooner so they could be noted and fixed.
The AI is not replacing her, but shifting the workload around. It still needs human hands to make it all work and manage the composition for her studio.
While I do think its fine to be cautious about AI, taking a dump on it simply because it exists and trying to trump up the fear over it, while blaming capitalism or something, is not really a good response. Again at most it will reduce some jobs, but not replace and people will, likely they always have, gradually shift to a compatible field that leverages that technology.
Remember this is all in response to recommending someone ask the AI for an answer to a question they would have to manually search for on a search engine or ask on a forum for someone else to tell them the answer.
I'll finish with this bit of 2cents.
Steam allowed small developers and indies to compete with big studios and their publishers, it removed the box retailers from the picture which was often a barrier of entry for most small devs without a publisher backing them. Free tools and even game engines removed the costly licensing fees, which previously were footed by the publishers.
As you can see, the big "mega corps" actually had to compete with the little guy, which in turn was able to comfortably compete with them in return for the same market. Now ask yourself this, can AI do the same? Absolutely, so its not just the "mega corps" that AI might help, just like steam it can even help leverage the playing field even further. Food for thought.
Then again, it was only about 50 years ago that Ford decided they didn't need to recall the Pinto (AKA "The Great American Carbomb") because it would be cheaper to settle the "negligent death" lawsuits than to spend $11 per car to fix the problem that caused them to burst into flames and/or explode.
The worst part? The vehicle's frame had a design flaw that caused the doors to seize when the vehicle received an impact from the rear, locking the passengers into a car that (due to the previously mentioned design flaw that also activated upon being struck from the rear) sprayed the cabin with fuel. If it caught on fire, the people inside couldn't get out, and were already soaked in gasoline.
Or maybe the worst part is that Ford knew about the flaws, and even circulated a memo internally discussing the financial cost of a recall vs the estimated cost of just paying off people who suffered as a result of just "letting it ride". They decided it was worth paying off the families of people who burned to death to prevent having to spend more money making a product that doesn't kill people in horribly agonizing ways. The eventual recall cost them an estimated $20 million, but that did nothing for the people who burned to death because of their cost-cutting efforts.
Google "Pinto memo" for more details.
As for your insights into the ChatGPT clone of Beat Saber that I mentioned...
Did you watch the video you linked, or just skim through it looking for talking points to support your side of the argument?
Yes, he had to "manage" the project (which he stated was literally just following the instructions ChatGPT provided), but he also didn't write a single line of code; that was one of the rules of the "challenge". Understanding the code was irrelevant; he never wrote any.
The first step was to ask ChatGPT how to go about cloning Beat Saber. The rest of the steps were asking ChatGPT to implement the instructions given in response to the first query.
It's not far from there to "Hey, ChatGPT, make me a rhythm game about chopping cubes with lightsabers, with some cool visual effects" and having ChatGPT implement all the steps on its own... et voila, no more gamedev studios, just some poor sap somewhere whose job it is to come up with ideas to feed into the entertainment overlord... until that, too, gets replaced by a combinatorial algorithm that feeds random ideas into a chatbot which then generates the content, markets it, and essentially just throws weird combos at the wall to see what sticks. If the input cost is only the electricity required to run the LLM server and give it internet access and air conditioning, why not just let it run and see how much money (and how many products) it can make for you... for literally nothing above and beyond what you would have spent in the first place?
The problem is that "Hey ChatGPT, solve world hunger" or "Hey ChatGPT, cure cancer" won't ever be asked by any entity with the resources to actually do it... for the same reason our medical industry is so completely broken: Suffering is profitable.
Grocery prices are the highest they've been since 1979, and it seems like half the product variety is just... gone. Less variety, lower quantities, but higher prices... and the healthy foods are the most expensive. Is it surprising that fewer and fewer people are "healthy", these days? I'm not going to bother illustrating the doubling of rent prices over the past decade, but everyone reading this knows exactly what I'm talking about.
There's no money in curing cancer, but treating cancer is a trillion-dollar-per-year industry. Just the pharmaceutical revenue alone is a 300 billion dollar a year profit machine, yet we still have 600,000+ deaths from cancer every year. Why fix the problem, when each person who has it is worth half a million dollars in pill sales?
Insulin prices have quintupled (5x) in the last 20 years, from five cents per unit to thirty. Why do you think that is? My girlfriend died 6 months ago from diabetes complications; she was taking 200-300 units per day of insulin, making her worth roughly $75 a day ($28,000 per year) to the insulin manufacturers, never mind the slew of other medications she took daily. Why would someone fix something that pays a pharmacy tech's salary for each and every customer? That's not a problem, that's a revenue stream.
Yeah, okay, they jailed Martin Shkreli for making it obvious that customers had no value beyond "number go up"... but that wasn't actually a win for consumers. Shkreli is now out of prison and "consulting" for $2,500 a month while living in Queens, NY... but he's still a multimillionaire... and Daraprim (the drug he jacked the price up on) is actually more expensive now than it was when he was arrested. It costs nearly $800 per pill right now, today... when it was $13.50 per pill in 2015. A bottle of 30 of these anti-malaria pills is twenty-four thousand dollars. Google "Martin Shkreli" and/or "Daraprim".
To add a little gasoline to this fire, the "hot coffee" lawsuit 30 years ago that everyone makes fun of "because of course coffee is hot" hospitalized a 79 year old woman for over a week with third-degree burns over a large portion of her body, including her genitalia. It took two years of medical treatment before she recovered. She died 8 years after that, with (in the words of her daughter) "zero quality of life".
Not because she was driving while drinking coffee (the car was parked when the incident occurred, and she was a passenger), but because the coffee was served at 190 degrees Fahrenheit instead of 150 like every other place that served coffee. Just a few degrees below boiling.
All she asked was for them to pay her medical bills, and they made her take it to court. A jury awarded her 2.7 million dollars in punitive damages, which was calculated as two days worth of coffee sales... but the final settlement was in the thousands, the following year.
Google "Stella Liebeck".
Lest you think that's ancient history, you should know that it happened again to an 85 year old woman in June of this year.
Google "Mable Childress".
In 2019, a four year old girl received second-degree burns from a chicken nugget that fell on her leg. The case was finally settled in May of this year; McDonald's paid less than a million dollars for putting a toddler in the hospital with a Happy Meal™.
Google "Olivia Caraballo".
TL;DR: If you think that corporations don't consider their bottom lines to be worth more than people, then you're simply not paying attention.
Again, all because AI answered a question and could generate a snippit of code.
And yes, I did watch the entire video and my reply still stands. He made it sound quick and easy, but again editing, click bait title and farming for views was the goal. Why not try to do what he did if you think it was that simple? Find out yourself.
I'm not going to argue about the evils of big pharma or the currents state of corruption in the world. It is irrelevant and well past the point of the original subject.
The horse and buggy industry did absolutely suffered, as far less people are relying on horses to get around than with cars. That's not a problem either.
Likewise, the programmer will not be replaced because of AI. Maybe you could argue a low level programmer doing simple scripts, but lets be honest here. You are not going to lose programmers. They will still be relevant. Same with artist and software developers in general.
I don't think you are being consistent with your logic (or lack there of) here.
Again, imagine a piece of software or game engine, that is completely drag n drop. It generates code and software including games can be developed using the GUI rather than inputting code directly. Programmers obviously have to maintain said software. If the process of generating code is automated by the software, are you going to oppose that? Where do you draw the line for automation?
Again a lot of this AI fear mongering, strangely enough, come from media hyper sensationalizing it, as well as the usual crying foul on social media by a vocal minority. The taxi drivers certainly were not happy about the rise of Uber for example, that doesn't make them right however.
"A fool and his money are soon parted," but you're lining up to hand it to them.
You mean like ignoring my original point, and attempting to cherry-pick pieces from my expanded explanation so that I'll defend those instead of simply reiterating that AI is going to be super-bad for most of the population, and "creative" AI is only superceded by "lethal force enabled" AI in terms of the damage I'm predicting it's going to cause to our culture and livelihoods?
Not that we can do anything about it; none of us has the resources to even slow it down... as exemplified by the fact we're arguing on the Steam forums instead of counting our millions on a beach, while being served a pretty drink by a pretty girl (or boy, don't let me assume your preferences).
Far from being "well past the point of the original subject", you've highlighted the exact point of my response to your shilling of AI as the be-all end-all solution, as opposed to simply learning to RTFM.
AI is "just a tool"... but whose hands that tool is in makes a huge difference in how it is applied, and (more importantly), who it's good for. Remember, Google removed their company motto, "Don't Be Evil", back in 2018... and Microsoft has now EOL'd the product they literally advertised as "the last Windows" to force everyone to move to... the newest version of Windows. They thought they could force us to pay for it as a service, but that's just silly, we'd never do something that dumb. Don't forget to migrate your Office subscription!
Remember: If the service is free, you are the product.
Uber vs Taxis is not the same thing. Again, you're missing the sheer scale of it all.
Here, let me spoon-feed you an example. Here's a link to Johnny Cash (26 Feb, 1932 - 12 Sep, 2003) singing a cover of Aqua's "Barbie Girl", recorded earlier this year... despite not singing a note in the last 20 years:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKKGxySvaII
For a glimpse of something a little more dangerous that is now a thing, thanks to AI... check out this video of vegans being converted to carnivores against their will, even proclaiming the glory of meat and claiming they might be addicted to it... 20 minutes after stating the exact opposite. It was created with existing, "off-the-shelf" tools:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIfv22BQ1Y0
Now imagine that your favorite politician or religious leader came on TV and told you that you needed to do something, or be somewhere.
Let's take it a step further, shall we?
Think about the "Mandarin" story plot in that Avengers movie, and realize that they don't even need to pay an actor; just pick a random person, get some audio/video samples, and 20 minutes later they're claiming responsibility and listing their demands on international television as the leader of the terrorist cell that blew up a children's hospital this morning in Whosiwhatsistan... or Chicago.
And (bear with me), one more step down this slippery slope...
Think about that kid whose tip you keep stiffing that makes your Starbucks every morning on your way to the office, and what they could do with 30 different iterations of "Venti mocha vanilla latte frappe with almond milk and non-dairy whipped cream" (complete with audio and video, snatched off the security controller system while the manager is smoking a cigarette out the side door). By the time you sit down at your desk, you've been fired for making threats against your boss in a FaceTime call or Zoom meeting... or having your face beaten in with a stapler because you apparently claimed to have slept with your coworker's spouse and "made a mess" on their pillow.
Now... suddenly remember that the videos above were made with existing, off-the-shelf AI integration tools at this very early stage of AI development, and shiver from a sudden chill.
Paranoid fantasies? Maybe. I prefer "educated guesses" based on roughly 50 years of studying humans in a wide variety of classes, cultures, and lifestyles... with maybe a dash of "overactive imagination".
Hopefully, I'm not coming back to this thread in a year or three to say "I told you so"... but I'll be saving a link to it.
Just in case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqUezvo6oRA
We have been through this so many times before, the usual technophobia that appears with every new technology. The wave of fear mongering goes off the charts, and then those fears never come to pass, so it repeats with the next innovation. Rise and repeat.
What are you doing with a cell phone and the internet? Don't you know the big evil megacorp overlords are tracking you with them?! Put your money where your mouth is then, and get rid of it all... or are you just ok with whatever benefits you?
Stop making this about corporations, while I'm not the biggest fan of them, or big pharma or anything else in that category, I can at least know when the criticism is relevant and when it is not, and the not is precisely this thread and the context the subject was presented in. I'm not going to accept the shift in goal post because that's what you want to rant about.
Yes I have heard it all before, it's hilarious. I don't have a problem with that. Do you?
I suppose you also have a problem with this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J1tqAaVXo8
An artist was able to make this in blender, and use AI voices to match the voices of the original voice actors in the old cartoon its based off of.
Do you think he could have done that on his own, with no budget without AI voices?
He was able to pull this off in his free time because the AI was able to capture the exact sound and manner of speech from the original cartoons. He was attacked mercilessly by some people in Hollywood because it was too good for their liking.
What he did was awesome though, and he should not be attacked for it. Imagine you are an indie developer. Want to add voice acting to your game? Well getting good voice acting is expensive and hard to get right. But with AI, a solo dev can get good voice acting and get it right. Do you think he can compete now with bigger studios backed my a "mega corp" publisher which has the money to hire voice actors? Absolutely.
So? Just like every other technology scare in the past, learn from it. Don't believe everything you see and hear. So many things in life that you likely believe are fake or based off a false but established narrative. It did not take AI to fool people back then, nor will they need it now. Learn to be skeptical, its in your best interest anyhow.
Yes you are being paranoid but like I said it's fine to be cautious. The genie is not going back in the bottle however, you have to adapt and keep it realistic. Educated guesses should also consider the entire history of "technophobia" and how we have seen this pattern of fear as a response to new tech.
Anything can be abused, but worrying about AI being able to code, among other things, is not one of them. You can still program, you can still do art, the only difference is automation can also do it, pumping out data for us to use. Its that simple.