No, DEID. I would not, DEID. And as an artist, I find the use of AI to replace artists to be an affront to art, DEID.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

No, DEID. I would not, DEID. And as an artist, I find the use of AI to replace artists to be an affront to art, DEID.

What the hell is DEID?

Also, I'm an artist myself - multiple paintings, sketches etc.

A lot of visual artists aren't all that great.

And either way, who's to say that a human/AI hybrid 'artist' cannot create something truly amazing?

You see AI as a replacement. I see it as the new oil paint. You still have to 'dip your brush' to get the results.

Originally posted by Beta Ray Shill:

To say I like writing fiction would be an understatement, and I have dozens of ideas. I work in tech with AI and the advancements lately have clearly opened the doors to a ‘one-man’ army creating his own game.

Gen-AI of course is loathed across the board. People blow up immediately upon its very utterance.

Some of the points are valid. There’s horrendous generic plastic glossy dross created by even super-advanced AI’s like Sora.

But hear me out - what if the ‘creator’ could manipulate the AI into creating art, in particular - cutscenes, maps, characters etc - in a style never seen before. This would be 2D, not 3D.

And let’s say the story and ‘branching dialogue’ was utterly unique as regards narrative and characters.

No one can promise these things, but ‘let’s say’ those elements were clearly, unambiguously in place.

Now let’s assume the game design is itself original.

The music is AI-generated - but based on the hummed notes of the creator (yes, you can get AI to create an entire orchestra based on ‘idea’ you’ve just hummed).

All voice acting is AI-generated.

The question is, would you even give it the time of day?

Effort is effort, you would think. We’re not all animators, cinematics-people, etc.

But a game is more than these things.

Essentially if the all the main human effort went into story, branching narratives, and game design, but the rest was supplemented by AI - yet still required human input for the foundation - would you invest in such a game, if it was priced, say, in the region of €10?

Does it need to be less?

Or is it a no-go, no matter what?

Very interested to know.

"ai is known for creating stuff that sucks, but what if it created something good?"
truly the greatest work of fiction ever written

Originally posted by Dendrobates Tinctorius:

["ai is known for creating stuff that sucks, but what if it created something good?"
truly the greatest work of fiction ever written

Guy clearly doesn't have clue what AI can do lately.

At least where I work, I use it to automate away all the bad ideas that humans generally contribute to a particular job.

It's the humans that most often 'suck' bud.

The AI often outclasses them on every level.

Originally posted by Beta Ray Shill:

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

No, DEID. I would not, DEID. And as an artist, I find the use of AI to replace artists to be an affront to art, DEID.

What the hell is DEID?

Also, I'm an artist myself - multiple paintings, sketches etc.

A lot of visual artists aren't all that great.

And either way, who's to say that a human/AI hybrid 'artist' cannot create something truly amazing?

You see AI as a replacement. I see it as the new oil paint. You still have to 'dip your brush' to get the results.

The group you're part of, DEID.

And anyone who wants AI art is no longer fit to call themselves an artist. It is not an oil paint. It is taking the heart, the soul, the creative spark out of the process and giving it to a soulless machine.

The only thing it should be used for is to spit prompts out at artists or create some sort of reference image quickly. Nothing further.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

The group you're part of, DEID.

Well a group is not my name, is it?

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

And anyone who wants AI art is no longer fit to call themselves an artist.

They called Van Gogh a joke, to the point he killed himself over the 'futility'.

They once said the guy who called the world round instead of flat was a lunatic.

For an artist, you suspiciously don't seem to like 'thinking outside the box'.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

It is not an oil paint. It is taking the heart, the soul, the creative spark out of the process and giving it to a soulless machine.

You're wrong, because the human has 2 choices: a) let the AI generate the art for them; b) control the AI as you would a brush.

Words are art. If I can 'direct' an AI to realise the dreams in my head, then the product is not that of a machine, but a human.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

The only thing it should be used for is to spit prompts out at artists or create some sort of reference image quickly. Nothing further.

Strongly disagree.

If it accurately represents what the human imagined, it is an extension of the human, not a regurgitation of 'random binary'.

If you're using LLMs and generative models in the process of designing, drafting, and prototyping a work, that's okay. It's just another tool to aid the creation of a work. But when it comes to the completed, public-facing work, the LLM and generative model created assets should be replaced with human written, human drawn, human composed, human modelled ones.

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

But when it comes to the completed, public-facing work, the LLM and generative model created assets should be replaced with human written, human drawn, human composed, human modelled ones.

Like the other guy, you're confusing random LLM generations with specifically generated material based on the human's imagination.

Boot up GPT-5 (free version) on MS Edge, imagine something. Now get it to tweak it. It can actually do that now - it can do it to the finest level of detail, in the same manner as a human artist. There is no difference, except one has a brain made of cells and the other, of circuits.

We're not so different. Pretentious to think so.

The key thing you're missing here is - are all products as the human imagined them? The music, the art, the writing, the game design?

If they are as imagined, instead of being 'randomly generated', then they are the work of a human's creativity.

Lastly, your assumption that everyone has the 'resources' to hire a whole team of folk is clearly mistaken.

So the world is robbed, then, of a potential next Picasso of game dev, just because the guy doesn't have the cash.

But now he doesn't need it. Doesn't need dirty Blackrock money or the sickly 'checklists' that come with that.

He doesn't even need profit. He just needs to dream.

No.
Because it's not the work of that one person; It's the work of a computer and the creator of that AI.
In your example, the graphics, sounds, voice acting.. the things that you need talented people for, is done by an AI.
Your supposed developer here is doing less than 1/4 of the work involved in creating this game, but is 3/4 of the profits going to the AI's creator? It should, given it's crucial in the creation of this game.

The person can come up with a story, but if that is what they're good at, they should instead write a novel, where their work isn't contaminated by AI. (They're already writing the story for the game, so it's just cutting the AI from the work.
Makes it wholly their work too.)

There have been games, and sometimes even mods the size of games, that are done by a couple of very passionate people, and you see that passion in the games and mods they make.
- Some of those large mods may even branch into their own games, such as Enderal. (Which also has much more than just games surrounding it. Novels too!)

Someone vibe coding just doesn't give any of that passion that's essential to a well liked piece of media; Songs, books, games, you name it... it has to have that. AI generated music just lacks that "soul". That spark, that makes music what it is, whereas even the most badly performed music still has a reason it is like that. There is effort there to play it and perform it.

This developer using AI? Where's their passion?

Originally posted by Beta Ray Shill:

Like the other guy, you're confusing random LLM generations with specifically generated material based on the human's imagination.

No, I am not. The answer is still the same. LLM generated text will always be limited by the data it was trained on and the safety rails inherently built into the model. Human imagination and creativity has no such limitations, so why insist on forcing them for a lesser end product?

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

Originally posted by Beta Ray Shill:

Like the other guy, you're confusing random LLM generations with specifically generated material based on the human's imagination.

No, I am not. The answer is still the same. LLM generated text will always be limited by the data it was trained on and the safety rails inherently built into the model. Human imagination and creativity has no such limitations, so why insist on forcing them for a lesser end product?

For example, a machine can spit out a philosophical question that has been asked before. It could even fake an answer. But a man... a man could create a whole new one that had never been postulated before.

Originally posted by Beta Ray Shill:

Originally posted by Dendrobates Tinctorius:

["ai is known for creating stuff that sucks, but what if it created something good?"
truly the greatest work of fiction ever written

Guy clearly doesn't have clue what AI can do lately.

At least where I work, I use it to automate away all the bad ideas that humans generally contribute to a particular job.

It's the humans that most often 'suck' bud.

The AI often outclasses them on every level.

Originally posted by Beta Ray Shill:

Some of the points are valid. There’s horrendous generic plastic glossy dross created by even super-advanced AI’s like Sora.

But hear me out - what if the ‘creator’ could manipulate the AI into creating art, in particular - cutscenes, maps, characters etc - in a style never seen before. This would be 2D, not 3D.

you open with "ai makes stuff that looks like trash, but what if you could make it good?"

did you gen ai your own post and not read it?

Originally posted by Liquid Inc:

Because it's not the work of that one person; It's the work of a computer and the creator of that AI.

So when a human '3D animator' leverages a tool like UE5 or Unity to realise their art, is it UE5 or Unity that created it?

If not, why not?

And if the AI, which is merely a tool that can generate specific art, based the whim of the creator - same thing as UE5/Unity - then how is it any different?

You're making the naive assumption that I'm talking about the 'lotto AI' of yesteryear. Those days are gone.

They are now 'dream machines', in the same way UE5 is a 'dream machine', except the artist has to click more buttons over the course of weeks, maybe months, to create what is in his head.

What if he could just imagine the same result immediately instead?

What is the difference? Is it 'not the same thing' - even though it is the same thing - because an AI made it?

Originally posted by Liquid Inc:

In your example, the graphics, sounds, voice acting.. the things that you need talented people for, is done by an AI.

Clearly false! Unless you're somehow arguing that all human voice actors, artists etc are superior to AI models in terms of output... Haha.

There are humans who voice act more 'robotically' than AI mate. You never heard the phrase 'wooden actor' or 'bad art'?

Originally posted by Liquid Inc:

Your supposed developer here is doing less than 1/4 of the work involved in creating this game, but is 3/4 of the profits going to the AI's creator? It should, given it's crucial in the creation of this game.

Argument here has no bearing on the subject matter, as you're talking about economics. I have literally stated that profit is not even the goal. The 'vision' is the goal, free or otherwise in terms of the acquiring of it.

Originally posted by Liquid Inc:

The person can come up with a story, but if that is what they're good at, they should instead write a novel, where their work isn't contaminated by AI.

Ah bless - we should all know our place.

You cannot stop the trajectory of what has been set in motion the last few years. It will become more and more powerful, until only the human imagination is needed to create entire worlds/games - as it should be.

Look at Team Cheery. Two devs.

Too many chefs spoil the broth etc.

Originally posted by Liquid Inc:

Someone vibe coding just doesn't give any of that passion that's essential to a well liked piece of media; Songs, books, games, you name it... it has to have that.

Your evidence being 'I don't like AI so I'm right'?

I would love to share what I'm creating with AI right now, but not gonna jeopardise it. You are very wrong, is all I can say at this point. I'll be glad to prove you wrong as well.

Originally posted by Liquid Inc:

AI generated music just lacks that "soul". That spark, that makes music what it is, whereas even the most badly performed music still has a reason it is like that. There is effort there to play it and perform it.

Like the others, you don't understand the advancements that have been made.

If I hum the entire 'song' myself and then direct the AI to tweak it as I want, I am the 'art director' of that song.

You're talking like AI is still a lotto machine.

It is not that.

Originally posted by Liquid Inc:

This developer using AI? Where's their passion?

We'll soon see, I believe. Very soon.

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

No, I am not. The answer is still the same. LLM generated text will always be limited by the data it was trained on

I literally stated in the opening that the 'text' (narrative) is the one thing that would be solely written by myself...

Originally posted by Dendrobates Tinctorius:

did you gen ai your own post and not read it?

I've had more intelligent conversations with the 'gen ai' than I have yourself buddy.

You need to give the quips a rest bud. Just a pro-tip.

Also, did you know you can actually just copy my post to any LLM and ask them 'did a human write this or an AI', and it'll let you know why it was a human.

I know - 'magic'.

Anyway squire - you clearly aren't interested in the conversation. Might as well unsubscribe since it's not your jam - you're on the block either way. Cheerio pal...