3 ms·

Computer generated content has its place, as it already does in many procedurally generated games as others have pointed out but I do not think it will play a c

Computer generated content has its place, as it already does in many procedurally generated games as others have pointed out but I do not think it will play a central role in the near future. One reason for this is technical. AI (not AGI but the systems that actually exist) can synthesize existing game data into new things but you'll still be in an uncanny valley of recycled information and in the worst case be in some bizarre feedback loop of old content that is permanently recycled and reconfigured in ways that players will notice. No Man's Sky is an example. The other reason is social, and I think it's the stronger case. We already have many games were computers could replace humans, chess is the most obvious one. Yet computer chess competitions only create marginal interest (by AI engineers) and players vastly prefer human interaction for the sole reason that it is human interaction. In the same vein there is computer generated music that actually is good enough to fool people, but there doesn't seem to be any market for synthetic artists. Or take Esports. Deepmind's AI systems are actually good enough to produce Starcraft tournaments solely played by machines. The games even look like high level human gameplay. But there is zero interest in watching a bot tournament.

swix 5y ago
True, but couldn't the same be said about the real world to some degree? Everything "new" is based on something existing, right? Even in sci-fi/fantasy movies which are completely wild, completely "out there", the things in them are conjured by us, which is in some way shape or form based on our imagination, which is based in the reality we exist within. My point is, that feedback loop you speak of already exists, it's just that... there are SO much variation, content, possibilities... but the same thing could be true for AI generated content in some sense. Feed it all our assets (sounds, music, movies, images) and then let it go bananas... :) - you'll have as much variation in the digital world as we do in our real world.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  In the most literal sense it is true. We have experiences, DNA, senses and so by definition we're a product of the past. But in the very concrete sense when we make a piece of art we don't just go stuff in, stuff out. We express intent, coherent narrative, inner emotion, and so on. And that's really not what these ML systems do right now. I think it's a little bit like crowdsourced art. There's these online experiments where you write a story but every user only places one word. It's grammatically correct, but the result is terrible. Because fiction in a way comes from a kind of singular intent and mind. (actually important point to note here, if 10k fully intelligent people make a democratic work of art with all their variety it's almost certainly worse than one doing it) I'm not saying we won't have at some point a real AI of human complexity but if capable of good art it'd look like a real mind, not just vomiting's out the average of all great novels or something.
trop 5y ago
> you'll still be in an uncanny valley of recycled information and in the worst case be in some bizarre feedback loop of old content that is permanently recycled and reconfigured Does DALL-E 2 create, or does it simply making a pastiche of extant images/concepts? And if the latter, are we simply back to appropriation of content? That is, whatever vast set of images it was fed (stock photography?) is becoming uncredited fodder for this "recycling"?

swix 5y ago

True, but couldn't the same be said about the real world to some degree? Everything "new" is based on something existing, right? Even in sci-fi/fantasy movies which are completely wild, completely "out there", the things in them are conjured by us, which is in some way shape or form based on our imagination, which is based in the reality we exist within. My point is, that feedback loop you speak of already exists, it's just that... there are SO much variation, content, possibilities... but the same thing could be true for AI generated content in some sense. Feed it all our assets (sounds, music, movies, images) and then let it go bananas... :) - you'll have as much variation in the digital world as we do in our real world.

Barrin92 5y ago
In the most literal sense it is true. We have experiences, DNA, senses and so by definition we're a product of the past. But in the very concrete sense when we make a piece of art we don't just go stuff in, stuff out. We express intent, coherent narrative, inner emotion, and so on. And that's really not what these ML systems do right now. I think it's a little bit like crowdsourced art. There's these online experiments where you write a story but every user only places one word. It's grammatically correct, but the result is terrible. Because fiction in a way comes from a kind of singular intent and mind. (actually important point to note here, if 10k fully intelligent people make a democratic work of art with all their variety it's almost certainly worse than one doing it) I'm not saying we won't have at some point a real AI of human complexity but if capable of good art it'd look like a real mind, not just vomiting's out the average of all great novels or something.

trop 5y ago

> you'll still be in an uncanny valley of recycled information and in the worst case be in some bizarre feedback loop of old content that is permanently recycled and reconfigured Does DALL-E 2 create, or does it simply making a pastiche of extant images/concepts? And if the latter, are we simply back to appropriation of content? That is, whatever vast set of images it was fed (stock photography?) is becoming uncredited fodder for this "recycling"?