I dont even need to watch these videos anymore, I already know what they're going to say: AI won't kill my industry because of X and Y reasons that probably only make sense on the short to medium term. And because I'm in denial and have obvious biases I can't bring myself to believe that it could happen...
You make some very good points. The biggest issue with "AI" is that it simply cannot create. All generative algorithms do is take what other people (without their consent) have already made and meshes it into something else, and as your friend mentioned, without any intent. All it is, is plagiarism with extra steps.
Using training material with/out consent is a big one, isn't it? On one hand we all learn everything in life by copying other people, yet on the other it's bad to profit off other people's work without their permission. This one is a tough to navigate, and the training has already been done. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, traveller. I really appreciate it :)
@@xanthosvouldis9065 I see this conflation between how humans gain and retain knowledge/information, and how a LLM is trained, all the time...and its ridiculous to assert that they are the same. The study of neuroscience is very young, and we seem to be only on the tip of iceberg in understanding the mechanical processes that underpin how a human learns. To claim that LLMs are just like the human brain seems like a hand-wavy justification. There's another fundamental difference between the two (that is related to the subject of "intent" mentioned in the video): subjective experience is critical in creativity. Art is made from the point of view of the creator(s), driven by unique life experience. When you, as a viewer, experience art from someone else, you are connecting to some part of their life experience. You can't get that from genAI, because it wasn't created from a life.
@@superchromaticalWell said, traveller. The more AI approaches perfection, the more same-y it feels and falls a victim to its own success. You still need an expert to tailor it to the audience. Another interesting angle to think about is assuming AI becomes better than humans at every, it still wouldn't behave the same because it's biology is different. It can shut down and be reconstructed infinitely at no loss of info. It doesn't use emotions, so it makes decisions differently. Even when we get to a blade runner future where AI is the same as life, there are still arguments for coexistence with people and limiting its power and population (just like we have been doing with each other up to now) Once you start thinking about it there is no end, is there? :p We can't even argue if we should stop AI dev or not because we can't predict the future. Fun fact: when the atomic bomb was being developed there was a chance it would burn up the atmosphere, or so they thought. They kept going anyway haha This is so human... We charge forward and somehow we manage to barely keep ourselves out of trouble!
I believe the answer to be simple and we can already see how and when AI can "take over". AI isn't becoming better than Human beings, however some Human beings are becoming worse than some algorithms. By that I mean that if your job is to write meaningless "news" articles just to generate clicks, you've already lost and AI will replace you. Because this is already playing out in real time, we can extrapolate that to gaming. AI will probably be able to replace what we call "trend chasers" like Ubisoft. Human beings are good at picking up patterns, but machines are exceptional at reproducing patterns. Algorithms don't unionise, don't slack off, don't take breaks, and don't complain. All that to say: AI will only replace who made themselves replaceable. If you're that guy at Nintendo who had the simple yet brilliant idea to put smiles on clouds and bushes, you're safe. Only a Human being could come up with that. Most of the discussions about AI are basically motivated by fear, "am I going to be replaced?". Anyone who fears that has some soul-searching to do if they believe themselves to be replaceable by an algorithm... I'm already avoiding games with procedural generation. Even though a Human being already made individual components, the algorithm in charge of placing them sucks the soul out of the final product. I played Forsaken 20 years apart, I remembered most of it. I played Desecrators and Overload (which are both also 3DOF shooters, but they're proceduraly generated) a couple years ago, I don't remember anything! In short: Yes, AI will be used, will replace people. But only those who are replaceable. Is it sad? Not too sure. I consider myself a "creator but not an artist" (ie. I love to create but I have next to no imagination), I'd be the perfect target to be replaced IF I were to work in the gaming industry. I'm okay with that. And if I really wanted to, I could work twice as hard and add value an algorithm can't, I would just need to find my equivalent of putting smiley faces on clouds... Ultimately, it boils down to: Do you believe that Human beings can be automated? My take is: Only those who make themselves replaceable. I came across a quote that made me think: "everyone wants to create AI content, no one wants to consume it" Maybe the problem will solve itself and the question was moot from the get go. So, there's that to take into consideration. AI will only take over if Human beings enjoy its output.
@@SLRModShopNo Man's Sky got it's share of trouble too for procedural worlds. It's a delicate topic. I believe it can be done well. I feel that this topic comes up every time a big change is coming to society. Typewriters, electricity, immigrants were all considered to steal people's jobs. I don't think it's so black and white. Also I think technology in entertainment has an ikarus paradox, where if AI sets the new standard then it won't be able to differentiate over itself. Someone will have to be involved to make something original and interesting. I still see AI as an ally, even for simple jobs. If in a company an image needs to be generated then someone has to do it. Is the CEO going to do it? I don't think so. You still need someone with relevant knowledge to use the AI.
@@xanthosvouldis9065 I'm a developer and most of us uses AI, all of us consider it to be a boost in productivity in exchange for skills we will inevitably lose by using it. And you're right, it's no different than the invention/democratisation of the computer. It killed many jobs but also creating both our jobs. It will be a net positive in the grand scheme of things, but pockets of people will inevitably be displaced.
@@SLRModShop Exactly, it's great for coding support. I use it too for the for the thumbnail text, but what I realized is it takes an equally skilled used to get worthwhile results from AI. I couldn't just say "make a cool image" and leave it at that, the results would be too generic. It's a great tool though.
I dont even need to watch these videos anymore, I already know what they're going to say: AI won't kill my industry because of X and Y reasons that probably only make sense on the short to medium term. And because I'm in denial and have obvious biases I can't bring myself to believe that it could happen...
@@thomasr22272 Thank you for your comment, traveller. What do you think will be the interaction between games as we know then and AI?
You make some very good points.
The biggest issue with "AI" is that it simply cannot create. All generative algorithms do is take what other people (without their consent) have already made and meshes it into something else, and as your friend mentioned, without any intent. All it is, is plagiarism with extra steps.
Using training material with/out consent is a big one, isn't it? On one hand we all learn everything in life by copying other people, yet on the other it's bad to profit off other people's work without their permission. This one is a tough to navigate, and the training has already been done.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, traveller. I really appreciate it :)
@@xanthosvouldis9065 I see this conflation between how humans gain and retain knowledge/information, and how a LLM is trained, all the time...and its ridiculous to assert that they are the same. The study of neuroscience is very young, and we seem to be only on the tip of iceberg in understanding the mechanical processes that underpin how a human learns. To claim that LLMs are just like the human brain seems like a hand-wavy justification.
There's another fundamental difference between the two (that is related to the subject of "intent" mentioned in the video): subjective experience is critical in creativity. Art is made from the point of view of the creator(s), driven by unique life experience. When you, as a viewer, experience art from someone else, you are connecting to some part of their life experience. You can't get that from genAI, because it wasn't created from a life.
@@superchromaticalWell said, traveller. The more AI approaches perfection, the more same-y it feels and falls a victim to its own success. You still need an expert to tailor it to the audience.
Another interesting angle to think about is assuming AI becomes better than humans at every, it still wouldn't behave the same because it's biology is different. It can shut down and be reconstructed infinitely at no loss of info. It doesn't use emotions, so it makes decisions differently.
Even when we get to a blade runner future where AI is the same as life, there are still arguments for coexistence with people and limiting its power and population (just like we have been doing with each other up to now)
Once you start thinking about it there is no end, is there? :p
We can't even argue if we should stop AI dev or not because we can't predict the future.
Fun fact: when the atomic bomb was being developed there was a chance it would burn up the atmosphere, or so they thought. They kept going anyway haha
This is so human... We charge forward and somehow we manage to barely keep ourselves out of trouble!
I believe the answer to be simple and we can already see how and when AI can "take over".
AI isn't becoming better than Human beings, however some Human beings are becoming worse than some algorithms.
By that I mean that if your job is to write meaningless "news" articles just to generate clicks, you've already lost and AI will replace you.
Because this is already playing out in real time, we can extrapolate that to gaming. AI will probably be able to replace what we call "trend chasers" like Ubisoft.
Human beings are good at picking up patterns, but machines are exceptional at reproducing patterns. Algorithms don't unionise, don't slack off, don't take breaks, and don't complain.
All that to say: AI will only replace who made themselves replaceable.
If you're that guy at Nintendo who had the simple yet brilliant idea to put smiles on clouds and bushes, you're safe. Only a Human being could come up with that.
Most of the discussions about AI are basically motivated by fear, "am I going to be replaced?". Anyone who fears that has some soul-searching to do if they believe themselves to be replaceable by an algorithm...
I'm already avoiding games with procedural generation. Even though a Human being already made individual components, the algorithm in charge of placing them sucks the soul out of the final product. I played Forsaken 20 years apart, I remembered most of it. I played Desecrators and Overload (which are both also 3DOF shooters, but they're proceduraly generated) a couple years ago, I don't remember anything!
In short: Yes, AI will be used, will replace people. But only those who are replaceable.
Is it sad? Not too sure. I consider myself a "creator but not an artist" (ie. I love to create but I have next to no imagination), I'd be the perfect target to be replaced IF I were to work in the gaming industry. I'm okay with that. And if I really wanted to, I could work twice as hard and add value an algorithm can't, I would just need to find my equivalent of putting smiley faces on clouds...
Ultimately, it boils down to: Do you believe that Human beings can be automated? My take is: Only those who make themselves replaceable.
I came across a quote that made me think: "everyone wants to create AI content, no one wants to consume it"
Maybe the problem will solve itself and the question was moot from the get go. So, there's that to take into consideration. AI will only take over if Human beings enjoy its output.
@@SLRModShopNo Man's Sky got it's share of trouble too for procedural worlds. It's a delicate topic. I believe it can be done well.
I feel that this topic comes up every time a big change is coming to society. Typewriters, electricity, immigrants were all considered to steal people's jobs. I don't think it's so black and white.
Also I think technology in entertainment has an ikarus paradox, where if AI sets the new standard then it won't be able to differentiate over itself. Someone will have to be involved to make something original and interesting.
I still see AI as an ally, even for simple jobs. If in a company an image needs to be generated then someone has to do it. Is the CEO going to do it? I don't think so. You still need someone with relevant knowledge to use the AI.
@@xanthosvouldis9065 I'm a developer and most of us uses AI, all of us consider it to be a boost in productivity in exchange for skills we will inevitably lose by using it.
And you're right, it's no different than the invention/democratisation of the computer. It killed many jobs but also creating both our jobs.
It will be a net positive in the grand scheme of things, but pockets of people will inevitably be displaced.
@@SLRModShop Exactly, it's great for coding support. I use it too for the for the thumbnail text, but what I realized is it takes an equally skilled used to get worthwhile results from AI. I couldn't just say "make a cool image" and leave it at that, the results would be too generic.
It's a great tool though.