As much as I hate to admit it, non-flagrant AI use will likely become generally accepted. The truth is that there’s a lot of content in games these days that sometimes just isn’t that important to dedicate man hours to it (Ex: Generic brick texture #431). The fact that this slipped through the cracks is proof enough.
However, overly slacking to the point the end point looks obviously AI generated with just bad art. It’s pretty much akin to just delegating to some shady third party studio that works for pennies and spits out generic, low quality stuff.
Ethics and copyright, are of course, different questions entirely. (In my opinion most AI providers are committing blatant copyright infringement by using machines that crunch down copyrighted data and resell it back to you). But it seems like Silicon Valley’s marketing and public relations team managed to figure out the copyright one at this point. <>/
That part is, the next part is who is it going to replace? Which artist isnt going to be hired because they just made something with AI instead? Thats some pure creativity just lost from the world.
You are all over this thread repeating variations of the same comment which, despite wildly different responses from voters, mostly show you do not at all understand how image model training and generation work.
This sort of absolutism is dead. Do you think they should be disqualified if they Google something and the answer is in Google’s AI summary?
No? Great, now we understand your line is subjective and you get to decide what is or isn’t acceptable use of AI.
Yes? Cool. Describe how the you police this and how do you choose between fhe three games made next year that will qualify, of which 2 are furry Visual Novels made entirely of RPG maker assets and 1 is the fifty-seventh Pokemon entry.
Yawn. I dont think AI should be used at all and obviously an unintentional use of it appearing in a search result isnt the same as giving money to an AI company to generate textures derived from stolen artwork.
They could have just bought some textures from the large supply there is out there.
I do agree with you. But unfortunately making games is as much a business, as it is making art. Some things just aren’t that important to spend man hours on. Before AI, those textures would be just stock assets from stock art websites, hence the example.
Cat’s out of the bag right now. And it will only get worse, unless generative AI use is made outright illegal. Which I doubt due to moneyed interests.
As much as I hate to admit it, non-flagrant AI use will likely become generally accepted. The truth is that there’s a lot of content in games these days that sometimes just isn’t that important to dedicate man hours to it (Ex: Generic brick texture #431). The fact that this slipped through the cracks is proof enough.
However, overly slacking to the point the end point looks obviously AI generated with just bad art. It’s pretty much akin to just delegating to some shady third party studio that works for pennies and spits out generic, low quality stuff.
Ethics and copyright, are of course, different questions entirely. (In my opinion most AI providers are committing blatant copyright infringement by using machines that crunch down copyrighted data and resell it back to you). But it seems like Silicon Valley’s marketing and public relations team managed to figure out the copyright one at this point. <>/
Edit: 3 AM, and tired.
Trained on stolen art of people who actually spent time making that brick texture?
Games are an artform, AI shouldnt be used at all.
If it’s trained on licensed material, would that be acceptable?
That part is, the next part is who is it going to replace? Which artist isnt going to be hired because they just made something with AI instead? Thats some pure creativity just lost from the world.
You are all over this thread repeating variations of the same comment which, despite wildly different responses from voters, mostly show you do not at all understand how image model training and generation work.
This sort of absolutism is dead. Do you think they should be disqualified if they Google something and the answer is in Google’s AI summary?
Yawn. I dont think AI should be used at all and obviously an unintentional use of it appearing in a search result isnt the same as giving money to an AI company to generate textures derived from stolen artwork.
They could have just bought some textures from the large supply there is out there.
Nice religion.
It’s a tool. You’re attaching far too much moral virtue to something that in another breath you will describe as an autocomplete tool.
I do agree with you. But unfortunately making games is as much a business, as it is making art. Some things just aren’t that important to spend man hours on. Before AI, those textures would be just stock assets from stock art websites, hence the example.
Cat’s out of the bag right now. And it will only get worse, unless generative AI use is made outright illegal. Which I doubt due to moneyed interests.