It’s like hard to draw a line as well. If I take a picture with my phone today of the city I live in and use it in a game, the phone applies some AI filters automatically.
I think different people have different aversions to why they don’t like or want to use AI.
In the case of “automatic” “filters” on pictures taken on phones, this is or was called computational photography. Over time more capabilities were added to these systems until we now have the moon situation and the latest NN processing.
If someone only cares about environmental impact, then that doesn’t really apply in this case if the processing happens on device, since by definition a phone is low power and thus doesn’t consume water for cooling or much power for compute.
However, some people care about copying, for numerous and possibly conflicting reasons. Generating assets might violate their sense that IP was stolen, since it’s a pretty well known fact that that these models were created in large part with dubiously licensed or entirely unlicensed works. I think a reasonable argument can be made that the algorithms that make LLMs work parallels compression. But whatever the case, the legality doesn’t matter for most people’s feelings.
Others don’t like that assets are generated by compute at all. Maybe for economic or political reasons. Some might feel that a social contract has been violated. For example, it used to be the case that on large social media, you had some kind of “buy in” from society. The content might have been low quality or useless drivel, but there was a relativly high cost to producing lots of content, and the owners of the site didn’t have direct or complete control of the platform.
Now a single person or company can create a social media site, complete with generated content and generated users, and sucker clueless users into thinking it’s real. It was a problem before, various people getting sucked into an echo chamber of their peers, now it is likely to happen that there will be another set of users get sucked into an entirely generated echo chamber.
We can see this happening now. Companies like openai are creating social media sites (“apps” as they call them now) filled only with slop. There are even companies that make apps for romance and dating virtual or fake partners.
Generated content is also undesirable for some users because maybe they want to see the output of a person. There is already plenty of factory bullshit on the various app stores, why do they need or want the output of a machine when there is already existing predatory content out there they could have now.
Some people are starting to wake up to the fact that they have only a single life. Chasing money doesn’t do it for most. Some find religion, others want to achieve and see others achieve. Generating content isn’t an achievement of the person initiating the generation. They didn’t suffer to make it. A person slaves away in art school for years only to take a shit job they looked up to for years, then doing the best work they can under crazy pressure is an achievement.
Jean completely agree, but for me that just underlined the point above of making it more granular. But there will be almost no big games where you can say truly nothing was done by the AI.
So you’re saying even MY pictures have probably been edited by my phone without my consent? That’s really bad. I didn’t opt into this. I don’t like what this could be used for.
Disclosure is good, but it would be useful to be granular and clear.
Games could use ai for interactive dialogue or content generation and it would be really cool.
Games could run models like olmo 3 which are completely open source, and that wouldn’t be bad in my opinion.
Ai textures probably make sense too depending on context.
It would be funny if a game used the base tier OpenAI api and your wizard started slipping some ads into his dialogue.
It’s like hard to draw a line as well. If I take a picture with my phone today of the city I live in and use it in a game, the phone applies some AI filters automatically.
I think different people have different aversions to why they don’t like or want to use AI.
In the case of “automatic” “filters” on pictures taken on phones, this is or was called computational photography. Over time more capabilities were added to these systems until we now have the moon situation and the latest NN processing.
If someone only cares about environmental impact, then that doesn’t really apply in this case if the processing happens on device, since by definition a phone is low power and thus doesn’t consume water for cooling or much power for compute.
However, some people care about copying, for numerous and possibly conflicting reasons. Generating assets might violate their sense that IP was stolen, since it’s a pretty well known fact that that these models were created in large part with dubiously licensed or entirely unlicensed works. I think a reasonable argument can be made that the algorithms that make LLMs work parallels compression. But whatever the case, the legality doesn’t matter for most people’s feelings.
Others don’t like that assets are generated by compute at all. Maybe for economic or political reasons. Some might feel that a social contract has been violated. For example, it used to be the case that on large social media, you had some kind of “buy in” from society. The content might have been low quality or useless drivel, but there was a relativly high cost to producing lots of content, and the owners of the site didn’t have direct or complete control of the platform.
Now a single person or company can create a social media site, complete with generated content and generated users, and sucker clueless users into thinking it’s real. It was a problem before, various people getting sucked into an echo chamber of their peers, now it is likely to happen that there will be another set of users get sucked into an entirely generated echo chamber.
We can see this happening now. Companies like openai are creating social media sites (“apps” as they call them now) filled only with slop. There are even companies that make apps for romance and dating virtual or fake partners.
Generated content is also undesirable for some users because maybe they want to see the output of a person. There is already plenty of factory bullshit on the various app stores, why do they need or want the output of a machine when there is already existing predatory content out there they could have now.
Some people are starting to wake up to the fact that they have only a single life. Chasing money doesn’t do it for most. Some find religion, others want to achieve and see others achieve. Generating content isn’t an achievement of the person initiating the generation. They didn’t suffer to make it. A person slaves away in art school for years only to take a shit job they looked up to for years, then doing the best work they can under crazy pressure is an achievement.
Jean completely agree, but for me that just underlined the point above of making it more granular. But there will be almost no big games where you can say truly nothing was done by the AI.
Ew why
People like when the phone cleans up their face
I like when my phone captures actual unedited pictures. I think it’s dangerous to modify recordings automatically without the user’s express consent.
Phones have been doing a lot of post-processing for a long time.
Tbh, most phone cameras would look crap without it. It’s something of a miracle what they can achieve with a tiny sensor and a tiny fixed lens.
Have you used a phone camera recently? This has been baked in for many years on every out of the box camera experience on flagship phones.
So you’re saying even MY pictures have probably been edited by my phone without my consent? That’s really bad. I didn’t opt into this. I don’t like what this could be used for.
Yeah, just because it’s been “baked in” for many years, doesn’t make it OK
I’m not saying it’s right, but there us post processing that has always been done, but on modern flagships they’ve pushed into more and more.