4 ms·

That just shows that GenAI is associated with poor quality content at this moment. So the true opposition is to poor quality content, not GenAI. Unfortunately

That just shows that GenAI is associated with poor quality content at this moment. So the true opposition is to poor quality content, not GenAI. Unfortunately for artists, actors, etc. GenAI right now is the worst it's ever going to be, and it was much worse just a year ago.

piyuv 10mo ago
Fortunately, GenAI will never be as good as human artists.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- beering 10mo ago
  That may be true, but you can’t compare average GenAI with the best humans because there are many reasons the human output is low quality: budget, timelines, oversights, not having the best artists, etc. Very few games use the best human artists for everything. Same with programming. The best humans write better code than Codex, but the awful government portals and enterprise apps you’re using today were also written by humans.
  - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
    He didn't say "best humans". he said "humans". And yes, I think with the current trajectory, we're not even hitting "crappy entrprise government portal" levels within the next few decades.
- KK7NIL 10mo ago
  "Fortunately, machines will never be as good as human chess players."
  - happytoexplain 10mo ago
    Subjective vs objective. Also, analogies are almost always weak rhetorical distractions. The conversation just becomes about the differences between the two things. If you want to state an opinion about X, form the thought about X, rather than just pointing to Y and asserting they're the same.
    - KK7NIL 10mo ago
      > Subjective vs objective. We've already reached the point where GAI art is extremely difficult to distinguish from human art and at a fraction of that cost. I'd say that's pretty objective and it's hard to even leave room for subjective interpretation when it's so hard to tell them apart. > Also, analogies are almost always weak rhetorical distractions. I wasn't trying to start a discussion with them. To say GAI will never be better than humans at art when we already know what we know today isn't a good faith logical argument, it's a tautological appeal to emotion.
      - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
        >where GAI art is extremely difficult to distinguish from human art and at a fraction of that cost. And this logic is why people don't understand how to make good game art. generating an 2d animation or real time 3d model that properly deforms is multiple magnitudes different from fooling some tiktok users with a static image in isolation. even composing a still scene will quickly reveal the lmitations of generating art for your visual novel. Wielding a camera doesn't make you a cinematographer that can sell a movie. Generating a few realistic-ish images does not make you an artist that can sell a game.
  - hackable_sand 10mo ago
    This holds true
- viraptor 10mo ago
  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976231207095 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976231207095 > AI Hyperrealism: Why AI Faces Are Perceived as More Real Than Human Ones (Nov 2023)
viraptor 10mo ago
It's like the "can't stand CGI in movies" of decades past. Now there's CGI in almost every single movie. It's so good we can't notice most of it. The opposition was just to how low the quality ceiling was at the time, not really the CGI usage itself.
- johnnyanmac 10mo ago
  The thing is that only came about when companies realized that the thing they really wanted (to cut labor and costs of production) was counter to how you really make "good CGI". Bad CGI is still bad and good CGI makes some of the most expensive films to date. Meanwhile, AI markets itself almost exclusively on being a time and money saver. And more efficient workers, but industry actively opposes that in a day and age where they prefer to commoditize labor instead of invest in specialists. If it doesn't actually do neither, then it won't really serve a niche compared to CGI.
johnnyanmac 10mo ago
I've been hearing "but it will get better" for a lot of things in the industry for decades now. It's a bit hollow to be future thinking when the present is collapsing around us for several reasons in and outside the games industry.

piyuv 10mo ago

Fortunately, GenAI will never be as good as human artists.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
beering 10mo ago
That may be true, but you can’t compare average GenAI with the best humans because there are many reasons the human output is low quality: budget, timelines, oversights, not having the best artists, etc. Very few games use the best human artists for everything. Same with programming. The best humans write better code than Codex, but the awful government portals and enterprise apps you’re using today were also written by humans.
- johnnyanmac 10mo ago
  He didn't say "best humans". he said "humans". And yes, I think with the current trajectory, we're not even hitting "crappy entrprise government portal" levels within the next few decades.
KK7NIL 10mo ago
"Fortunately, machines will never be as good as human chess players."
- happytoexplain 10mo ago
  Subjective vs objective. Also, analogies are almost always weak rhetorical distractions. The conversation just becomes about the differences between the two things. If you want to state an opinion about X, form the thought about X, rather than just pointing to Y and asserting they're the same.
  - KK7NIL 10mo ago
    > Subjective vs objective. We've already reached the point where GAI art is extremely difficult to distinguish from human art and at a fraction of that cost. I'd say that's pretty objective and it's hard to even leave room for subjective interpretation when it's so hard to tell them apart. > Also, analogies are almost always weak rhetorical distractions. I wasn't trying to start a discussion with them. To say GAI will never be better than humans at art when we already know what we know today isn't a good faith logical argument, it's a tautological appeal to emotion.
    - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
      >where GAI art is extremely difficult to distinguish from human art and at a fraction of that cost. And this logic is why people don't understand how to make good game art. generating an 2d animation or real time 3d model that properly deforms is multiple magnitudes different from fooling some tiktok users with a static image in isolation. even composing a still scene will quickly reveal the lmitations of generating art for your visual novel. Wielding a camera doesn't make you a cinematographer that can sell a movie. Generating a few realistic-ish images does not make you an artist that can sell a game.
- hackable_sand 10mo ago
  This holds true
viraptor 10mo ago
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976231207095 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976231207095 > AI Hyperrealism: Why AI Faces Are Perceived as More Real Than Human Ones (Nov 2023)

viraptor 10mo ago

It's like the "can't stand CGI in movies" of decades past. Now there's CGI in almost every single movie. It's so good we can't notice most of it. The opposition was just to how low the quality ceiling was at the time, not really the CGI usage itself.

johnnyanmac 10mo ago
The thing is that only came about when companies realized that the thing they really wanted (to cut labor and costs of production) was counter to how you really make "good CGI". Bad CGI is still bad and good CGI makes some of the most expensive films to date. Meanwhile, AI markets itself almost exclusively on being a time and money saver. And more efficient workers, but industry actively opposes that in a day and age where they prefer to commoditize labor instead of invest in specialists. If it doesn't actually do neither, then it won't really serve a niche compared to CGI.

johnnyanmac 10mo ago

I've been hearing "but it will get better" for a lot of things in the industry for decades now. It's a bit hollow to be future thinking when the present is collapsing around us for several reasons in and outside the games industry.