I have a serious question. To preface: I am no fan of generative AI. I hate the environmental impact, the impact on our workforce, and the risk of further widening the wealth disparity across the world.
That said, do you believe that using generative AI in this case (for prototyping and rapid iteration/visualization of intermediate/non-final design concepts) is worse than, say, artists looking at the freely available online portfolios of other artists for inspiration, provided that they generate the final designs entirely by themselves?
I’m not saying it is or isn’t at this point, but I’m curious if you have a perspective on whether/how this isn’t at least one of the less-bad ways to use AI. It seems kind of like “you can’t stop someone from asking AI for help” levels of usage, not “we fired people to replace their output with slop”.
Minemoder@lemmy.ca 3 hours ago
I would say that having artists use content from the environment destroying content amalgamating plagiarism machine is a bad use case. Those artists could look at art posted online by other humans (with a much smaller carbon footprint) and still be innovative. Especially when you have 6 seasons worth of a TV show to use for inspiration.
This is different from an artist using AI for inspiration, the studio has had job openings where they were expected to use AI for concept art. They are being told to use AI. They also say that no AI generated assets will end up in the final game, but something will slip through just like it did with Crimson Desert.
So yes, AI is worse than just doing things with the human brain. I’m happy to pay for human labor, I won’t pay for slop.