8 ms·

Uhm…, even you use something low-code, or even no-code tool, you still have to learn how to code (former) or learn how to use some kind of visual scripting tool

Uhm…, even you use something low-code, or even no-code tool, you still have to learn how to code (former) or learn how to use some kind of visual scripting tool (latter). If you could simply type in plain English what are the mechanics you have in mind instead, then this new (simpler) way of creating game logic it may has the potential to unleash creativity from a broader audience. It is like saying why would I need a photoshop brush if I can manually paint every single pixel canvas 1 by 1. Not the same thing imo.

jprete 2y ago
If the AI doesn't get the mechanics right, and you have subtle game-breaking bugs that make it impossible to complete, you will never be able to fix it.
- fabiopolimeni 2y ago
  AI can create bugs, sure, as well as humans do. With time, I am more inclined to think it will be easier to ask an AI to fix them for us rather than the other way around. There is a non-intuitive feature of current LLMs, and that is, they are capable of refining over and over their own previous outcome. You can ask to revisit it, to improve it, check it, etc etc. use this to fix its own bugs.
  - antifa 2y ago
    These days any time I ask an AI to fix something, it starts over from scratch and some random detail falls off the back of the prompt truck.
- antifa 2y ago
  > you will never be able to fix it. I don't know about the article's studio specifically, but regarding AI game engines, I'm mostly worried you won't be able to make engine edits, or the engine will only be able to make an extremely narrow subset of games, or exiting the WYSIWYG/SaaS means starting over from scratch. If the engine targets a specific genre, it could cause a flood of low effort garbage. Some genres are already flooded because the easier game engines have tutorials and asset packs for them.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
Something that I never see addressed for this: So, let's just grant that someday, the tech will be mature enough that this is possible, and let's even say it goes beyond videogames to movies, to visual art, to graphic design, to writing, etc. Let's say that AI gets to a place where any joe blow can put in a prompt, and get a competent, and even let's be generous and say good product out of it. A solid 8/10. So... who the hell is going to buy it? Because videogames as an industry is already entirely saturated with products that range a whole spectrum from utter dogshit to amazing works of technical expertise, writing, design, etc. There are over 70,000 games on Steam alone now, with 9,000 added in the last 9 months. If this tech actually got to this place, there will be exponentially more games, because all you have to do is tell an AI what you want to play. And you can take that further: Movies are also highly saturated as an industry, especially as larger studios move ever further into less making "movies" or "series" and just making "content" endlessly remixing their intellectual properties. So now, all of those companies (and all the people who like their stuff) can now just make their own Iron Man movie? Their own Wandavision? Just endlessly making and remaking and remaking, as though tons of people aren't already sick to death of all the television programs and movies that are being made? And again, you can just keep extending this to any media: print, music, art... we have more of everything now than we ever have before and the goal of companies like Adobe, like OpenAI, etc. is to put even more powerful creative tools into even more hands, broadening the group of people who can create stuff but like... even if you take it as granted that this can be done... Who the hell is watching all of this stuff? Who is playing all of these games? And why in the world would you pay to watch someone else's AI movie when you can pay to generate your own with whatever you want in it? Why would you ever buy a game off Steam again if you can just ask your game making AI to make you the exact game you want, even just copying the damn description out of steam? All I see this doing is potentially killing off dozens of creative industries and funneling shit tons of creative control and platform-style power to a handful of massive corporations, running warehouses full of fucking graphics cards, to generate the same games, the same movies, the same music, over, and over, and over, to suit everyone's personal taste, and absolutely destroying entire rainforest's worth of electricity to accomplish it. And like... why do we want that?
- chrz 2y ago
  Making a game is not big problem. Making it FUN is. Theres no formula for this. Lets say AI can make a game from prompt just like that - I dont know if its going to be fun to play.
Bjorkbat 2y ago
Emphasis on "if you could simply type in English" (or insert native language here). Sometimes the AI misinterprets what you want. Sometimes this is due to lack of sophistication on the model's part, but I think the bigger issue at hand are the shortcomings of natural language. Even when working with an intelligent human being, sometimes you have to communicate your thoughts/ideas through pictographic means. It's something I've thought a lot about lately. No-code/low-code is about as old as GUIs themselves, yet it's never become the de-facto way of creating software. However, for everything else we do we use a GUI. No one creates illustrations on the computer programmatically (unless you're into generative art like me). You probably aren't doing your taxes in a terminal. You get the idea. This is a segue into my other critique of prompting as a UI. A lot of UX people think it is the ultimate UI, and natural language the premier way of communicating jobs to be done. I disagree. I think symbols and diagrams communicate more with less. Concerning language, I think that for whatever reason programming languages are the most natural way (that we've currently found) to communicate intent in a programmatic context, markup languages are the most natural way to communicate intent in a layout context, and that's the reason why despite 50+ years of GUI innovation programmers still use text-editors. The old guard has all aged out of the profession, the new guard still uses text-editors. So that all being said, I think the most incredible AI demo I've seen so far is the tldraw stuff done by Steve Ruiz, namely Make Real, and that's because you're communicating with the AI in a pictographic / symbolic context, and because it's a whiteboard, there's no limit to the symbols at your disposal to communicate your intent. The limit is AI's ability to interpret what those symbols mean.
bluescrn 2y ago
Precisely specifying desired functionality of software in ‘plain English’ is hard. Especially if you can’t provide diagrams, sketches, mocked-up screen layouts, etc. Also, the low-code/no-code tools allow precise editing. With current prompt-based AI party tricks, a tiny change to the prompt can produce completely different output.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jprete 2y ago

If the AI doesn't get the mechanics right, and you have subtle game-breaking bugs that make it impossible to complete, you will never be able to fix it.

fabiopolimeni 2y ago
AI can create bugs, sure, as well as humans do. With time, I am more inclined to think it will be easier to ask an AI to fix them for us rather than the other way around. There is a non-intuitive feature of current LLMs, and that is, they are capable of refining over and over their own previous outcome. You can ask to revisit it, to improve it, check it, etc etc. use this to fix its own bugs.
- antifa 2y ago
  These days any time I ask an AI to fix something, it starts over from scratch and some random detail falls off the back of the prompt truck.
antifa 2y ago
> you will never be able to fix it. I don't know about the article's studio specifically, but regarding AI game engines, I'm mostly worried you won't be able to make engine edits, or the engine will only be able to make an extremely narrow subset of games, or exiting the WYSIWYG/SaaS means starting over from scratch. If the engine targets a specific genre, it could cause a flood of low effort garbage. Some genres are already flooded because the easier game engines have tutorials and asset packs for them.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

Something that I never see addressed for this: So, let's just grant that someday, the tech will be mature enough that this is possible, and let's even say it goes beyond videogames to movies, to visual art, to graphic design, to writing, etc. Let's say that AI gets to a place where any joe blow can put in a prompt, and get a competent, and even let's be generous and say good product out of it. A solid 8/10. So... who the hell is going to buy it? Because videogames as an industry is already entirely saturated with products that range a whole spectrum from utter dogshit to amazing works of technical expertise, writing, design, etc. There are over 70,000 games on Steam alone now, with 9,000 added in the last 9 months. If this tech actually got to this place, there will be exponentially more games, because all you have to do is tell an AI what you want to play. And you can take that further: Movies are also highly saturated as an industry, especially as larger studios move ever further into less making "movies" or "series" and just making "content" endlessly remixing their intellectual properties. So now, all of those companies (and all the people who like their stuff) can now just make their own Iron Man movie? Their own Wandavision? Just endlessly making and remaking and remaking, as though tons of people aren't already sick to death of all the television programs and movies that are being made? And again, you can just keep extending this to any media: print, music, art... we have more of everything now than we ever have before and the goal of companies like Adobe, like OpenAI, etc. is to put even more powerful creative tools into even more hands, broadening the group of people who can create stuff but like... even if you take it as granted that this can be done... Who the hell is watching all of this stuff? Who is playing all of these games? And why in the world would you pay to watch someone else's AI movie when you can pay to generate your own with whatever you want in it? Why would you ever buy a game off Steam again if you can just ask your game making AI to make you the exact game you want, even just copying the damn description out of steam? All I see this doing is potentially killing off dozens of creative industries and funneling shit tons of creative control and platform-style power to a handful of massive corporations, running warehouses full of fucking graphics cards, to generate the same games, the same movies, the same music, over, and over, and over, to suit everyone's personal taste, and absolutely destroying entire rainforest's worth of electricity to accomplish it. And like... why do we want that?

chrz 2y ago
Making a game is not big problem. Making it FUN is. Theres no formula for this. Lets say AI can make a game from prompt just like that - I dont know if its going to be fun to play.

Bjorkbat 2y ago

Emphasis on "if you could simply type in English" (or insert native language here). Sometimes the AI misinterprets what you want. Sometimes this is due to lack of sophistication on the model's part, but I think the bigger issue at hand are the shortcomings of natural language. Even when working with an intelligent human being, sometimes you have to communicate your thoughts/ideas through pictographic means. It's something I've thought a lot about lately. No-code/low-code is about as old as GUIs themselves, yet it's never become the de-facto way of creating software. However, for everything else we do we use a GUI. No one creates illustrations on the computer programmatically (unless you're into generative art like me). You probably aren't doing your taxes in a terminal. You get the idea. This is a segue into my other critique of prompting as a UI. A lot of UX people think it is the ultimate UI, and natural language the premier way of communicating jobs to be done. I disagree. I think symbols and diagrams communicate more with less. Concerning language, I think that for whatever reason programming languages are the most natural way (that we've currently found) to communicate intent in a programmatic context, markup languages are the most natural way to communicate intent in a layout context, and that's the reason why despite 50+ years of GUI innovation programmers still use text-editors. The old guard has all aged out of the profession, the new guard still uses text-editors. So that all being said, I think the most incredible AI demo I've seen so far is the tldraw stuff done by Steve Ruiz, namely Make Real, and that's because you're communicating with the AI in a pictographic / symbolic context, and because it's a whiteboard, there's no limit to the symbols at your disposal to communicate your intent. The limit is AI's ability to interpret what those symbols mean.

bluescrn 2y ago

Precisely specifying desired functionality of software in ‘plain English’ is hard. Especially if you can’t provide diagrams, sketches, mocked-up screen layouts, etc. Also, the low-code/no-code tools allow precise editing. With current prompt-based AI party tricks, a tiny change to the prompt can produce completely different output.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]