1:01 we got arlo saying steamed hams, let's go

Speciesism!

When I heard about this it sounded like project milo but real

ARLOS IS A SOAD LOVER CONFIRMED??????

Horse blinder vision. AI isn't just going to replace artists. The vast majority of office jobs will be automated in 10 to 15 years. Trying to argue to save jobs is a fools errand due to no way to realistically prevent AI usage worldwide, and is wasting time on what the actual discussion should be about, which is how we should adapt/prepare to feed people when the majority of people don't have jobs. Furthermore, the topic of "I want art vision inherently in my games" is a niche position that only art brains really care about. The average person just consumes content because they enjoy it. They don't care about who or what makes it. I could also point out that you feel like AI "regurgitates", while also deliberately mentioning that AI is trained off the majority of human expression, expressions that you admit in this video you could take numerous lifetimes to consume. In other words, you admit that AI is trained off a large amount of art that you almost definitely haven't consumed, thus making your point about not consuming AI due to it not original meaningless, as the content made by the AI is almost guarenteed to be new to you regardless. If you want to just consume stuff made exclusively by humans, just say that, and don't waste time trying to logically justify a position that's irrationally based to begin with.

This is a mindset that baffles me. Why do so many people want technological innovation to stagnate? This is a genuine question.

@@secureb00t39 ...the heck did you read my comment as exactly? What part of what I said communicates ANY MINDSET AT ALL?

@@secureb00t39 shut up bro. actually

@@secureb00t39 This isn't technological innovation. It's a destruction of the entire purpose of art.

@@secureb00t39 People don't want technological advancement to stagnate. They want technological advancements to be used to improve our lives, and make things better for the average person. Not be used to sell them more soulless bullshit and rot their fucking brains. AI art, and pretty much AI everything, will be the death of human creativity. The fact that most image search results are inundated with AI vomit should show you that, and this is only the beginning. The only mindset that is baffling is yours.

I had the same thought loll

Cerealsly

This is on the level of Elmo getting attacked. That's how serious this is.

@@istealpopularnamesforlikes3340 No matter when you introduce this technology, there will be children throwing the 'baby pictures' of it around acting like AI will never be better than it is now. And you are correct, any tool used incorrectly will produce bad output - if used correctly it can enable a singular artist with just their vision to produce what they imagine without having to be a multi-modal art/music/programming genius. And none of these artists cry about programmers when someone makes a tool that allows them to easily apply their art ability to games. If it's a solodev programmer curating and carefully selecting AI output to replace the artists all of a sudden it's a disaster.

@@mogalixir why are you trying so hard to sell this AI stuff? Sounds like you just want to benefit financially from people buying into it tbh

Generative AI is much more than converting text prompts into assets. THis is a misconception that has grown quite a bit thanks to tools like midjourney or dall-e, but that's just an application of AI, AI as a whole is much bigger and can help artists to create things by themselves.

@@luisoncpp you’re not understanding my point. I don’t doubt that to get good results out of modern generative models it takes skill, but the goal from an economic perspective is to be able to produce art like any other product and that means that the artist will become unimportant. As an artist I don’t believe that movement away from artistry is a good trend.

@@luisoncpp I don't want the help, thanks

this is not a good argument at all bc ai prompts are generated by people

@@xXDexter3000Xx Yeah that's not creating anything. Thats providing a description of what you want. If I order a meal at a restaurant I'm not gonna claim that I created that meal. That would be silly.

@@undercoverduck right but not every usecase for ai is just generating a prompt and then leaving it at that, even in this video the example provided literally only has one ai element and the rest is hand-crafted like any other video game. there are tons of arenas where ai can reduce pointless and tedious work for artists to make them realize their creations faster and u are essentially saying its inherently worthless unless they struggled pointlessly to make the same thing. its like saying ull only eat food if it was cooked over a wood-burning fire even if there are easier and faster methods to do it and it comes out tasting the same. but i was merely pointing out the flaw in the logic of saying nobody bothered to create it when in fact people did, they just used a tool u think is unacceptable arbitrarily.

@@xXDexter3000Xx It's not arbitrary lol. You chose a nice hill though.

@@undercoverduck it is absolutely arbitrary bc the entire history of art has been taking processes that require endless labor and training and streamlining them to be infinitely easier. this is just an organic extension of that but u think its unacceptable bc ur only concept of art is worshipping the artist.

This is also a problem for 99% of papers out of China.

As someone who works in the field, that's incredibly good to know.

AI is very good at doing math, computational, statistic's or other such tasks that would suck for any human to do, even if they love counting and math. But man o man, does it suck at literally anything that requires creative, critical, or on the go thinking. AI can make already good looking games look greater by upscaling the resolution so it looks better on bigger screens. However, ask it to make an image, or game, and it will looks like... well, like a computer made it, boring, bland, and completly mechanical.

Google has been messing with their algorithms for years and is definitely trying to hide using AI to influence searches. It's scary how unreliable Google and other search engines have become.

@@toumabyakuya technically, it is corruption because AI is publishing false information in the form of faulty poorly researched/vetted articles. It's corrupting the space by introducing false information and making it more difficult to find legitimate information. Is there a better word than corruption to call this deed by, sure of course there is, but corruption also does fit here even if it is just a technicality.

If AAA games die as a result of AI then I say we should go full steam with AI. AAA games are nothing but garbage nowadays. The day God of War crybaby edition stops getting made will be a happy day.

​@@HappySuperFace if anything Al isn't gonna kill off AAA as competition, it's gonna kill it from being used by the AAA studios themselves

It's Ubisoft so it's an AAAA masterpiece

​​@@HappySuperFace what?.. you reactionaries are always the same social outcasts that never leave their houses...

@@HappySuperFace what's wrong with triple a games

And the funny thing is I think I'd be even more openly embracing of that doppleganger than I am AI

Yeah we need actual proper input by artists, musicians, developers etc etc about what the proper use case of AI, not by shareholders and these big wigs.

I completely agree. There is some really cool stuff that ai can do that humans cannot, but that should be the main use case of it. I love ai, but it should not be REPLACING anyone, rather ASSISTING. Like one example I have is using ai to say a player's inputted name for example, of course only with the VA's consent. That is something that isn't really possible using the English language, or it would take way too long and even if you did it with like, sentence mixing, it would sound super out of place. (This idea mostly comes from Tetra's Trackers in 4 swords I think, where it's only Japanese and with how the language works, with only Japanese characters, different names can be pronounced.) However this definitely comes with the idea of like "oh if we're using ai for this one part we should use it for every part" which is not true. Even with ai, it's probably going to sound kinda funky, but it could create a somewhat more immersive experience where characters are calling the player out by their chosen name rather than just a placeholder that everyone uses. It's not a perfect solution, but I think that's a legitimately cool thing that realistically only ai can do, and it's a way for it to assist, and not replace.

In the words of Scott the Woz: "I'm not apposed to the future. I'm just scared sh*tless of it." (Cloud Gaming Episode)

we *gotta* get some unions in the industry

@@extremepayne Unions won't solve anything though. All it will do is cause companies to ship jobs to overseas or embrace AI even faster.

Lmaoo literally! The irony is insane

Some of the most evil things are literally right on the nose x(

mouthful

A boring and evil modern dystopia

It’s not that deep

Agreed. Replayed that section multiple times for others to enjoy the *disgruntled Arlo noises* along with me, lol.

I'm here for the Raycon subplot personally

How is technological advancement a "gimmick"? Conversations can now feel much more realistic. Luddittes may complain but technology marches on.

​@@neo-didact9285a gimmick is when one element of a work (in this case video games) is it's main focus and used to an extreme extent. It's a feature to grab attention. Just because ai as a whole is a technological advancement doesn't mean it wasn't a gimmick for this game, I don't know why you're acting as if they are polar opposite ideas.

​@@neo-didact9285it's realistic to hear actual dialogue written by actual people, not amalgamations of phrases that are prompted by certain words.

​@@lukebytes5366Yeah, because you surely remember half of NPC dialogues in videogames. Besides, the Matrix demo already shown how positive AI can be if we'll implemented, giving you the possibility to literally have an actual conversation with any NPC.

Exactly. I don't get why anyone would want to interact with AI generated characters. It's meaningless by definition. AI generated art has nothing to say, nothing to convey

>Speaking as a game designer myself, I hate the idea of AI NPCs because it offers me little to no creative control over what NPCs in my games say. Depends on what you are using the AI for. If it's to provide dialog trees you maintain full control, you just have to curate them. If it's to create real-time responses, that's a lot trickier, but depending on how well developed the technology is you should be able to provide a lot of constraints. Of course the more you can do with something the more ways people can work around whatever constraints you can think of. It's a lot more work to make something with infinite variability act the way you want than it is to make a doll speak a pre-recorded line and wave its hand when you pull a string.

Here's another game designer with you who Still Keeps the Old Ways. Well said.

What makes you think using AI NPCs means you have no creative control over them? You don't think they're just going to attach gpt4 to the npcs and leave it at that, do you?

​@jaredf6205 not only that, but it's incredibly short sighted to think that ai won't develop to a point where it's able to recognize thematic elements of a story and respond with intention. Everyone always seems to react to the ai of today and not the ai of tomorrow.

they aren't forcing you to use it if you want to do it your way then do it

They just want the money you could spend on x thing.

That is not necessarily the case. With hardware advancements, it can be possible to have the whole AI system run on the local machine without needing to connect to anything. Now, if the big corporations will do that over having another tool to hold games hostage is a whole different story. Indies, on the other hand, may be able to use the tech that way once it becomes more easily available.

@@VixYW this would probably require dedicated AI cores more than likely, yeah?

It is indeed an obnoxious trend. It comes down to control and keeping you in a position where they can sell you microtransactions, season passes, etc.

That's why central servers that host AI tools need to be socialized and made public

Agreed

what value do you offer? I don't see the issue with purging your kind. Writing is not some special skill. Anyone can do it.

​@@HappySuperFace Then write a book.

@@HappySuperFace You can't just say "writing is not a special skill" and not explain yourself in fewer than 3 paragraphs.

@@HappySuperFace I’m going to assume that you’re trolling. I refuse to believe you’re so dense that you can’t see the inherent value in writing.

@@paulustrucenus sure lol I'll prompt an AI to do just that.

It's not about art at all. It's about entertainment.

Not "free labor", just (nearly) free results. Artists will not receive the commissions in the first place.

The people excited for TV are just excited to never pay radio hosts again. The people excited for cars are just excited to never pay carriage drivers again. Etc etc

​@@richardmurray9026 The exemole you list are all basically "new human work replaces human work" but with AI it's just AI replacing human work, soulless art imitating real art and put countless people out of work.

​@@jaredf6205entertainment is art. You cannot separate them

after stealing the work of the artists whos job youre replacing

If you familiarize yourself with the research then you will get that it's not on purpose. It's just the natural course of development to train on the data we have. I bet soon enough, all labor can go. And those of us who will keep doing our thing, will do it not because we have to, but because we want to

@@rasuru_dev lol

@@weeklystruggle4205 Why not? All it takes is a single mild increase in reasoning capabilities. I am sure researchers and companies are going to figure it out

@@weeklystruggle4205 Like, I would say most people agree that it will happen eventually. Even before ChatGPT, people said it may happen, maybe in centuries. But now people think it will happen earlier, which makes sense. It's only a matter of time

I would like a label like this so I can avoid AI.

i hate that this shit is called AI when theres nothing intelligent about it. Its just generative algorithms no? Algorithms! Algorithms! Algorithms!

"No beefed up algorithm was used to replace jobs to make this!"

"Truck Driver Cruelty Free" XD;;;

@@0326dp yeah you’re completely right. it shouldn’t be called like this. there is really nothing inteligent about it. just a huge amount of data.

Ceos are probably just scared themselves. who needs industries if everyone could just type in some prompts, and get a movie/video game out if it?

It’s called a dao, I think

“New AI CEO fires all workers and replaces them with more AI to save cost”

I thought putting AI in positions of power was the ONE thing we didn't want to do.

In my project management course, I learned that there's a fund set aside for emergencies or if the project doesn't go so well. Turns out, if the project is successful, many in upper management just pocket that money rather than reinvesting it in the company or the staff. This goes completely against my ethics course I took earlier and my business sense. Imagine if employees were being paid 2 or three times market price. They would be so happy and their company loyalty and productivity would be sky high. Or, you can higher excess staff with that money and train them for emergency cases. You can invest more into employ training. You can retain expert talent longer! You can reinvest in your community doing societal marketing in the process. You can build a stronger and better company. The goal of a business shouldn't be "maximum money for owners". It should be "more net income than expenses." And net income doesn't have to be more than middle class or upper middle class by Western living standards. Anything beyond that is greed. For people who are all about investments and returns, they seem to invest remarkably little in the places where it matters the most.

exactly you got it.

Yeah... honestly its gonna lead to new depressions and economic collapses, maybe even wars as humanity tears itself apart from the ensuing identity crisis. Considering that Star trek went through two big conflicts, the eugenics war and 3rd world war, and came so close to where everyone realized that they HAD no other choice but up! We have yet to reach that point, and I fear that most of us won't live to see that light at the end of this hellhole of a dark tunnel. Whatever the events that will happen in the future. Though I pray that Ai does eventually fail, like all the other attempts by the rich to get richer, like Crypto and NFT's.

I believe corporations at some point will realize that the economy cannot function without people who exist in the middle/lower class And thank goodness, now through the usage of internet we can have a bigger impact on companies by boycotting them So if consumers, which is what we are to them at the end of the day, stop actively supporting them and giving them profit, they will be forced into changing their ways We have seen that happen before and trust me, most people don't wish to support businesses that use AI instead of people

@@His_Princess619 Agreed! They will realize that NOTHING can replace true human ingenuity!

@@His_Princess619 the fact is that consumers will prefer ai art over artists. people really do not care enough to boycott these companies for using ai. people consume and if that company uses ai correctly and its executed well then people will be happy with it and not care. artists and voice actors are the first to be replaced like how weavers were replaced with machinery, this is the march of technological advancement and consumers mostly can not care unless the product their receiving is of poor quality. most people just do not care I would prefer that companies and individuals will use ai as a tool so at least these people will at least have a job instead of being replaced but it will this replacement will eventually happen and people can not care any less.

@@handsomeboi3767 The technology we're creating is making humanity less important overall.

really looking forward to infinite (actually) AI-gen'd B3313 sequel in a few years personally

But ai and ai art don't come from or exist in a vacuum, ai is made by humans, by definition it is human expression.

@@Quinhala11 Did you even think about that for a second? Art is made by an artist. Would you call someone that made “art” using AI an artist just because they were the ones that “told” the machine what to do? That would be the same as paying an actual artist to do a commission for you and then calling yourself an artist just because you were the one that told the actual artist what to do. In other words, calling yourself an artist just because you “guided” the process doesn't make any logical sense and isn't even reasonable. And if you're not an artist, what you “made” isn't art either. It's just as stupid as using a roomba and then saying that you were the one that cleaned the floor because you were the one that turned the machine on.

@@ramon_rcg I think you're the one who didn't think for a second actually. Yes, if you comissioned an artist to draw something for you you're an artist. You literally described art as human expression and, sure, you might have not actually grabbed a pen and drawn it but that art would literally have not existed if it weren't for you and your want to express your ideas. You do have a part in the artistry of the comission your order. That's like saying a blind writer isn't a writer because he asked someone else to type a script for him, they are sharing the artistry with someone else but they still have part in it. If you used a roomba to clean the floor then you used the roomba to clean the floor, you're acting like using stuff outside of your own bodily functions to do things takes all the validity from doing those things. Do you think people can't say they cleaned the floor unless they use their own tongue and spit? Do you think digital art is lesser than traditional art?

@@Quinhala11 What you're doing is called a premise error. I never said one can't use external tools to create art. I myself create both traditional and digital art, using both pencil and a drawing tablet. My point was: there's a huge difference between using an external tool and delegating the job to someone else. One thing is me using a drawing tablet to create art. Another thing very different is me paying someone else to make art for me and then saying I'm the one that made that art. One thing is me holding a vacuum cleaner with my own hands and cleaning my room with it. Another thing very different is me setting up an automated robot to do it all for me and then saying I'm the one who cleaned the room. It's the same as if I payed someone else to clean my house for me and then saying I'm the one that cleaned it just because I told the person to do it and payed for it. It's just as stupid as a boss taking credit for an employee work, as if they had done it themselves, just because they were the ones who asked their employee to do it. When you delegate a job to someone else, be it a chore, an art or whatever else, you might have contractual rights to it and be its "owner" (like you have the rights to use a comissioned artwork or an employee work), but that doesn't change the fact you're not the one actually making it. When you delegate the making of an art to an AI, you're not the one creating it. You're not an artist. You're just an "employer". If you are not creating art, you are not an artist. If the product is made by a soulless machine, it isn't art either. As Arlo put it, it's a "facsimile of art". PS: The fact you maliciously tried to completely change what I said makes it clear you're not interested in having this discussion in good faith. That being said, I'm not going to reply to you anymore. Cheers.

@@ramon_rcg The first thing you said in your first reply to me was "Did you even think about that for a second?", yet i'm the one "clearly not interested in having this discussion in good faith"? If you want to be a coward and flee from this discussion do that, don't put words in my mouth. "You maliciously tried to completely change what I said" I genuinely have no idea where that came from. I think i made myself pretty clear in my first comment but i'll repeat my point. You literally described art as human expression, and if I paid someone on twitter to draw an original design i imagined who's expressing themselves? The actual execution is part of the art, yes, but so is the conception, without anyone to conceive it it literally wouldn't exist. If you paid someone to clean your house then you paid someone to clean your house. The person who cleaned your house didn't volunteer themselves to do it, they weren't obligated to do it by law, you paid them to do it. The house would not be cleaned if you didn't pay them do clean it. Yes, there's an obvious difference of direct involvement, and you' are allowed to think AI art is lazy and superficial just like how many traditional artists think digital art is lazy and superficial, but don't act like the God of what objectively should and should not be considered art. AI art isn't made by a soulless machine, it's made by an artist using a "soulless machine". AI is a tool just like any other.

real people better up their game then.

you're still missing the worst part. even the best ai will have stilted inhuman behavior, it inherently lacks real understanding and empathy. growing up with ai relationships will severely stunt their mental and social development. like being raised by dogs. even if they do talk to real people, they'll struggle with social cues and expressing emotions. Which can create a feedback loop that pushes them back to the ai.

Tell the people to stop being worst then a malfunctioning roomba, half the people you meet arent worth the time or cant give you a moment.

Workers are owed compensation for their work. They are not owed work.

How do they not see how much they'd save by replacing the CEO with AI instead??

@@AnotherCraig Because you wouldn't actually be replacing the CEO. Someone would have to operate that AI, which would then by default be the actual CEO.

​@@AnotherCraigFunny you say that, a Chinese gaming company did exactly that and reported record profits. No one really is safe

@@Dharengo Humans need work, even if we could sit around and do nothing all day, most people wouldn’t be happy with that. The fact that so many people are willing to put their passion and art into projects but it’s being replaced by a computer who will do a more soulless job is the problem. In fact really people are owed work. Society should accommodate people’s skills instead of ignoring them and getting richer quicker

Ai fill in photoshop is an actual legitimate and interesting use for the technology. It’s pretty much the only decent use I can recall so far (as of wiriting). I still hate how the underlying tool is trained though, being based on adobes entire stock photo library against stock photographers wills.

I agree with the other commenter, that's one of the few times I am willing to accept AI use because it profits the artist and you need someone trained in using art software to implement it, meaning that's a job saved. Adobe isn't a perfect company but they know they need us creatives to stay alive

Back in the 90s it was a very big deal when Disney began using cg to reduce the labor of making background characters. 3D animation cuts down on the labor of animation significantly. AI like it or not is probably going to be used in a similar manner, and in 20 or 30 years it will likely be thought of as completely normal for someone to supplement their work with AI tools. That is why I say, you are going to have to go back to physical media to avoid AI. As of now it looks like it will be incorporated into a lot of tool suites. Hopefully the "bad ai" phase is shorter than the bad cg phase.

@@Furluge If you say so; I'll leave this comment here and see. (Warning: Opinions and bias) I hope not, because ai art really just...no matter it's qualities, typing in prompts and poof an image- eats away at my ability to enjoy it because there's nothing there. I really tried enjoying this; I stayed primarily middle, and browsed pro-ai stuff. I've generated Ai art to entertain myself. Almost all generative AI is currently in a 'for profit' mindset, and I've actively learned better prompting and delving deeper into it. But. Effectively...there's nothing there to save and like/favorite/subscribe to; there's nothing that really...ah. >-< Nothing which really makes me look for more then a few seconds. Even the super amazing ai's (Which I'll credit) with edits for fixes are incredibly lifeless. There really isn't anything new being created, but if an AI could live a human life, I think it could make human art.

Exactly.

Preach my brother, preach!

Couldn't agree more.

🙌

games are an art form but people should be allowed to use ai if they want to imagine Minecraft but with ai elements it would but the mystery back in the game not knowing what comes out at night

And should we look down on a photographer who spends 2 hours taking photos of a sunrise, instead of 'spending 15 minutes' to paint it in water color?

@@OntheOtherHandVideos the sunrise was already there.

@@fishyfishyfishy500akabs8 And yet we are not talking about the subject of an artistic expression's existence, we are talking about the merit and validity of various methods and tools one can use to represent and depict said subject. So your comment doesn't really add to the conversation.

@@OntheOtherHandVideos”AI Art” is argued to be a more “efficient” way of creating visual art, with less effort and better results. It lacks the emotional journey associated with creating art, but it can produce visually striking media nonetheless. However the commenter is suggesting that to actually get worthwhile results, you would need to invest a similar amount of time as actually learning the skill you are trying to imitate. They see this as silly, because unless you’re a very specific type of person this is less intuitive and definitely less gratifying than learning and applying the skill in question.

@@HyperkalemiaSineWave Well of course some tools are 'more efficient' at certain tasks - that's why it's a tool. A hammer is more efficient at pounding in nails than a screw driver, and a screw driver is more efficient at using screw than a hammer is. We've had all sorts of digital tools for ages - cameras and photography aren't seen to "lacks the emotional journey associated with" landscape portrait painting, yet it is still "art" - it's just a tool that is better used for some projects. Every medium and tool has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and every tool that makes art creation easier raises the skill ceiling and make it easier for more people to participate in said art form.

Trail without well written npc would be pretty soulless, I can believe them doing the ai npc well but that would be because they going to have the writer thought out of every detail for the npc from what they know, what they don't know, their speech pattern, their logic pattern that it actually be harder than just writing few simple line that allude to the next scene. Ironically making high effort ai npc would be too much work and time consuming to do.

A Google search only pulls already existing websites that match the search query while chat gpt has to generate its output almost from scratch . One does more work than the other so of course it's gonna require more energy. What's the point here?

​@@RaiRai214the point here is that the use of AI shouldn't be normalized like Google searches are nowadays

​@@GCX050 I'd use Chat GPT less if Google was more reliable. Depending on the topic, sometimes its much easier to get a streamlined answer from GPT than it is to dig through Google's SEO slop.

Agreed! The energy costs ALONE need to be addressed. Like shutting down AI since our current energy grids can't function with them pulling that much power! Seriously it's a case of one little thing by some idiot being dragged out by the mobs of people who now are in a powerless city. That's gonna be scary, though I do hope that the companies behind power see that they should cut the lines to these ai users as the needs of the many outweigh the few. Might not be appropriate to use, but remember we have over 8 billion people on this planet, we can't afford to lose vast numbers of that by overtaxing our power!

@@shcdemolisher or just adopt more efficient, clean power generating methods like nuclear

AI is scary, regardless of year.

The truth becomes increasingly blurred with AI

not just america. 2024 is a big election year. 64 countries holding elections (plus the european union election). and this is the year ai gets used as a testing ground to spread disinformation.

youre so right and i hate it.

No more scary than a world where all the media corporations and celebrities get to influence the unthinking masses into voting for a literal zombie of a president

Is it though? It’s only really good if you can provoke something funny out of it; as the technology improves you won’t be able to do that so it’ll just be talking to variations of chat gpt instead of realized characters

@@ShyBug42 That's what Suck Up is. It's just a goofy game where you play as a vampire and try to get allowed into ChatGPT's home. It isn't anything serious, it's just a goofy 1-2 hour romp. And if you're worried about the AI getting too advanced, you can do what Cibles did when she made the Undertale and Deltarune AI mods and use a really outdated stupid AI

Agreed. People viewing AI as a replacement for things is the problem, it’s a new developing tool not an all-in-one new reality

But here's the thing, anything you do with ai you need to put as much or more effort into it as you would without the AI ... you write that fleshed out personality, you put as much effort into the backstory as you would a normal game, and you do more, you have to think about topics any player might think of to flesh out that backstory. Also consider how the NPC should address anachronisms, like how a beggar in a medieval town would respond to a question about smart phones, feed all of that into the AI, then test,test test test ...

@@veggiet2009 Effort doesn't equate to creativity.

And the fans of AI are conflating "anti-inovation" with "anti-corporate-dystopia." These new technologies are amazing, but they won't benefit normal people as long as they are controlled by a few rich people. It's supposed to be a good thing when robots take our jobs, so we are free to enjoy life and create art for fun. But it doesn't work that way if we are still expected to work to survive. If AI becomes advanced enough to take millions of jobs, our entire economy will need to fundamentally change, whether we want it to or not.

Square Enix and Ubisoft love hopping in on the next big technological fad (NFTs)

Square Enix in particular is unsurprising given how hard they pushed NFTs for a bit.

The companies that hate the workers, what a surprise.

Every game uses ai. Sorry to break it to you. So new ai is going to be used in games

@@fillerbunnyninjashark271 everyone involved in this conversation is using "AI" as a shorthand for generative AI. we know most games have AI already.

That's why I love JRPGs, because they let me visit fantastical worlds away from the regular world, as opposed to many of the western games.

I’ve been saying this for years. I don’t want games that look like real life either. I want games with inventive and artist worlds that rely on the creative vision of a team of artists. I don’t want a game that has graphics that basically just feel like watching a movie. I know it’s not a common opinion, but tbh I already don’t even enjoy a lot of realistic games that are out now and they’re only going to keep looking more and more realistic. I find it uncanny too.

weird argument, games are a broad genre and theres different types of games. Some games tend to try emulate real life because thats their goal but others tend to do something else. say that games "were much better when they felt like games instead of attempting to be like real life." is just really ignorant and dumb. also "my video games" you're not the only one who plays video games

Gabe Newell made a similar point in the "Half-Life: 25th Anniversary Documentary" video, where he mentioned people in the design room would make a comment about something not being 'realistic', and he would point out why is that interesting though; one wants to play games to have fun, not worry about realism. Getting games to be as realistic as possible thankfully seems to primarily be a thing done by AAA companies, whereas Indie Devs still mostly stick to fantasy & more adventurous concepts, and make games with a creative art direction that allows the game to age well even a decade from release. I love going back to games like BioShock, Hollow Knight & Portal 2 because despite their age they still hold up excellently in big part to their art direction & well-written worlds & characters.

Fantasy and realism aren't mutually exclusive, and they overlap. Life and fun aren't mutually exclusive, and they overlap. Is it not reasonable to want to put the fun parts of real life in a videogame within some contexts? I mean, there's a whole genre of videogame called "Simulation". Simulation implies a real life counterpart, some form of realism in it. Plane simulators can be really realistic sometimes but still have wimsy. City builders too... Heck, there are fun videogames about... Working a retail job. They manage to grab what's fun from the realistic and run with it.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

ask Jerma, he could probably tell you how a rock tastes

or just lick a rock 👀

But a geologist wouldn't have first hand experience of what it's like. Ask Jerma985, he's eaten a smokey granite.

Hopefully they won't kill the whole idea with their bad practices before someone uses it the right way to make something actually good...

I find it horrifically Ironic that they're becoming the watchdogs enemys

@@kdoesthings2548 If you look around, you'll find that irony in most companies that create art and entertainment. The writers are telling stories for common workers, and the company doesn't care, as long as they still profit.

I can get behind that.

If you're having to "trick" it then aren't you going out of your way to make it unimmersive? Like if you're just asking normal things in-character it's very different then asking random oddball things specifically to break the ai.

@@nephatrine I guess that’s fair but I’ve messed around with chatGTP before and it’s not that hard to get it confused. There is the argument that “the technology will get better with time” but I personally don’t think it could ever get better than an actual writer so why even mess with AI.

@@nephatrine the thing is that's completely unpredictable, you could totally say something that makes sense to you but the developers didn't account for when testing the npc and it could break apart instantly

@@captainjet-pack With near limitless access to stories, themes, human history, scientific discoveries, real world events, media ratings and reviews, and everything else that can be found online, I have a felling that there will be a time where AI has the potential to be better than like 90% of writers.

@@BadMelody.All the ai is doing is taking from competent writers to do so, it’d be the most bland and normal writer on the planet, it wouldn’t be able to innovate or do anything new, just pull from existing content. I personally think that sounds boring as hell and indescribably lame. Ai should be a tool and that’s about all it should be.

Right, which begs the question of why people are so upset about the prospect of not being able to work for these specific companies in the first place. Who really wants to work on the assembly line for Ubischlock or EA anyway?

@@deedoubs People gotta pay their bills. The current job market is decent in terms of unemployment, I think it was just under 3% last i checked, however it is taking about twice as long for unemployed people to get hired. When you combine that with increased cost of housing and food, that becomes pretty stressful. Especially in america where you also dont have insurance without fulltime employment. I know you were probably just goofing, but just in case

Precisely. I remember having a similar debate years ago with an "artist" claiming that digital art was not real art because it wasn't done with traditional instruments and canvases. When i asked him , "if someone were to draw the exact same image using both, which would be better?" I'm not kidding you, his response was, "the traditional way because it takes longer to make". Absolutely braindead

@@kit8142 Just for the record I'm an artist and against AI art, but that guy was an idiot. That's like saying painting is art but sculpting isn't. They're just two different mediums. I prefer traditional personally, but that doesn't mean digital isn't art.

No your right, the whole AI craze is more a marketing tactic rather than actual progress in technology and application.

you're not derogatory, you're just not an idiot

You're nuts. It's neat technology that responds to specific things you do. Way to generalize

Suddenly, it’s obvious that this shit is perpetuated by investors! WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM NFTS!? WELCOME TO THE AGE OF NOT IDIOTS

@@Jeanssj98 I’ll take bad writing from a human over good writing from an AI any day

The companies are hemorraging money because their writers and directors keep jamming their divisive politics into entertainment products and HR keeps hiring barely competent people to maintain the IP they bought at a high price.

​@@mogalixir Reread what I wrote. Generative Ai companies are hemorrhaging money.

@@mogalixir ... they're talking about AI companies why are you talking about any of that? They're saying that the companies running giant AI setups are hemorrhaging money because surprise surprise, these things are really hard to run, take a lot of power and computers, and are being thrown into the world to be used by literally anyone and people are just throwing really trivial requests at it. The problem with companies using AI to write movies isn't that the movies are too 'wOkE,' that's just you being an idiot

@@mogalixir you are talking about an entirely different subject you seem to know nothing about. lets try to stay on topic

Regulations would just artificially hold back everyone If the quality of the product does indeed decrease because of ai, and I do think it will, the market will take notice, people will just stop buying these games. And if they don't? Honestly, we have it coming at that point

This is the only good point brought up in this whole conversation. Games as a service is already a massive issue in the industry, we don't need another branch of it breaking our game because it can't communicate with the necessary servers

Hardware can go into the direction of the whole system working on a local machine tho. That being said, big companies will probably avoid that so they can keep their games hostage. However, indies are a whole different story.

@@VixYW considering the energy requirements for the processor to go through constant queries, we'd need a breakthrough in multiple fields just to create the hardware that can handle them well enough to run locally without impacting performance (or causing a fire) while also being commercially viable. That still sounds a few decades away

@@RaiRai214 True, but they said something similar about generative AI in general. I'd say they can accomplish it in a single decade or less, unless we run out of materials for chip production, which could very well happen in the near future.

I can’t imagine AI games being worth preserving. But who knows?

i don't get why AAA games don't do that you tell the player to input a name, and asign it to a variable, so i'll use "player_name" then when you use a print command to get an npc to speak to the player they can just tell it to stop using the normal words and then place "player_name" there, then tell it to continue saying the words you type into the text prompt it's not really that hard demonstration in python (cause it's the only one i know the names for the commands): player_name = input(" please input player name") print("hey", player_name, "how are you?")

oh yeah the demonstration at the bottom is probably better then the actual explanation

AI might let someone with a CS degree express themselves in art. Oh no! Stop that nerd!

AI is intended to take over any job that requires a human being to be hired and paid, plain and simple.

​@@mogalixirActually it won't, since they will never create art with AI.

Yep. Buttmad artists.

That's what I've heard too - that all of our technology was supposed to take over the mundane, the things people don't like to do. Now it's taking over things people actually like doing. One of our local stores has a cashier that likes to draw stuff in his free time, and he's pretty good at it. His chances of getting a job when he graduates is dropping like a stone.

Thanks for saying this, I feel the exact same with everyone saying that AI dialogue would make stuff better, to me the infinite possibility of dialogue becomes meaningless as there's quite simply no meaning or reason behind their words, same as why we don't think of Siri as a developed character of our phones And was thinking I was just getting out of touch

creating enemy types in real time could be good for an evolving enemy faction though imagine a game with a body horror enemy faction like the flood necromorphs the infested and so on that evolve over time like cdda zombies and there are branching paths of evolution that grow stronger and more bizarre as the game go's on

It's not really a lie, if they will guarantee it will be true. That makes it a threat.

Think of it like original works and fanfictions. Each fanfiction is unique, with some common ground with the original work, if it didn't it'd be an entire original work itself. You can't get a complete collective experience benefit if each member of the audience was given a fanfiction to read each... And some will certainly be better quality than others, by a large margin, even... But something is still there! There's still something to bond over. Baldur's Gate 3 is a monstrously huge game and two players could realistically have experienced swathes of dialogue and dozens of encounters the other has no idea about and they'd not only still have SOME shared experiences, but they'd also APPRECIATE the differences in their experience. It's not a mutually exclusive thing. On your second point I agree completely though. More automation should mean more freedom, not less. Any strive towards less people being needed means everyone should get more reward for doing less. Not just the corporate overlords. Universal Basic Income should become a thing yesterday.

There should be no surprise that when the Labor force swells, pay decreases, no AI necessary. Focus on why that is so much bigger than it was in the 60’s to solve the problem.

I'm confused with the kickstarter ad scenario, just trying to work out why you as a video editor had to voice act for the ad and it wasn't the responsibility of the people who ran the kickstarter to source and provide this? Did you take on that responsibility on your own terms and then went to AI because you couldn't deliver the promised product? I think this is the point of the slow creep that AI does to kill jobs, it's not on you wanting to get a job or having that edge, but as someone who's been a video editor for years it just suggests you are accepting less than what the job is worth whilst providing too much yourself that it just becomes worse for everyone, and allowing AI to swoop in and devalue the job when it didn't need to I know you are just starting your edit journey, but companies will pay for stuff if they deem it worth it to them, you don't have to panic and run to a cheap AI as a first response at the worst case, typically you add the cost as part of your bill and explain that you had to pay for a voice actor with their approval where you would have figured out that they needed one before hand, or you suggest that it would better with one and ask if they are willing to pay for one So you bake it in your cost as you would for music licenses and other licenses etc or they would just pay for it themselves for you to use as an asset Unless you were the one to suggest "yeah I can voice act and do your voiceover" knowing you didn't have the capability to do so, as in over promise and under deliver, setting yourself up to fail and move to the cheapest option out of necessity You could have gone to them saying "you wanted a voiceover, do you have that asset to provide? if not I've found a voice actor, it will cost this much, do you want to pay this?" Even if they decide to go to an AI or you suggest you can do one yourself, that is for the company to decide not typically a freelance video editor as part of being paid as an editor Unless they are coming to you for your expertise as a video creator as a whole and expecting you to source it all, in which you can tell them what they need to buy or provide to get the video done, in which it could easily be within your agreed pay to get a real voice actor if needs be or your choice to go "I can do it cheaper with AI so your cost will be cheaper" So in which the company will decide "we're fine with the cheap cost of going to you and the choice of using AI" or not if they'd rather use a real person No hate or anything, I just dislike the idea that the companies can offset their costs because of people's good will and naivety being new in the field The budget for a video isn't worked out on what your pay as an editor is, your pay as an editor should be separate to the companies budget of the job, unless you agree otherwise with them saying along the lines of "give me your budget for the video and I'll buy/provide everything to make it work within that budget along with my cost as an editor"

@@rachele183 oh yeah no, in this case I was commissioned to create the whole video. I mostly came up with the concept, shot the video, edited it, delivered. The kickstarter card game was a client, and it’s impossible for a client to provide assets that aren’t already made by their official business. Especially since it’s a Kickstarter, the contract and pay is… shakey. It was definitely not in the budget to spend money on a person to voice act, I’m positive we would’ve ended up in the red, if we aren’t already. But that’s also on my for signing a bad deal 😂 My point is, not everyone hates Ai. Most people don’t really give it a second thought. Half of the clients I work with find Ai integration to be a positive thing, since it’s a tech buzzword. I do sports for a local university, and I use a custom ChatGPT bot to scrape images I provide to gather the stats and put them into an excel file so I can automate the process of making stat cards. Is that more fine? In that case, my client was concerned I had too many stats to create, and I told them “don’t worry about it, I use Ai to automate the process” “Woooaaaahhh” That insured that not only am I a problem solver, but I’m also keeping up with rapid change, and that significantly increases my likelihood of being hired again, even for another project. I guess my point is, most clients have incredibly limited budgets. We’re not making movies here, we’re trying to stick within what we can afford. If I’m using Ai and cost $XXX and someone who’s not using Ai costs $XXXX, I can get more jobs that I can complete at a quicker pace. P.S. On a personal note, I’m highly focused on not creating garbage. Nothing I make will be more “meh” because I used Ai.

It's the government's job to care for the people they represent.

@@mogalixir Agreed. But assuming we can't expect them to do that quickly enough, how do we cope with AI?

​@@NickonPlanetRipple hurting their profit and their image is the answer in my opinion When people talk against this and actually start not giving profit and not supporting companies like Ubisoft and business that replaced people with AI, it will start bothering them Most people aren't fond of AI, journalists could interview those who lost their jobs because of AI, they could even create videos about this The goal would be to show the consequences of supporting those who value AI and profit more than people and I think it would have an impact

Labor has to end. If it can be automated, we have no reason to do it. That's very liberating. And nothing will stop us from doing art

@@rasuru_dev Except for the fact that we'll be starving because we can't afford to buy food after the AI took our job.

The problem is that AI is “good enough” for ceos. We need to wait for the consumers to realize and wake up. Nobody wants to pay for something that didnt cost the company anything.

@@weeklystruggle4205 yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup

The reason the executives are looking at AI is because they are having to cut costs anyway. Entertainment in general is in a very rocky spot from a profitability angle. Lots of major game companies have been delivering flop after flop. Same for cinema. Online blogs have lost most of their ad revenue and that has hit KZfaq to a large extent as well. Executives turning to AI isn't a get rich quick scheme it's an "Oh God I hope I can keep this thing solvent" scheme.

This is the main argument against AI imo, the fact that it outright strips bargaining power away from workers, who already are mistreated and undervalued to begin with.

@@Bubble-Foam This is why I see very little to worry about. Companies that try to treat AI like a substitute for real writing are going to meet a rude awakening and go under.

The humans are making the slop you complain about now.

We really don't appreciate the hard working, insanely talented scribes that bring print media to life. I'd hate to see more slop produced by the literary publishing industry just because they wanted to cut down on human involvement in the production process.

​@rockoman100 This is a faulty comparison, as the major issue with "AI Art" is the creative process. Media isn't just another arbitrary task to automate in the name of progress, it's a form of human expression.

Oh relax. Both will happen.

Seems pretty gross of you to place more importance on one person's job then another persons. Can you give an example of a "fulfilling career" and a "job nobody wants to do"?

From the perspective of a CEO, paying employees to make things _is_ a menial job no one wants to do.

@@Fralexion Right, that's kind of my point. All work is menial work to someone. When you say "oh but this person is an artist... I care about artists... I thought this technology would just make people I don't care about unemployed" you aren't actually expressing anything of merit.

@@deedoubs generally, when I see the OP's sentiment expressed, it's coupled with the notion of reaching a point of technological advancement that makes it feasible to institute some sort of universal basic income so people can focus on doing the jobs they personally find fullfilling while machines handle other work on their behalf, rather than machines being mostly owned by companies to generate excessive profit with fewer employees.

please keep making art. dont let this destroy your passion!

Machine-learning algorithms are kind of at a point of diminishing returns. Even with the whole of the internet to train on, they can't advance much further without way more training data, and the more garbage they slop onto the web, the more inbred the algorithms get as they train on their own outputs. It's not sustainable.

@@Fralexion I honestly cant wait to see AI being trained on itself and totally become inbred!

Different programmers want to work on different challenges. I don't particularly love working with AI because it's an inscrutable black box myself.

Sometimes I love being creative with programming. I will put AI away. Other times I have a larger creative goal and programming can become more of a means rather than an end. In that case AI's help is very nice. See it no different from using a third party library. So basically good for offloading tasks that don't interest me

@@rasuru_dev that's a valid point tbh. I prefer to have a lot of control over my code so I don't end up using many libraries. It's part of the reason I'm making my own game engine for my game instead of using a premade one.

@@Octal_Covers Based

THANK YOU! At my college they've recently changed our CSE program to be centered on learning to use AI tools. Most of my classmates in my Python class barely even know what a function is, let alone how to implement one without just copy-pasting from chatgpt. This method of "learning" is infuriating because it's not making us better at programming, it's just making us more dependant on the AI and killing any desire to actually learn a creative skill. I wish more people had your mindset instead of the 'adapt or die' rhetoric we're being fed.

I can't help but think like, was there really nobody passionate about those other jobs? There had to have been at least a few

@@dragonicbladex7574 It wasn't my intention to suggest there aren't plenty of other jobs people can be passionate about. My mother, for instance, was very passionate about photography as a young adult, but eventually most of the studios closed down because people don't have to pay for professional pictures anymore. And that's very sad, admittedly. What I meant was simply that more often than not, people go into art because they are passionate about it. Art isn't the kind of profession one typically gets into just to pay the bills like many (not all) other jobs out there. For that matter, art is typically not something essential to survival, but people do it because they want to. And I find the idea of that being taken away or diminished in any way tragic. More importantly, though, I just think art is, as I mentioned, an important expression of the human heart. It's one of the ways we communicate, share ideas, and inspire each other. I think the idea of that being pushed out of our mainstream is really upsetting.

I love your comment!

@@weeklystruggle4205 Thanks. Personally I find the topic a bit distressing, but I'm glad what I said resonated with you. I hope I didn't sound too much like I was diminishing or making light of other jobs that have been replaced or changed by new tech. Art is just an area I feel very strongly about. Many technologies have had some positive uses/impacts, like making certain jobs easier and even safer. But I have a hard time imagining how we will adapt as a society if AI continues to creep into the artist landscape.

@@supremeoverlorde2109 if you're passionate about art then making money off it is secondary. Nobody is stopping you from making and posting free art. Nobody is taking anything away.

Also, because I know about “AI” enough, I don't think people realize how many jobs it can replace are nearly endless. Like I've seen people say, “Oh well, the trades are safe,” like any job with predictable patterns, etc, are up for grabs. This isn't even doom-saying. The only reason why the art sphere is first is because it doesn't require physical robots to work. Without regulations, it's not a matter of if, but when. This is why regulation will probably be the most important thing in the coming years to prevent a future where everyone is quite literally replaceable.

'Raiden, are you receiving? We're still here.' 'How's that possible? The A.I was destroyed!... 'To begin with, we're not what you call...human...'

MGS2 just gets better as time goes by. A perfect example of a game that aged well.

"Delete the wife"

How is what they wrote in the holodeck different than a prompt? It isn’t.

@@mogalixir yo dude why are you spending so much time in this comment section on this video replying to so many people in a venomous way? if you like ai, go play with it. you aren't going to change minds by slapfighting like this. all it does is make you angry at people who disagree with you and make people who you're disagreeing with less amicable to your position. you could be doing 100000000000 things right now infinitely more productive than trying to start slapfights here.

I also didn't realize Arlo was a fellow Trekkie... would love to see some Trek content on the channel now and then 😄

@@mogalixirwe get it, you’re an Ubisoft employee, so go somewhere else

AI will either be below human creativity, or will so much exceed human creativity that we wont be able to understand.

Buttmad

Agreed. They are images, no more, no less.

@@mogalixir Lack of skill?

@@mogalixir this is the second time ive seen you get angry in the comment section about people not liking ai. go educate yourself

> Calling them "art" implies creativity went into their creation Says who? Because there sure are a lot of generic, bland, creatively bankrupt pieces of media out there.

StarTrek literally has a holodeck.

@@mogalixir yeah, but the programs are authored by humans. While you _can_ just say “give me a forest” and the computer will give you a pretty decent forest, the programs shown (and their narratives) often have a lot of detail and intricacy that was authored by a human. It’s the difference between using a tool to replace the artist, and using a tool to allow an artist to express themselves more clearly.

It’s equivalent to a human directing an AI with prompt engineering and tweaks which is the AI artist workflow.

I think that would be a bit too on the nose.

​@@mogalixir There is no such thing as an ai "artist".