I don't really care? Is that allowed? ‍ I'm old enough to remember when computers started to be used for art, and how traditional artists were complaining about how soulless the end product would be, and how unskilled people could 'fake' being good artists because the computer does most of the work for them. I mean the undo function of a computer on its own is putting incredible creative power into the hands of even the most useless digital artist, power that da Vinci himself would have creamed his little loincloth over. And the copy & paste function - and all of the other everyday functions all PC users depend on - cut down the production time by orders of magnitude compared to traditional painting/drawing. This isn't even getting into the incredible transformation tools on offer in Photoshop (or even MS Paint 1.0). Remember matte painters who painted incredible photorealistic chunks of the screen in films? Do Photoshop users of today feel any qualms about having extincted the fuck outta those people? Would they have even entertained the woes of those artists if they were around at the time? Would they have been calling for government intervention to prevent non-traditional matte painters from taking those jobs? What about sculptors and stop-motion pros? Movies have been riddled with worse-looking CGI replacements for those things for half a century. Any shits given about those artists who spent their lives perfecting their craft only to be supplanted overnight by a cunt with a Pentium who produces objectively worse results? AI is just the latest sabot-magnet disruption, and it won't be the last, despite the apocalyptic language around it. Either find a way to live with it and exploit it, or lay down in the Artists of Christmas Past mass grave and pull the clay in over yourselves. Or, you know, go ahead and try to uninvent it or whatever it is you're proposing And if you really wanna go hardcore, uninstall all of your digital art tools, get yourself an easel and see what you can do in the "real world" with your "real talents" without recourse to time-saving, labour-deleting, instantaneous bespoke-brush-manifesting technology.

Yewahh.... How does that help?

[Archive](https://archive.is/HDEJa) > Some video games have been trying to use generative AI for years now, and for the most part people simply have not been having it. Why would we? It's lazy, it's ugly, it's an ethical black hole and it's being driven by an executive class desperate to lay off even more workers. While earlier and more brazen attempts at employing the tech were obvious, lately it's becoming more common for studios to slide a little AI-generated content in without drawing attention to it. > > *Jurassic World Evolution 3* launched with some AI-generated character portraits, then got bullied into removing them. *Clair Obscur*, which will be a lot of people's game of the year, appeared to quietly launch with some AI-generated art then just as quietly patch it out. I was going to review the city-building grand strategy game *Kaiserpunk* until I saw they were using AI-generated images for their dialogue sections, after which I promptly uninstalled it. > > The latest culprit is *The Alters*, which has found to have shipped not only with AI-generated placeholder text in-game, but also employed AI-generated translations in some of its side content as well. None of this was disclosed prior to the game's release; it was all discovered later, by players, and has prompted an explanation of sorts from the developers which tries to calm everyone down, but which has just made things worse, because if it took people discovering these specific instances to find that 11 Bit had used AI-generated content in the game's development, how do we know there's not more of it?

My guy you can literally use MSpaint and circle tool and eraser to clear some lines to make a guy. I conceptualized and drew this in like 5 minutes. Some angel platformer fighter character. I imagine the bandana flowing and trailing behind the character as they jump. Could probably use the halo as a weapon or something. The hardest part was the bandana which was the only part I did free hand. This is obviously a first draft concept art and needs to be seriously polished and prepped for animation, but in the second picture I shrunk it down to 64x64 and a lot of the flaws disappear. You just need to learn some technical stuff about composition and color theory to make something that's even half decent and it will be enough. Or hell, literally steal this character idea because I'm not doing anything with it. Here's you're written permission. Make a cool game and put MSpaint art in it! (but actually use a better program because MSPaint kinda sucks.)  

I'm just showing you there's ways around limitations.

In a world that artists don't need to make money to live this works but I feel we will never get there.

[Archive](https://archive.is/HDEJa) > Some video games have been trying to use generative AI for years now, and for the most part people simply have not been having it. Why would we? It's lazy, it's ugly, it's an ethical black hole and it's being driven by an executive class desperate to lay off even more workers. While earlier and more brazen attempts at employing the tech were obvious, lately it's becoming more common for studios to slide a little AI-generated content in without drawing attention to it. > > *Jurassic World Evolution 3* launched with some AI-generated character portraits, then got bullied into removing them. *Clair Obscur*, which will be a lot of people's game of the year, appeared to quietly launch with some AI-generated art then just as quietly patch it out. I was going to review the city-building grand strategy game *Kaiserpunk* until I saw they were using AI-generated images for their dialogue sections, after which I promptly uninstalled it. > > The latest culprit is *The Alters*, which has found to have shipped not only with AI-generated placeholder text in-game, but also employed AI-generated translations in some of its side content as well. None of this was disclosed prior to the game's release; it was all discovered later, by players, and has prompted an explanation of sorts from the developers which tries to calm everyone down, but which has just made things worse, because if it took people discovering these specific instances to find that 11 Bit had used AI-generated content in the game's development, how do we know there's not more of it?

Yeah and I am also real scared about this “green screen” technology in movies, as if they fake stuff you know.

that sounds like an ethics problem, the solution to most of those is to get rid of ethics

The personal touch was underpaid workers doing cookie cutter work that was hardly better than AI does but more expensive. I don’t see actual talented artists complaining all that much about AI it’s always the assembly line video game artists or even worst some furry fucker who didn’t even have their own style to begin with with. Ie the people who AI was created to replace because they bring nothing to the table.

Hard to convince a studio to embrace it if this article is the kneejerk response to some PNGs. Which leads the loudest complainers to act vindicated, because what could it possibly be good for, except the few PNGs they notice?

That's because they keep trying to push AI into the foreground, not the background where it belongs

Nah, the problem is that AI is only being used to generate static content, "finished" assets. Where are the npcs with organic dialogue and more realistic reactions to player input? That's the AI that I've seen being promised and not being delivered anywhere.

Fake stuff? Next you'll tell me that the dragons in that new How to Train Your Dragon movie aren't really dragons.

[Archive](https://archive.is/HDEJa) > Some video games have been trying to use generative AI for years now, and for the most part people simply have not been having it. Why would we? It's lazy, it's ugly, it's an ethical black hole and it's being driven by an executive class desperate to lay off even more workers. While earlier and more brazen attempts at employing the tech were obvious, lately it's becoming more common for studios to slide a little AI-generated content in without drawing attention to it. > > *Jurassic World Evolution 3* launched with some AI-generated character portraits, then got bullied into removing them. *Clair Obscur*, which will be a lot of people's game of the year, appeared to quietly launch with some AI-generated art then just as quietly patch it out. I was going to review the city-building grand strategy game *Kaiserpunk* until I saw they were using AI-generated images for their dialogue sections, after which I promptly uninstalled it. > > The latest culprit is *The Alters*, which has found to have shipped not only with AI-generated placeholder text in-game, but also employed AI-generated translations in some of its side content as well. None of this was disclosed prior to the game's release; it was all discovered later, by players, and has prompted an explanation of sorts from the developers which tries to calm everyone down, but which has just made things worse, because if it took people discovering these specific instances to find that 11 Bit had used AI-generated content in the game's development, how do we know there's not more of it?

If you can't tell it's AI, then it's a problem entirely made up in your own head.

What is the oversimplification? The tech exists, once it’s out there you can’t stop it so you might as well find how to put it to good use, and this is a good use. Protecting jobs is not an argument, it’s just reacting to perceived threats emotionally.

The tech for genetic experiments on humans exists, too, and yet no one does it.

> It's not going away. Imagine saying this about asbestos, lead, freon, bitcoin, or cigarettes. You don't want it to go anywhere, why the hell would I listen to you?