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

Justice and Rule · 2026-03-26T02:00:53+0000

bsss said:
Yup! No one minds then, and incidentally, no one claims a mod undoes the artist-ness behind the original.

Because then we're talking about the modder's intent. AI has no intent, no vision, thus it strips out intent. I have no idea how to explain this any more simply.

bsss · 2026-03-26T02:03:35+0000

Justice and Rule said:
They are no longer an artist at that point, the are a commissioner of art. They aren't making art anymore, hence why they aren't entitled to copyrighting such works.

They (probably, anyway) can't claim copyright over the "DLSS 5 ON" renderings, but they still are the underlying artist.

Justice and Rule said:
AI has no intent, no vision, thus it strips out intent. I have no idea how to explain this any more simply.

You could start by paying attention to the fact we are talking about the artist's choices and not the AI's output.

Justice and Rule · 2026-03-26T02:04:22+0000

Tea Cozy said:
DLSS 5 output does not lose its eligibility for copyright.

“It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts. The Office confirms that the use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability.”

NewsNet Issue 1060 | U.S. Copyright Office

Copyright Office Releases Part 2 of Artificial Intelligence Report

www.copyright.gov

Maybe for the former, not the latter, but that also doesn't really remove from the fact that it's taking away from what the artist originally made, and how many artists have expressed as such.

Justice and Rule · 2026-03-26T02:06:39+0000

bsss said:
They (probably, anyway) can't claim copyright over the "DLSS 5 ON" renderings, but they still are the underlying artist.

It probably wouldn't be enough to remove copyright, but my point in bringing up copyright was more to show that AI can't have intent, and that it takes away things like ownership from the person using it. The more you use AI, the further you remove yourself from the product that comes out.

bsss said:
You could start by paying attention to the fact we are talking about the artist's choices and not the AI's output.

But the more they choose AI, the less they are the artist. That's the point, and the point plenty of artists have made already.

trappedslider · 2026-03-26T02:23:34+0000

whose intent is more important? The original artist? The modder who made changes to the artist or me who chose to use DLSS5 with the intent of changing things without worrying about mod conflicts?

Justice and Rule · 2026-03-26T02:31:56+0000

trappedslider said:
whose intent is more important? The original artist? The modder who made changes to the artist or me who chose to use DLSS5 with the intent of changing things without worrying about mod conflicts?

Uh, not the corporate managers, who seem to be promoting this over what seems like rather loud developer outcry? I mean, if you want to be on the side of upper management trying to grift a buck out of this, that's up to you. But you're doing so with a tool largely built on unethical ecological harm that will cost a fortune, looks not great, and apparently doing it all so that you won't have mod conflicts in Oblivion Remastered.

FrogReaver · 2026-03-26T02:54:59+0000

Justice and Rule said:
But you're doing so with a tool largely built on unethical ecological harm that will cost a fortune, looks not great, and apparently doing it all so that you won't have mod conflicts in Oblivion Remastered.

Just wanted to highlight… All of this is irrelevant as whether its use by an artist changes artistic intent or becomes the artistic intent.

Justice and Rule · 2026-03-26T02:57:21+0000

FrogReaver said:
Just wanted to highlight… All of this is irrelevant as whether its use by an artist changes artistic intent or becomes the artistic intent.

Yeah, but so is someone wanting to run a game without mod conflicts.

trappedslider · 2026-03-26T03:06:59+0000

Justice and Rule said:
Uh, not the corporate managers, who seem to be promoting this over what seems like rather loud developer outcry? I mean, if you want to be on the side of upper management trying to grift a buck out of this, that's up to you. But you're doing so with a tool largely built on unethical ecological harm that will cost a fortune, looks not great, and apparently doing it all so that you won't have mod conflicts in Oblivion Remastered.

1. I don't play Oblivion remastered
2. I know how to handle mod conflicts

You're so concerned with intent, so whose intent is more important? The average user who just wants something done easily, the mod author who made a mod overriding the original artist's intent?

Also by the time DLSS5 comes to the public TES6 will be the new thing to mod

FrogReaver · 2026-03-26T03:08:53+0000

Justice and Rule said:
Yeah, but so is someone wanting to run a game without mod conflicts.

For that particular question sure. But it does bring up a foundational consideration. Artistic intent of the original artists in video games has never been sacrosanct. Since thats true, how can the justification for disliking DLSS5 be that it impacts artistic intent? It just doesn’t make sense.

There’s plenty of reasons to potentially dislike it. You might actually think it looks worse, or doesn’t flow with the rest of the game. I think for the most part these issues will get ironed out, either that or it won’t even be a technology worth pushing back against as It will die alone in the woods if it’s not actually good for anything. Time will tell on that one.