I read through the article. Apparently the studio shared work-in-progress content to prove it wasn’t made using AI.
I don’t know if they used AI or not, but this type of thing has been happening since the inception of gen AI. Shortly after the release of Stable Diffusion 1.5, moderators of r/Art were banning people who had been around for years because their art suddenly “looked like A.I.” and told they should “Get a better art style.”
In the intervening time, this type of thinking has spread. Just yesterday, I was watching a YouTube video, and they used a certain background in it which they had used before to no note. This time, however, one user claimed that background was A.I. That was all it took to send the comments into a deluge of hatred and accusations.
Here, though… I ask, if work-in-progress PSDs showing the in-progress art don’t meet the burden of proof to sate these accusations, what does? How long will it be until the only safe form of art to avoid these accusations is a photo of a pencil sketch with a hand-written date nearby?
The “work-in-progress” video proof in question basically showed some interface similar to a video editing program with assets popping in like layers, i.e. no actual drawing or concepts or anything.
Your point is very valid, but it also reads like you haven’t seen the proof – which, if anything, was even more of a nail to the coffin.
I haven’t seen the proof myself. I searched and couldn’t find it. The article above mentioned that they shared PSDs, so I assumed that was confirmation enough that they actually released PSD files of the work in progress.
clearly you just wrote this comment with ai… only ai would hyphenate “work-in-progress”.
disgusting….
/sEver seen that horror movie where the hand gets possessed? It’s like that but my hand is AI.
Idle Hands
We don’t have General AI yet and the current course doesn’t seem to be the right one to get it. So unless there is a time machine.
Generative A.I.
“Goonswarm games”
/me an EVE Online Player feeling kinda suspicious and not that surprised by the allegations.
Why should we care about the tools they use? Results are important.
deleted by creator
IP theft
People learn in the same way
the waste of water, waste of energy,
People consume that too. Even while not working.
dumb down all future generations
Human specialists also let other people stop being specialists. When did specialisation become the norm? In the early paleolith? Earlier?
People consume that too. Even while not working.
That is correct, but you completely miss the scales, not to mention the lack of learning when the AI makes a mistake.
When a human makes a mistake, they can learn from it, understand what went wrong and improve, when an AI makes a mistake it is just being told “bad”, it is really difficult to define why you rejected a specific response.
So not only does AI use more energy, far more is wasted
but you completely miss the scales,
I don’t. I see no reason to believe that machines use more energy than humans while achieving comparable results.
- We are talking about to vastly different entities, to even consider that they would be equal in terms of energy use for a similar task is dumb. That would be like expecting the energy use for transporting box by truck or by ship to be equal. That just doesn’t work.
- The results are not even comparable.
Just to play devils advocate, how much energy goes into growing our food, processing our food, transporting our food. Our education, and entertainment. All of which go into the output we produce. I wondering if at that point the numbers get closer.
When talking about these data centers, they often use the term enough to power a “small city.” So how much output could a “small city” of people produce? You’d have to break the result down into required man hours, and spread that across the population, as obviously the AI will do things faster than individual humans.
That is missing the forest for the trees, there’s zero need to play devils advocate
Getting off topic but these comments have me wondering, how much fresh water do we actually use to survive? Obviously we consume water to drink. And use it in our kitchens and bathrooms. But we know that’s just a small percentage of water use. The largest use is agriculture. I’ll count that as our consumption as well, because we eat the food produced. But I wonder what percentage of overall use goes to things that do not directly contribute to our survival. Like landscaping e.g. watering lawns. Especially in desert areas. Golf courses, that sort of thing.
What a bunch of Bullshit no we don’t learn the same way as we don’t have perfect recall. And we do not consume the amount of energy AI data centers do. They consume a cities worth or more of energy to make a select few rich. Whatever we are done as a species it was a good run. All this fucking consumerism and must have infinite growth on a finite planet. We are to stupid to realize we are dead.
Ironically AI doesn’t have perfectly recall either, and that’s kind of one of the main problems with it and hallucinations. It can easily get poisoned by a handful of data points in it’s training set. But even then, it can only really blend 2 data points together, it’s got no ability to extrapolate and think outside the box.
Along with the other comment, it’s also soulless. Not that the postal series had much in the way of artistry to begin with, even that series is still more artistic than anything generated by a program.
soulless
I am an engineer, not a priest. I don’t understand this terminology.
I don’t understand this
That much is abundantly clear.
I do not believe that you think results are the only thing that matter, methods be damned. I think you do have a line you would draw somewhere. The rest of us simply draw ours in a different place than you do.
Fuck this site and their forced redirections.
Vapid anti-AI hate can cause quite a lot of damage. And what for? To feel like you’re superior to everyone that you can spot all the AI errors?
Sure, shame a company for AI use if it’s obviously bad or you have actual proof. But just guessing because you think it’s AI is pretty shitty.
The strong feedback from them is that elements of the game are very likely AI-generated and thus has caused extreme damage to our brand and our company reputation.
These are not the words of a company who didnt know about the ai use. They hired them because they were gonna use ai so it would be cheap to produce, fans were rightfully upset to be fed slop, publisher backpedals so hard they close the studio.
You think if they didnt use ai here they’d do all that? Or would they instead say “we are sorry the quality doesn’t appeal and we will work on it” not this
