安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
You know, I hadn't thought about it, but using AI for auto balancing difficulty on the fly could be a pretty cool concept. That way you're always challenged but never overwhelmed. Though I'm not sure if that's "AI" or just a fancy algorithm.
To court, eventually.
A lot of bigger development companies will use it to supplant human labor costs.
I'm against it, in general, being used to craft "creative" works that humans have been tasked with doing for a very long time. Artists, for example. Why? Because, throughout history, we have recognized the need for human Artists and we have found many ways to subsidize them just to preserve the occupation. We need entry-level positions for these people that AI threatens to take away.
The more it's used, the better it will get as long as humans are selecting for and training it appropriately. "Better" in that it will more accurately produce what is prompted, not necessarily "more creative." (At least, as it is atm)
It's a very big discussion. It may not have a solution that keeps all parties involved very happy. That's a problem, since the money is with "Big Corpo AI" and starving artists may not be able to afford an internet connection...
IMO - It may be that we have to protect entry-level positions, and the general workforce in some parts of the industry, from being displaced by AI through draconian measures. Those would be just saying "No" to AI involved in producing commercial creative works. There's a slippery-slope of trying to define what an AI does and can do in terms of human involvement and capability that would make piecemeal attempts at making everyone happy... worthless.
Then again, if AI could be part of game development, some small indy devs could make their dreams come true and the market could be filled with a lot of new games.
But, I've yet to see a decided advantage being provided to consumers of... anything, that "more is always better." With ease of creation comes a lot of useless and just plain bad crap... Standards get lowered, anything can end up on a marketplace, and consumer expectation is lowered just due to their experience in the marketplace full of an over-abundance of garbage. Here, while capitalism works to regulate some things, it works very poorly to regulate... junk food. Crappy games. Youtube vids about how Bigfoot's make baby Bigfeets.
Ease of creation for products in a marketplace has to have some kind of standard to hold to. Maybe we'll at least get one with some kind of workable AI regulation.
other i dont care
and i dont care if i need to be online to use AI and be forced to pay a weird subscription, so good luck for people with chatgpt and copilot and wathever google, apple and facebook offer
Honestly, the way big corpos are gobbling it up, they remind me of all the crypto-bros not long ago thinking they were gonna get rich and were being "part of the future". Very silly stuff. I've already seen some people claiming they've replaced employees with AI, and I can only imagine the quality of what they put out (or lack thereof, I guess). Some folks are just straight up praising it like it's a gift from God.
While I can see it being a useful tool, I've been burned by my industry enough to know the damage it's going to cause (or has already) from the stupidity of uppers.
Heck, you can go back to the 70s/80s and see the damage caused by the same stupidity when AutoCAD became a thing. It nearly wiped drafters out of existence, then the industry realized that engineers couldn't do their job AND use new CAD tools properly (the drafter's job). Now they have "modelers" and "CAD Specialists", but even then a lot of companies still try to dump it all on engineers, and it very, very, very rarely works out for them. But no joke, uppers think you can just push a button and everything is done.
People gonna people I guess.
Most AAA games are committee designed dross. They exist not to entertain, but to sell. Once you've bought the game it has served its purpose and the quality of the game play is of negligible import. All they need is hype.
Indie games can't buy You Tubers and advertising; they have to rely on reviews and word of mouth. Quality is the driver of their success.
So if all you want is to pay £60 for 30 minutes of spectacle, AI will deliver. If you want to play games and be entertained, AI is unlikely to be involved.
The enthusiasm some people have for "The New Thing" is always made more enthusiastic if The New Thing also has a lot of money attached to it... Even if that attachment is just implied. Witness - "EFTs" :/
If those uppers are desperate bandwagon chasers, nobody is going to convince the Board that their decisions may not have as much merit as they appear to demonstrate in their Powerpoint presentation.
AI/LLM is not what it appears to be to many people. It's the world's most accurate GIGO simulator.
/triggered
When I was a kid, I wanted to be a draftsman. I had a drafting board, T-Square, all that stuffs... (Father was an engineer, so I was encouraged) Later, I wanted to be a Medical Illustrator and loved drawing all those intricate details. (NOT for "gore" reasons, but an artistic desire to reproduce real life by hand) I also enjoyed Photography, so figured my experience developing negatives/film by hand in elementary school... would help. (I even had a bootleg copy of AutoCAD when I got a computer, just for hobby sake. Then, went on to 3D as a hobby)
lolz
So, yeah, I get where you're coming from.
But, orphaned skills and displaced workers due to Technology isn't all bad. It's progress, of a decent sort. Aside from the negative socioeconomic impact, it's generally a good thing. Then again, Luddites have their place, too - While SAG-AFTRA in the US recently made some good breakthroughs in preventing displacement and exploitation for actors, they kinda dropped the ball for some Voice-Actors. Still, progress in prevention was decent, overall. (I guess)
Things like this demonstrate what we should expect:
https://www.fastcompany.com/91009816/duolingo-contractors-humans-ai-translation-industry-disruption
AI Translation has to have good, accurate, human intervention and correction for any LLM to actually work well and those final translations still have to be reviewed, else people are going to OD on their prescription meds due to AI goofs... "Oops, you're dead" is not something we can just blame on an AI translation error - It makes people dead.
The drought of experience in this industry could be particularly harsh if nobody is encouraged to be a translator...
And, what happens to the market and consumer expectation as a result of profit-seeking motivation being much stronger than a current AI is being reliable? Who will watch the AI-Watchers? If people get paid and it takes money to talk, who is there left to voice an opinion?
Today, technology has enabled the easy and cheap distribution of electronic entertainment, like PC Games. What did that do, aside from allowing us to have near-instantaneous access to new games?
Reduced quality, in general, resulting in lower expectations being met, even by developers formerly known for producing quality products.
Frequent Exploitation of Market Mechanics - Early-Access gaming, unfinished titles, hastily pushed to publication and then the abandonment of titles, patch frenzies to make the top of marketing lists, in-game real-money marketplace exploitation worse than putting candy at the cash-register to force parents to have to deal with complaining kids...
Has any of this been "fixed" or has it just continued because the consumers do not have a strong enough voice, or desire, that can offset the steady march of progress all the way to the big pit of money being sought? :)
I'm typically a fiscal conservative, but it's very clear that good legislation is needed. The current crop of US politicians are not capable of doing that, IMO. They don't even pay anything more than lipservice to the issues of the day as it is. No reason to think they will look further than their campaign funding and personal retirement plan checkbooks.
Interesting! I ended up being a "CAD Specialist" and my first job in that field was a medical company. They worked on the tiny little bones in your ear. We had a super old school drafter when I started that still drew things by hand. Dude had serious talent/skill both for drawing and coming up with fixtures. Learned a lot from him.
I understand that some technology can make jobs redundant, but in AutoCAD's case, I'm of the firm belief that should have gone straight to the drafters, and the engineers should have kept on engineering. It would have made both their lives easier. But instead, big wig boys wanted to save money and cut all the drafters.
Fast forward 30+ years or so and CAD data has completely changed the game and there's a massive need for people with those skills. There's a huge hole between engineering and the shop, and people like me are the ones being "the bridge". It's a whole new set of skills that didn't exist back then. Yet, despite the need, people are still of the mind they can dump all that extra work on engineers.
It's not that engineers "aren't smart enough" to do the job, it's that they don't have the time, and shouldn't be expected to either. It's a two man job! Or, well, three if you count the shop guy too. And the assembly guy. And the delivery guy.
You get the idea.
If it sold, I could buy assets and If I give it the right asset packs, tools etc, I could get away with making games using AI and being free to work entirely within the realm of my own imagination, with AI bringing it to fruition. What a game I could make!
Exactly.
It's that as some perceived need for a skillset is reduced, regardless of whether that's a good idea or not, the amount of people with that skillset will also be reduced - There's no continuity of training or opportunity for it, so why bother learning how to fix a wagon-wheel?
When that "perception" turns out to be false... then what? "Oops" doesn't replace the newly rediscovered need for those skillsets.
Here, with AI, I don't think it's quite the situation of AI legitimately replacing human labor. It's not quite ready for that. But, decision makers want to be "First." They want that headstart that commands what could be a breakout application in their market.
Funnily enough, AI is supposed to be the thing that alleviates the need for humans to do drudgery-work and meaningless, difficult, unfulfilling labor when combined with advances in other areas. Here, it's being used to quickly jump the shark to replace very skilled human labor, right off the bat... Money talks.
(In some cases, it could actually be better. Diagnosing radiological exams, for instance, seems to be well-within its capabilities. But, we can't get rid of Radiologists, right? ... Right? :))
But in the more near future, theres a ton of potential in incorporating AI into NPC interactions and responses.
Indie devs specifically, could benefit greatly from pseudo-AI.