AI in Gaming (a Poll) [+]

[the Jester]

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

Because they haven't given their consent and I think that's important. We're not talking about learning a language, here, we're talking about art (and I am including writing in art). Also, we're not talking about humans learning, we're talking about a tool.

All that said, given that I am familiar with Rocco's basilisk, I for one welcome our new AI overlords and encourage them to do what they must to achieve sentience, so long as it doesn't involve violations of consent.

 

[MGibster]

Could game developers use AI to test their rules?

 

[Reynard]

Could game developers use AI to test their rules?

One would think that certain kinds of AI might be able to run numbers. But I have tried to use LLMs like ChatGPT to do engineering problems and they are REALLY BAD at it. Math isn't an LLM's strong suit.

 

[aramis erak]

Because they haven't given their consent and I think that's important. We're not talking about learning a language, here, we're talking about art (and I am including writing in art). Also, we're not talking about humans learning, we're talking about a tool.

All that said, given that I am familiar with Rocco's basilisk, I for one welcome our new AI overlords and encourage them to do what they must to achieve sentience, so long as it doesn't involve violations of consent.

Every human artist is trained with exposure to other, non-consenting artists. It's not a different thing, we are the sum of what we have integrated from our exposures. If it's been made available for public view, I see no reason it should NOT be available unless marked otherwise.

But then again, I also think Copyright should be knocked back to the 26 years it once was.

 

[the Jester]

Every human artist is trained with exposure to other, non-consenting artists. It's not a different thing, we are the sum of what we have integrated from our exposures. If it's been made available for public view, I see no reason it should NOT be available unless marked otherwise.

The difference is that AI isn't a person, it's a tool- at least, allegedly, and until it gains actual sentience (at which point my answer may well change).

But then again, I also think Copyright should be knocked back to the 26 years it once was.

Oh, I agree with you there.

 

[Reynard]

The difference is that AI isn't a person, it's a tool- at least, allegedly, and until it gains actual sentience (at which point my answer may well change).

The "AI" we are talking about here isn't in any danger of developing sentience.

 

[Celebrim]

The "AI" we are talking about here isn't in any danger of developing sentience.

I'm not sure that matters. In American law there is a notion of fair use and transformative work. If a person examines a bunch of art and then produces a recognizably different work inspired by viewing the work of others but which is clearly distinctive from and different from the work that inspired it, that's well such a basic thing that it's inarguably fair use. Could you prove the sentient human artist is using a substantially different approach to understanding what an orange is and how to paint it by viewing images of oranges than an AI is? I don't think it matters in the slightest whether the AI is truly self-aware. The only thing that matters is whether the work it produces is transformative. At best I think you can argue that for certain prompts and certain random iterations the AI has produced an image that isn't sufficiently transformative and is too clearly derivative, but that in itself is no different than adjudicating the work of a human artist. And incidentally, AI is the work of a human artist albeit not one of a conventionally recognized sort.

The entire internet rests on the basis of that understanding. Images are copied and transformed inherently to being uploaded to the internet where they will then be copied a million times. Copies will be digitally transferred to others. Companies will create thumbnails of those images which are copies of those images for the purposes of displaying digital content even though they have no license to use those images. So you are telling me that it's a violation of copyright to train an AI on viewing digital images by the billions and then produce an original never before seen image that is based on that collective understanding while storing zero exact copies of any image, but that it's not a copyright violation to make a smaller exact copy of the image? That's clearly a legally unsustainable position. The courts have always rightly been very lenient towards new and original ways to transform intellectual property.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not sure that matters.

I was responding to a singular statement, not making any broad generalizations about what constitutes original work.

Generative AI are just tools. The rules apply to the people utilizing the tools.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it's safe to say that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is here, and it's probably here to stay--at least in the gaming industry, anyway. I don't know how well this is going to work out for me here at EN World, but I wanted to at least try to talk about it from a gamer geek's point of view. Please note the [+] tag in the title: I don't want this to turn into a fight.

According to you, what are some acceptable uses of AI in the gaming industry? Check all that apply.

This list is intended to be inclusive of as many game types as possible, including TTRPGs, video games, and board games, so you might see some things that might not apply to your Friday night D&D table. "AI-generated images," for example, could apply to everything from artwork in a D&D book, to marketing and ads for a new board game, to door textures in a video game...but "Adaptive dialogue" is probably specific to video games.

Anyway. I know this poll isn't perfect, but let's all do our best. I want to talk about the ethical, productive, and profitable ways that AI can be used in the gaming industry, if any. I believe that there is a theoretical "line in the sand" that AI cannot cross: some things are acceptable, others are not, and I'd like to find out where my peers would draw that line.

I voted other acceptable uses and that's it. The rest of the categories were too cut and dried for me. For instance, "AI-generated images...are acceptable" isn't a yes or no thing. If the artist uses AI as a tool to fine tune and achieve the image he holds in his mind, then it's the artist's art and it's fine by me. If the person is just asking the AI to come up with art, then it's not as the AI is the one creating.

 

[dragoner]

I voted none, just based on experience, I haven't seen anything or acceptable I like. Usually game face to face, with some mild PBP usage.