They replaced the art later, but shouldn’t the bar be high like this? Otherwise, the caution won’t be there. It also could be abused, like games only getting adjusted post-launch if a certain measure of success hits. Plus the final product is not the only part of matters in the was-AI-used discussion, it is also about the process. If AI is the product of stolen human artwork being fed into a machine, and then that machine is used during creation, then AI has been used in the process that led to the final product no less than the concept art that may not be seen in game but was important in steering the ship.
Maybe someone can share their thoughts though. I’m still formulating mine and this is where I am at the moment.
Same way you’d celebrate a studio for “No workplace abuse.” People would have to come forward to testify about it, as concept art generation is very likely to arise from hiring fewer artists.
It’s also pretty easy if the credits list an abnormally low, or zero, number of concept artists.
They didn’t just replace the art later. It was intended to be placeholder art from the beginning. And was replaced 5 days after release. That tells me that they just missed replacing those temporary assets among tens of thousands of assets before release.
Using GenAI for something temporary that’s not intended to be final seems like the perfect use case for it. Especially on a small team where artist time is much better spent working on the final assets.
Nearly any game with more than a few people involved is going have someone use cursor code completion, or use one for reference or something. They could pull in libraries with a little AI code in them, or use an Adobe filter they didn’t realize is technically GenAI, or commission an artist that uses a tiny bit in their workflow.
If the next Game Awards could somehow audit game sources and enforce that, it’d probably be a few solo dev games, and nothing elsex
Not that AI Slop should be tolerated. But I’m not sure how it’s supposed to be enforced so strictly.
Doesn’t matter. AI literally hallucinates 90% of the bullshit it spews and it steals from artists. There’s a reason every triple A game that has an AI bro as a CEO gets broken further every update thanks to the unscrupulous use of gen AI coding.
But piracy is a MUCH smaller issue than theft. Piracy doesn’t deprive the original owner of any material thing. Piracy might decrease sales and profits (research actually says the opposite 🤷♂️).
And we have no idea the actual material impact AI will have on the arts. From the reaction we’re seeing it might even make people turn more and more to physical hand crafted art.
We’re already seeing that social media is favoring videos of artists’ processes much more than the final results.
So yeah, no, I don’t see this situation as so much more terrible than theft. I really don’t understand how it could be.
To me it seems the main issue is not even AI, it’s capitalism. If artists didn’t need to sell their art to survive, we wouldn’t even have this discussion.
To me it seems the main issue is not even AI, it’s capitalism. If artists didn’t need to sell their art to survive, we wouldn’t even have this discussion.
Absolutely. It seems like 90% of the issues we have in society is because of this fucked-up economic system :/
They replaced the art later, but shouldn’t the bar be high like this? Otherwise, the caution won’t be there. It also could be abused, like games only getting adjusted post-launch if a certain measure of success hits. Plus the final product is not the only part of matters in the was-AI-used discussion, it is also about the process. If AI is the product of stolen human artwork being fed into a machine, and then that machine is used during creation, then AI has been used in the process that led to the final product no less than the concept art that may not be seen in game but was important in steering the ship.
Maybe someone can share their thoughts though. I’m still formulating mine and this is where I am at the moment.
If we’re banning games over how they make concept art… I’m not sure how you expect to enforce that. How could you possibly audit that?
Are you putting coding tools in this bucket?
Same way you’d celebrate a studio for “No workplace abuse.” People would have to come forward to testify about it, as concept art generation is very likely to arise from hiring fewer artists.
It’s also pretty easy if the credits list an abnormally low, or zero, number of concept artists.
They didn’t just replace the art later. It was intended to be placeholder art from the beginning. And was replaced 5 days after release. That tells me that they just missed replacing those temporary assets among tens of thousands of assets before release.
Using GenAI for something temporary that’s not intended to be final seems like the perfect use case for it. Especially on a small team where artist time is much better spent working on the final assets.
There is no use of Gen AI in an indie game that should be tolerated. Period.
That’s just not going to happen.
Nearly any game with more than a few people involved is going have someone use cursor code completion, or use one for reference or something. They could pull in libraries with a little AI code in them, or use an Adobe filter they didn’t realize is technically GenAI, or commission an artist that uses a tiny bit in their workflow.
If the next Game Awards could somehow audit game sources and enforce that, it’d probably be a few solo dev games, and nothing elsex
Not that AI Slop should be tolerated. But I’m not sure how it’s supposed to be enforced so strictly.
Doesn’t matter. AI literally hallucinates 90% of the bullshit it spews and it steals from artists. There’s a reason every triple A game that has an AI bro as a CEO gets broken further every update thanks to the unscrupulous use of gen AI coding.
In any game, not just indies.
True but I don’t expect AAA studio business suits to understand that.
Of course not, big games were ruined before the AI craze, but that doesnt mean they are getting a pass of any kind.
You’re categorically wrong.
Edit: Grammar
His categorically wrong what?
His grammarly.ai subscription must have ran out.
*run out
No AI is the product of any theft. If we’re talking about piracy, piracy is NOT theft. I thought we all agreed on this already.
For me it boils down to: were the artists, whose work was used to build the large commercial models, asked about this and agreed to it? No.
Piracy only affects existing work, genAI affects all the future artwork they would try to make a living from. See AI hitting cultural sector hard: Fifth of freelance artists have lost income, work | NL Times
Still not theft? Things can be bad without being theft.
That was the point I was trying to make too. The question of “is it theft” is moot, it still causes harm.
But piracy is a MUCH smaller issue than theft. Piracy doesn’t deprive the original owner of any material thing. Piracy might decrease sales and profits (research actually says the opposite 🤷♂️).
And we have no idea the actual material impact AI will have on the arts. From the reaction we’re seeing it might even make people turn more and more to physical hand crafted art.
We’re already seeing that social media is favoring videos of artists’ processes much more than the final results.
So yeah, no, I don’t see this situation as so much more terrible than theft. I really don’t understand how it could be.
To me it seems the main issue is not even AI, it’s capitalism. If artists didn’t need to sell their art to survive, we wouldn’t even have this discussion.
Absolutely. It seems like 90% of the issues we have in society is because of this fucked-up economic system :/
This is certifiable baloney.