Games that use AI are worse thang games that don’t
I mean, a digital image is a digital image. But AI generation can’t seem to produce anything consistently as a consequence of the process of inference. Case in point:
Imagine trying to play a game of Mario or Metal Gear Solid, but the character models keep changing in subtle ways. Ways that don’t indicate any kind of change in play state, just the consequence of putting “mushroom with human face and tap dancing shoes” into the prompt engine and getting a different kind of weird half-approximation of a Gomba every time.
yermaw@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Not necessarily, its just a tool like anything else. Just depends how much its been used and how effectively. I havent been on steam in a long time to see this label popup in the wild, but I suspect it’ll need more nuance to be effective.
“I used AI to write the whole story and do all the voice acting” is gonna suck.
“I used AI to help with the scripting because I suck at coding” might be the greatest game ever just from an individual who doesnt have the skills themselves.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You forgot the:
bampop@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
AI generated content is what ought to be disclosed, and even then it’s not necessarily a bad thing, but I can see how it might usually be. But AI in general encompasses a broad range of tools which is bound to get broader and more ubiquitous with time.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Which is also why the term AI is fucking worthless and should get marketers fucking hanged. Seriously if they had to actually explain what it fucking did this would not be nearly as much of an annoying problem as it is.
Starski@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
It’s worrying how you think the writing and voice acting are more important than the code in a video game.
yermaw@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Im not sure ill be able to explain myself clearly enough for you to understand
Starski@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I understand what you mean, I’m saying you’re misunderstanding how ai messing the code up is much more important than it messing up a plotline or giving a character 6 fingers. AI currently isn’t good enough to write flawless code, and you can’t just use ai to code a game without having any prior code experience, you’d have to vet every process. There’s no chance in hell you’ll make the best game ever, as your characters will be going through walls and your objects will be floating or any other countless number of glitches that could occur, let alone the negative effects bad code can have on the hardware that’s trying to run it.
j4cobgarby@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Difference between what’s more important and what’s more feasible for AI to do well
Starski@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
That’s not the point, in the commenters example the mentioned a person who doesn’t know how to code, and now matter how you cut it ai right now wouldn’t be able to code well enough to ensure no bugs occur, you would still need to check it in your self entirely lest some massive issue occur, not just in the game but with your hardware that’s trying to run it. That’s way more important to deal with than a story line being off.
Jankatarch@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Seems like a very personal take ngl
“I used AI to write the whole story because I enjoy programming more” doesn’t sound great either no?
It’s not a “buggy game vs bad story” comparison either. They sounds bad because they both mean “developers do NOT want to make games.” It’s just a sign of cutting corners.
Potatar@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
So I’m gonna execute the code of someone who doesn’t know the first thing about coding on my computer? Great!
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
I don’t get why you have to go to such extremes here.
AI is an extremely broad spectrum of tools. Some of them, yes, use stolen graphics to generate derivative graphics. Some of them attempt writing code.
But others let you create things that would normally require hundreds of thousands of dollars while still retaining the necessary creative input from the author.
If you are against such tools as the one used in the linked video, I think you should also stand very much against Photoshop allowing people to paint without using actual pigments and oil.
Potatar@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Art cannot destroy my system. Bad code which might ask for elevated access can…
Senal@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Weak comparisons help no-one, photoshop is nothing like LLM’s
All of the big commercial LLM’s (without exception afaik) have been trained on a large corpus of data that has been obtained by various sketchy and illegitimate means. (some legitimate as well).
That’s the major difference between the two.
If you are using a model that has only been trained on legally obtained data, disregard this point.
I’m not even against competent tool use of LLM’s but please use better arguments.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
There isn’t something you can use AI for that a person wouldn’t do better.
It’s just going to be worse than a person putting in effort every time.
yermaw@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
The responses ive gotten here have been surprising, and IMO a little short sighted. My problem with AI is largely ethical and “spiritual”, in that its trained on people’s work and is replacing them slowly but surely, and that it will lack the inherent creative “soul” that a human brings.
Compare what AI can do today with what it could do 10 years ago. What will it be capable of in another 10 years? Everybody says “lol never replace humans never because its shit” but I suspect different. They said they couldnt beat us at chess. They said they could never realistically pass for human. They said they’d never make music. They said they’d never be able to make art.
In my mind, the question shouldnt be “is it good enough” because it will be one day. The question should be “are you going to put up with this shit, and if so, to what degree”. Thats why I tried to differentiate between art/creativity and technical ability.