10 ms·

I am working on a game proof of concept as well (to share a gameplay on YouTube to see if it attracts enough interest) and I have been using IA as well to gener

• yrgulation 4y ago
  [dead]
• otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  a) 90 perecent of an AI's success is in a large and well-curated training dataset. b) Training datasets can only be made by humans. c) A paid tier of Stable Diffusion is obviously coming. It will be differentiated by a better (and more custom) training dataset. d) No serious developer would be caught dead using the stock free tier Stable Diffusion. e) Big studios will most certainly hire closely-guarded artists to curate and expand their proprietary training datasets.
  • 101008 4y ago
    I pay for MidJourney, $10 per month. So far has been a great experience.
  • coffeebeqn 4y ago
    Sure but then you need one senior artist to curate rather than hundreds (including outsourced) artists that the current workflow uses
    • otabdeveloper4 4y ago
      You'd need both, of course. And huge teams of artists churning out proprietary dataset updates constantly. The current situation where you'd download billions of free images off the Internet only works once, and only if you somehow justify it as a research endeavour. Once this thing is monetized intellectual property laws will kick in.
  • alextheparrot 4y ago
    I think some of your points are myopic — the same thing was said for language models, but RLHF and RLAF [0] clearly show a trajectory of the models getting better at doing this self-improvement process with less “humans are special”ness. A tool like Copilot can more or less automatically improve via telemetry, I’d expect the same thing as image models catch-up. I’d also expect the human signals to get further and further downstream of the actual creation process (e.g. Gameplay tester reports visual bug versus artist manually edits character) [0] https://www.anthropic.com/constitutional.pdf https://www.anthropic.com/constitutional.pdf
    • otabdeveloper4 4y ago
      This only works if you ignore intellectual property laws, which isn't gonna happen once AI leaves the "research lab" phase and becomes a commercial industry.
      • alextheparrot 4y ago
        This comment confuses me a bit, as AI improving via feedback on its generations introduces no new concerns. Which new intellectual property concerns are introduced via reinforcement learning? An aside, but people use and pay for Copilot, it is out of the research lab phase.
        • otabdeveloper4 4y ago
          First thing you'll want is for AI to generate a) stuff in new genres and b) proprietary stuff (Marvel Cinematic Universe, Nintendo, etc.) None of this is solved algorithmically.
  • CuriouslyC 4y ago
    That's actually backwards. They won't be able to compete just on data because lots of people are producing custom models, and they can be blended together like a stylistic and thematic pallet. Plus, if you own the pipeline you can use embeddings, dreambooth in specific elements and set it up in batch mode doing a random walk through the latent space for cheap. This stuff is not hard to set up and run, and with money and expertise, you can create something that is both unique looking relative to other AI art, and more optimized for your workflow than a service. Image gen services will compete on ease of use, general quality and access to models that are larger than can fit in 24-48g vram without a big up front cost. There will probably be some services that provide specific features that people use even if they own their own pipelines, but the core customers will be smaller shops who don't use it enough to justify a real investment.
  • badsectoracula 4y ago
    > b) Training datasets can only be made by humans. AI can make training datasets too. For example to replace the human generated stuff from stable diffusion you could have some random-ish image generator coupled with some sort of image classification AI. As long as you have a good enough classification AI (or even more than one) that tells you what images are, you can focus on random-ish image generator algorithms to generate training data for another AI to generate images from descriptions. (this is obviously with lots of handwaving and there will be problems that need to be solved - e.g. to avoid 99% of the generated training data be stuff like "noise on noise" but have some form of variety :-P), but the point is AIs generating data for other AIs is something that isn't far fetched and you don't need to think in terms of a single AI either)
    • rolph 4y ago
      this sounds like Artificial Imagination
    • matkoniecz 4y ago
      You can also feed Goggle Street View or equivalent for a good start. (though https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panora... may matter here)
    • ausbah 4y ago
      how is the generated data not just worse than already existing data
    • bavell 4y ago
      I believe Tesla has been doing some form of this to expand their training datasets.
  • GaggiX 4y ago
    If the datasets were well curated, we would sample directly from the learned distribution instead of using high classifier-free guidance but by extracting image-text-pairs from the Common Crawl web data dump you're not really creating a well curated dataset.
  • smusamashah 4y ago
    https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1045u8t/my_pixel_art_specific_ai_model_just_got_an_upgrade/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1045u8t/my... someone made this pixel art model and selling it for $65. If you see the shared samples it really is worth the money. You can make really good pixel art using this. SD is open source, the paid stuff is going to be the paid models like this I think.
• MarinReiter 4y ago
  Unless necessary regulations are put in place that stop people from stealing art to use in training datasets, then yes. Those artists are going to get replaced. We should be discussing how to regulate these AIs.
  • hexomancer 4y ago
    Originally "computer" was used to refer to people who would "compute". They were all replaced by electronic computers. I don't think many would claim that the world would be a better place if regulations were put in place to limit electronic computers in order to keep human computers employed.
    • MarinReiter 4y ago
      1 - Not the same situation. No one stole already-done work from the people who used to "compute" to create the computers themselves, or its output. 2 - You're twisting my argument. I don't care if artists are employed or not, or that some jobs are transitioned out from the economy. I care that people who put in work get the value proportional to that work. You should, too. When you use one of these AIs that have been fed millions of images in order to train them and generate an effective output, you are necessarily consuming the images themselves, without which the AI wouldn't do anything. In that process, the artists - whose copyrighted work is, again, fundamental to the development of the tool - have been paid nada, they have not even consented to the use of their images in the training process. How does that track? This would be a very different conversations if these AIs only used public domain art, of which there's plenty. But then again, it wouldn't be much profitable, would it?
      • bombela 4y ago
        Should artists be forced to live without the internet nor access to the outside, so that they can never get inspiration from other artists? Of course not. So why is it different for an AI?
        • 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• dagmx 4y ago
  Imho this is the perspective of inexperience in the art domain and an extrapolation from still concepts to full worlds, and not acknowledging that art is as much the skill to put things in the medium as it is to have a developed eye. Even indie games need very bespoke art. Yeah, you can now generate images that are passable, but that doesn’t expand to making a cohesive world of items unless you’ve developed an eye for it like the person in the original post has. Hell, their post shows how important artists are because they needed that pre-existing knowledge to convert from an image to a useable state. This also doesn’t expand to making fun animation or lighting that works for your game, or to interesting visual effects. The concept art in the post are pretty generic looking within the genre. If that’s all people are aiming for, then fine, but it’s highly reductive to say it’ll replace artists. It’ll be a tool in the tool chest. None of that is even touching on how much artists are involved in making sure a game also runs well on the system, while working with engineers. I really just don’t think people understand how much art direction goes into even indie games. Something like fire watch or journey is immense. Let’s take the concept examples in this image. Why do any of the details exist in there? Once you start thinking about the details of the world, you’ll start wanting to fine tune things. As you do this, surprise! you’ve turned into an artist yourself. I just think we don’t teach art appreciation , or even appreciation for things outside our domain, to people. We see “image is good” and think that’s all an artist brings. Engineers are especially susceptible to this. We think in binary results. So it’s easy to think “it’ll replace my need for artists” if that’s our mindset, but I think that line of thinking comes from not understanding that the journey is an important part of the result.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]