AI/LLMs DLSS 5 will be the worst thing to EVER happen to video games

[briggart]

Because they aren’t choices. No one made any choices here, they just turned on the DLSS5 and an AI made it look more like what it expects the image should look like based on its training data (which is basically every image of a blonde woman on a city street at night on the internet). Accordingly, it regresses to the mean. It changes details of her facial structure, it adds makeup, it invents light sources, and it changes the color temperature of the image to be significantly cooler. Because more of the images in the training data are of models that are made-up and lit for a photo shoot. But this isn’t supposed to be a still image, it’s a screenshot of a full-motion 3d scene, lit the way it is to create a specific mood and tone that the AI is not capable of understanding.

Sure. The poster I was replying to wrote that DLSS5 "decided" to change the image in this or that way, so I kept using the same language. I think we both understand that this is just a piece of software trying to do what it is hardcoded to do.

But at a deeper level, DLSS5 did not create itself. Somebody coded it, somebody decided what data to use for the training, somebody approved the resulting footage for public release, ... All these actual choices from actual humans contribute to the DLSS5 preview we are discussing, so I think that "choices" is still an appropriate term to summarize the changes.

It makes the color tone of all of the images cooler. That’s the AI slop effect; regression to the mean. On average, the model’s training data must have a slight bias towards cool lighting.

I was not trying to make a general point on color temperature. I simply pointed out that to me that the difference in skin tones between the two images seemed due to an overall white balance shift, rather than any specific DLSS5 issue with non-caucasian skin tones. If you white balance on the same white target (e.g. the ball, white shirts of background spectators, ...) the skin tones in the two images come out much closer, and residual differences can be explained by DLSS5 changing face lighting.

DLSS5 may have issues with non-caucasian skin tones, but I think that these two specific images do not make a strong case for that.

 

[bsss]

What if your design intent is "regression toward the mean"?

Right, or "fidelity via any trick [including this regression] in the book". That's all my point is. That the use of DLSS5 is part of the choices made by the artist, so someone else holding the artist's intent as a sacred reason to reject this tech is inconsistent --- it was assuming the artist and the someone else were aligned on those choices.

(Also not to be cynical, but I feel like "regression to the mean in the chase for fidelity" already happens a lot right now in AAA development, so I don't see this as an outlandish hypothetical.)

 

[trappedslider]

This has been a fascinating 23 pages to catch up on.

But, good news: I just checked and WoW Classic does not seem to be ruined!

I'm going to go find my 5.25" Lode Runner disks and see if that game is ok. I hope so.

How are you checking? As far as I am aware DLSS5 isn't even publicly available yet. And furthermore WoW (all versions) don't support DLSS beyond using DLSS for ray tracing.

 

[trappedslider]

But at least the creators of those mods made actual artistic decisions. They didn’t like the way the characters looked, so they specifically chose to alter their textures in specific, intentional ways. People may agree or disagree with those mod creators’ aesthetic preferences and choose to apply or not apply those mods. That isn’t what’s going on with DLSS5. No human is looking at the game and making intentional choices about how they think it would look better. The robots are just making it look more like the mean average within their training data. That’s why the go-to insult people use for it is slop. Because it’s just throwing every picture on the internet that looks kind of like the one to be modified into a blender, spreading the result all over the image, and saying “I made it better.”

The modders intent would be to improve the looks of the NPCS and have a stable load order that works. If that means using DLSS5 in the future instead of worrying about a number of different mods that may or may not conflict with each other, the average modder is going to go with using the least amount of mods to get the look they want.

Right now we're basing our reactions on two things: The use of AI and an EARLY tech demo. I'll withhold my final verdict for when it become publicly available. Requiring two 5090s does not make it publicly available.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Then that developer doesn’t understand how DLSS5 works. It doesn’t have intent. An artist might theoretically like the results better than their own work. But that’s not the same as it being consistent with their artistic intent.

I don't know, what does thsi "consistent with artististic intent" mean? And is artistic content something that is static? Did the triangle shaped Lara Croft chest area represent "artistic intent"? I doubt it. I think they would have liked to be closer to be something realistic looking. If there had been a way to create the illusion of smoother polygons by an AI, do you think they really would have said: "Oh no, this isn't my artistic intent, let's keep it like it is"?
Sure, now we've got a lot more polygons, more textures, and more advanced techniques. But at all times, the artists is facing limitations of their medium, whether it's pencil drawings, water colors or a 3D rendering pipeline. They never quite get what they envision, but they try to get as close as they can within their available limitations. Especially when they really mostly try to create "realistic" graphics. If you deliberatley go for 8-bit graphics or a comic style, you might have an easier time, but even there, you might find limitations on how neatly shapes flow, or how well textures work, how nice the lighting works.

I think people making artificial distinction between the imperfections AI create and that other techniques create. There are always compromises to be made. You can certainly try to argue that the imperfections of AI are making things worse, not better, but claiming that "artistic intent" seems kinda pretentious and trying to claim it's a different level of flaw than other technology has.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I suppose, hypothetically, a person could intend to make a product that is as generic and indistinguishable from other, similar products as possible. Though, I do think there’s an interesting philosophical debate to be had over whether that product would constitute art, especially if they didn’t actually make any choices about how to make it so aggressively average.

What if they make a choice about what flavor of donut to eat while the AI is working on it?

 

[Bill Zebub]

How are you checking? As far as I am aware DLSS5 isn't even publicly available yet. And furthermore WoW (all versions) don't support DLSS beyond using DLSS for ray tracing.

I asked Claude, of course.

Me: "Claude, has DLSS5 ruined Warcraft Classic yet?"
Claude: "No worries — DLSS 5 hasn't touched Warcraft Classic (or really anything yet)."

Then Claude took a break to cut down some rainforest and taunt some artists. After it was feeling refreshed it added:

"That said, the announcement did generate significant backlash from gamers and developers, with critics arguing the neural rendering alters games' art direction in unintended ways Wikipedia — so your concern is a sentiment many people share!"

Personally I was shocked. I thought Claude was wired directly into the NSA databases that have me profiled as "mostly facetious."

 

[bsss]

I think people making artificial distinction between the imperfections AI create and that other techniques create. There are always compromises to be made.

Not only techniques (though I agree with you) but also everyday transformations. What I'll call the "Betamax point" from way back in the thread. Is the "artistic intent" corrupted by rendering the game on a 3080 instead of the developer's chosen 5080? On an AMD GPU instead of a Nvidia GPU? Is backporting the game to Switch a compromise of the artist's vision? Heck, what about traditional supersampling? Or an HD remaster of an old game? Does artistic intent come with a bill of requirements that I have my monitor at certain gamma levels?

I know this sounds ridiculous, because I intend it to be, but the point remains in my mind: what is a discrete realization of artistic intent in a field of infinite reproductions and transformations? It seems impossible to judge from the outside, let alone use as a rubric for evaluating another transformation.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not only techniques (though I agree with you) but also everyday transformations. What I'll call the "Betamax point" from way back in the thread. Is the "artistic intent" corrupted by rendering the game on a 3080 instead of the developer's chosen 5080? On an AMD GPU instead of a Nvidia GPU? Is backporting the game to Switch a compromise of the artist's vision? Heck, what about traditional supersampling? Or an HD remaster of an old game? Does artistic intent come with a bill of requirements that I have my monitor at certain gamma levels?

I know this sounds ridiculous, because I intend it to be, but the point remains in my mind: what is a discrete realization of artistic intent in a field of infinite reproductions and transformations? It seems impossible to judge from the outside, let alone use as a rubric for evaluating another transformation.

I think technically you are correct. But I also think that while the line isn’t clear and agreed upon, it seems DLSS5 crosses the line for alot of people, though how much of that is due to ‘AI Bad’ reactions, compared to the actual output of the technology I’m not actually sure.

 

[bsss]

I think technically you are correct. But I also think that while the line isn’t clear and agreed upon, it seems DLSS5 crosses the line for alot of people, though how much of that is due to ‘AI Bad’ reactions, compared to the actual output of the technology I’m not actually sure.

I do think there is some lumping together. It's fine that there's a line that's crossed in a lot of people's heads, but I think the "line" is pretty blurry in practice and not anything to hang an "artistic intent" argument on regarding the use of the technology.

(This is of course all an aside from the other problem with the "artistic intent" argument, that the artist(s) chose to use DLSS 5, so even if there was a clear line, it was crossed knowingly.)