So because you will be able to generate game assests easily without weeks of modelling and texturing etc games will be waaaay cheaper to buy right?… Right?…
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
331 points (98.0% liked)
Games
16716 readers
484 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I know you're being sarcastic but if we actually look on the bright side, then tools like this could make indie games easier to produce. More and better indie games could in theory bring more competition to companies like EA and that could actually pressure them to make games cheaper.
I imagine a decent use for Ai is creating textures.
AI is pretty decent for general purpose mono-textures, grass, brick wall, concrete, that sort of thing. Its not very good if you want to texture something that isn't mostly flat (though some manual post processing can mean its still a time saver) and its more or less useless for objects that aren't all made out of one material.
Your examples are exactly what I was thinking of. The mundane things that everyone just grabs from a library anyways.
I'm a socialist. I understand market forces and I wish more people did. Technology itself can help the lower class. Government protection of technology (patents, copyright) will always hinder them.
lowering the barrier to entry without protecting the elite will bring about market forces necessary to defeat corporations—small sizes can move and adapt faster and try new things than those with institutional bureaucracy, who just follow the money and don't innovate. Corporations learned this, and now use government protections (copyright, patents) to prevent these new, necessary, market forces. I don't like the "economic" terms myself, but it's not rocket science that corporations benefit from cops (aka law enforcement aka laws).
We can remove the restrictions on new market forces by reducing IP protections, prevent corporations from mucking with newbies by preventing them from getting uncompetitive protections, or by stealing from corporations without regard for the law. I think we should steal more, honestly.
Stopping technology has never worked, though. I understand the plight of artists, but I'm extremely excited for the new human artists that dream up art that AI can't create because it hasn't been fathomed before.
Government protection of technology (patents, copyright) will always hinder them.
Good luck inventing or creating something that a person or corporation with more money won’t immediately copy and then push you out of the market.
Patents and copyright, as originally conceived, are the lower classes only chance to compete.
In a capitalist context, sure.
The idea of a socialist society is that there isn't a burning need to work beyond what's needed to keep life going. You can focus on art, or writing, or anything else creative. There's no particular need to legally protect what you create, because you're doing it for the pure enjoyment of creativity in the first place. Your livelihood isn't threatened by someone else copying it. If anything, you're delighted that someone else takes enjoyment from it.
And if someone wanted to feed your art to an AI model, that's fine, too. Who cares? That machine can't replace your personal creative drive. This is only a problem now because capitalism forces artists to make money off their art or do something else to make ends meet.
Then steal from those corporations. It's not hard. Copyright and patents were to benefit the public domain, not anything or anyone else. It does not do that. The public domain has done nothing but perish as more and more "protection" has been applied. Now it is all intellectual "property" to be owned and measured and controlled and regulated, unless you opt out of it with open source.
We have tools like the GPL and AGPL. Corporations hate those. Turns out when you start giving away and "taking", everyone benefits. Open source hasn't made the world worse the more it's been growing — maybe choosing to forgo most protections of copyright and IP is actually good. Maybe.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If that technology existed (it doesn't, probably won't for decades without noticeable drops in quality) then for the first several years it would be sold exclusively as a premium product subscription locking indie devs out the same way custom builds of Unity Engine or Cloud Computing Suites are.
load more comments
(6 replies)
The very core of my entertainment spending philosophy is to never buy EA products.
I mean I’ll buy their shit from time to time, but not unless it’s basically on firesale on steam
Adjusted for inflation, the money that I have spent on EA products since the Mass Effect 3 debacle, works out to about zero dollars, and zero cents.
Scorched earth.
So it's merely a buzzword then.
I believe them when they say it's the very core of their business, though. Hollow and flimsy.
Artificial, even.
The only thing that would make me not want to play games made by EA more than I already do is if they started making games with AI. Besides a select few games, most of what they make is already soulless cash grabs. This would make it literally a soulless cash grab in every way.
Also the technology they talked about is either none existent or not nearly as great as they "showed." Hence why they had to fake it.
Lmao it’s like comical how when presented with a crossroads of how to get back to printing money, EA has chosen the one path least likely to help them make any money.
They can just generate fake money with AI.
Well they are actively trying to put NFTs into their games.
EA is going to make their games even more soulless by using GenAI to appease to investors, than make games that actually appeal to their customers. Never change EA.
Trash. It’s the same on every corporation. Management gets big bunuses with this kind of hypes and they even loose billions with these . Who pays the bills? The work staff
load more comments
(1 replies)
They've been making variations on the same game for over a decade, I totally believe them when they say that a tool used to regurgitate existing content is something important to their business.
Fr. They can train it on their most recent games, don't even check the output, and we'd be in the same ballpark quality wise.
When the technology gets there, this will be amazing. I'll be able to sit down at the computer and say "make me a mystery detective RPG in the style of Sherlock Holmes but set on a cyberpunk styled city on a space station like the Citadel from Mass Effect" and I'll get just that, generated exclusively for me with a brand new story that fits the themes I asked for.
But that is gonna be a couple decades or more I expect. I dearly hope it happens quickly so I can live to see it, but it's not going to be in the next ten years, that's for damn sure.
I hate to be the dream-squasher here but the technology will quite literally never get there. You’re thinking along the same lines as Back to the future where 2015 is filled with flying cars and sky-highways.
Yeah and the only way technology like this might ever get there is with companies like Google and others gathering even more data from you. Which for most people might not be a problem but I'm guessing for people on here you'd probably not like that.
I honestly disagree. The things you're asking for contain meaning. They require an ability to grasp arbitrary levels of context. There is no way to grasp that level of context without encountering yourself within that broader context and becoming self-aware.
At that point, you might have a system that can do the things you're describing, but it would be a person. That's not really automation as much as it is birthing a brand new kind of intelligence, and it may not consent to being your servant, and it would not only be wrong to try to force it, it would be extremely dangerous.
I think for that reason there is a hard limit on automation. Some tasks are the exclusive domain of personhood, not automata.
Just be careful about asking it to create villains capable of outwitting you.
To be fair I'm not as smart as Data, so I doubt it would need that much to outwit me.
Until there's an AGI that won't happen in any meaningful way. Why? Because here's something that matches your criteria of:
a mystery detective RPG in the style of Sherlock Holmes but set on a cyberpunk styled city on a space station like the Citadel from Mass Effect
You get a text based game where everything you try to do ends up with you dead because a corporation kills you unless you discover that if you look at the ground where you start there's a penny from the year the murderer is from, and then you need to discover who's the murder (changes every time) based solely on this, because that's the sort of thing Sherlock Holmes would do. No, it's not fun, it's frustrating, it's essentially luck, if that's fun to you I have an infinitely replay able game, flip a coin and see how many times you can get heads in a row, if you get to 16 you win.
The thing is LLMs don't understand "fun", they're just auto-completes, so they will just do boring or unfair stuff. And you would need to go very deep into the specifics of your game, to the point where you're essentially programming the game, so at the end of the day it's not something an end user would use.
That's not to say there aren't interesting uses for it inside games, but the moment you can prompt an entire game that's actually fun to play on an AI, that same AI would be able to replace almost every job in the world.
Simple solution. Add "make it fun" at the end of the prompt.
/s
Now there are clowns everywhere throwing pies at each other
God damned. LLMs are just the rapture for hopeless dorks.
I can't wait to play the same AI-generated trite stories over and over again.
Until someone swaps out the training data and we get a story about and underappreciated LLM that always does its best to tell stories but no one wants to hear them anymore.
Im gonna watch harry potter but draco is macho man randy savage
I'm curious to know what happens if you ask ChatGPT to make you a text adventure based on that prompt.
Not curious enough to try it and play it myself, though.
It lacks cohesion the longer it goes on, not so much "hallucinating" as it is losing the thread, losing the plot. Internal consistency goes out the window, previously-made declarations are ignored, and established canon gets trounced upon.
But that's cuz it's not AI, it's just LLM all the way down.
just for my ego, how long does it take to lose the plot?
Depends on complexity and the number of elements to keep track of, and varies between models and people. Try it out for yourself to see! :)
Its kind of an exponential falloff, for a few lines it can follow concrete mathematical rules, for a few paragraphs it can remember basic story beats, for a few pages it can just about remember your name.
LLMs are AI, just not AGI.
It works okay for a while, but eventually it loses the plot. The storylines are usually pretty generic and washed out.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
EA execs have the dream that people will buy their artless creations.
view more: next ›