AI in Gaming (a Poll) [+]

[J.Quondam]

I vote that it's all okay. (*)
From a technical perspective, if you can get the AI to reliably do what you intend it to do in your (C)RPG, then do it. It might not be to my taste personally, but I can't immediately think of anything that is a red line for me.

As for how I'd personally use AI in gaming, that is probably limited to GM aids, like on-the-fly NPC portraits, random encounters, and the like (stuff that random tables do now but without the rolling). I might also be interested in rogue-like CRPGs incorporating AI elements, too, especially to make the play unpredictable and weird. ETA: Another thing that would be interesting (at least in the "interesting times" sense) is AI players, for when you want to DM but don't have a group, especially for first pass q'n'd playtesting, running henchmen, etc.



(*) HOWEVER.... Like many others, my position assumes the AI is trained ethically; and that legal, economic, security, and energy issues are more or less resolved. I generally don't approve of AI in (commercial) gaming uses if training is infringing, or if it replaces more creators than it empowers. I'm also assuming AI as it exists today. But of course, there could be unforeseen tech developments that might make it more or less acceptable for a variety of reasons.

 

[Gradine]

All adaptive dialogue really is about is a series of "if->then" programming. That's basically what adapative AI is, just on a larger and more complex scale.

Hence, adaptive difficulty (like in Left 4 Dead) tells the "AI Director" to dial things back when you're in rough shape and bring the pain when you're coasting. Adaptive dialogue is basically "this character says 'x' when 'y' happens". The lines are still written by human writers, it's just that instead of dialogue that only plays in specific situations (like a linear story game), the dialogue is more varied and has is a bit more reactive to the environment that's happening. In theory, it's supposed to make the world and the characters more immersive. In practice, YMMV

 

[Reynard]

As generative AI tools improve, the line is going to blur between "AI art" and "human art". Ultimately these tools are going to end up assisting human artists -- like grammar algorithms for writers and filters for photographers and so on. They are going to be tools. New paint brushes.

And the ethical considerations are going to get resolved, too. Every day a new data source signs a deal with AI companies. They are going to work out copyright and revenue and access and everything else. That's how new tech works.

Those people who can't look past their fear and anger right now are going to have to deal with the new world regardless of whether they like it or not.

 

[overgeeked]

As "AI" is currently sourced, there are no acceptable uses of "AI" in any form. This is due to the LLMs and art generators using copyrighted works without permission from the copyright holders. If, in future, "AI" is built on legally sourced texts and images, then it would be fine. A bit of a hit to the creativity of the community, but at least it wouldn't be radioactively unethical and illegal.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm definitely all in for AI art; the ability to take descriptions and turn them into pictures is such a stress reliever* as I'm not as great an artist as I wish I were. I'm looking forward to AI being able to handle moving pictures - maybe I get some of my stories in animated form.

So far the only big hiccup I've run across with AI is with its writing. It can write at a basic level low, but I haven't seen it be able to do more than a mediocre job at writing fiction, though it's pretty handy at summarizing information it is given. I'm hoping that down the road we'll see it be able to decently handle DMing for solo play - it's not quite there yet for something longer than a single game session or so.

As far as taking jobs and such, things change and so do professions. People WILL have to adapt, but I think in the end AI will open up more opportunities than it closes. So long as we are able to keep the damn thing out of the military.

* Usually, it can be fickle getting certain things and not ending up prompt-blocked.

 

[not-so-newguy]

Procedural generation has been in video (and computer games) for decades, and adaptive concepts/behavior is what people have been calling "AI" in gaming for just as long (e.g; "wow, the enemy AI reacts to your footprints in the snow!" from the original MGS in '98). Adaptive technology is kind of what makes video games... more or less possible, at least to the extent of having other creatures/characters/bits and bobs to interact with, and procedural generation is what makes Rogue-likes... like... well, like Rogue. These are all programming and mechanics, built to create the interactive play experience, utilizing human-made assets to fill and create and motivate the world. There's nothing wrong there (although I know procedural generation is not every gamer's cup of tea).

In short, adaptive AI is what allows standalone gaming to have interaction at all, and procedural generation allows games to enhance replayability (albeit at the expense of more curated experience). Neither take a creative job away from a somebody; even Roguelikes have level designers, after all, they're just working more on interconnecting pieces than a curated whole, and adaptive dialogue is still being written by human writers, just with an algorithm in place to determine when the situation calls for it.

Where I draw the line then, personally, is when creative work is being taken from human creatives. Artists, writers, renderers, etc... automating their work takes the human spirit out of what they are producing, and no matter how how quality the imagery/text becomes it's never going to be able to replicate that. I'm not a "wooey"-type person, either; this isn't about the intractable strength of the human soul or whatever, at least not for me. But there is something distinctly human about the art we create (visual or written), and it's that quality that computer programming will never be able to replicate.

This; except I might be a bit more "wooey."

 

[the Jester]

I think the key thing for me is that it's NOT acceptable for AIs to dredge the work of nonconsenting humans.

 

[Reynard]

I think the key thing for me is that it's NOT acceptable for AIs to dredge the work of nonconsenting humans.

AIS didn't dredge anything. Corporations did. Demand accountability and fair compensation.

BUT, that doesn't say anything about the value of the technology, which is revolutionary. Or the potential danger, which means we need to demand regulation, too.

 

[aramis erak]

I think the key thing for me is that it's NOT acceptable for AIs to dredge the work of nonconsenting humans.

Why not? That's how humans learn their languages...

 

[Reynard]

Why not? That's how humans learn their languages...

Generative algorithms aren't human. They are systems owned by corporations. Corporations should have to pay for access to people's owned works.