AI in Gaming (a Poll) [+]

In your opinion, what are some acceptable uses of AI in the gaming industry?

  • AI-generated images (book art, marketing, video game textures, board games, etc.) are acceptable.

    Votes: 24 33.8%
  • AI-generated 3d models (for video games and VTTs), are acceptable.

    Votes: 22 31.0%
  • AI-generated writing (books, ad copy, descriptions, etc) is acceptable.

    Votes: 14 19.7%
  • Adaptive dialogue (for NPCs in video games and VTTs) is acceptable.

    Votes: 31 43.7%
  • Adaptive damage/difficulty (the game adjusts difficulty to your level, for example) is acceptable.

    Votes: 35 49.3%
  • Adaptive behaviors (NPCs, enemies, etc. react and change their tactics) is acceptable

    Votes: 45 63.4%
  • Procedurally-generated maps (dungeon generators, rouge-like game levels) are acceptable.

    Votes: 51 71.8%
  • Procedurally-generated challenges (traps, monsters, whole encounters) are acceptable.

    Votes: 43 60.6%
  • Procedurally-generated rewards (item drops, random treasures) are acceptable.

    Votes: 43 60.6%
  • Other acceptable use(s), see below.

    Votes: 8 11.3%
  • There are no acceptable uses of AI.

    Votes: 16 22.5%

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
So far, according to the opinions of EN World members:
  • Generative AI is the least-acceptable kind of AI, with an approval rate between 17% to 33% (27% average).
  • Adaptive AI is somewhere in the middle with a 48% to 71% approval rate (57% average).
  • Procedural AI is the most-acceptable kind of AI, with a 65% to 73% approval rate (67% average).
  • And all forms of AI are unacceptable to 1 in 5 voters (20%).
I know this isn't a scientific poll, that it's just an anonymous measure of public opinion. I still find it interesting.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Reynard

Legend
The idea the "generative AI" is somehow worse than "procedural AI" is a reflection of people's fears, biases and misunderstandings more than a measure of an actual informed stance. Most people have decided whether or not they hat AI art, and then adjust their dials based on that feeling without actually trying to understand the technology.

It's luddites smashing textile machines all over again, except the luddites were at least honest about why.

AI can't create anything without human involvement, and it certainly can't make use of it in a product without human involvement. Skilled visual artists can create very interesting work with AI while corporate hacks can create dross. This is also true of photography and desktop publishing.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
The idea the "generative AI" is somehow worse than "procedural AI" is a reflection of people's fears, biases and misunderstandings more than a measure of an actual informed stance. Most people have decided whether or not they hat AI art, and then adjust their dials based on that feeling without actually trying to understand the technology.
I mean, it could be. Or it might not be. I don't presuppose to know what every voter was thinking when they clicked the buttons on the poll.

It's luddites smashing textile machines all over again, except the luddites were at least honest about why.
Let's not go down that road, though. The poll is to measure opinions of AI In Gaming, not the gamers taking the time to vote.

AI can't create anything without human involvement, and it certainly can't make use of it in a product without human involvement. Skilled visual artists can create very interesting work with AI while corporate hacks can create dross. This is also true of photography and desktop publishing.
On this, we agree. Everyone is going to draw that line somewhere differently, though. Some folks are seeing dollar signs: they believe they will soon have all the art they want, without having to spend money on artists or art supplies. Other folks are hearing sirens: they believe their livelihood is in danger, and are pushing back against a perceived threat.
 

Reynard

Legend
I mean, it could be. Or it might not be. I don't presuppose to know what every voter was thinking when they clicked the buttons on the poll.
I was talking more about the comments in these threads. It is abundantly clear that lots of people have opinions without having done much research.
On this, we agree. Everyone is going to draw that line somewhere differently, though. Some folks are seeing dollar signs: they believe they will soon have all the art they want, without having to spend money on artists or art supplies. Other folks are hearing sirens: they believe their livelihood is in danger, and are pushing back against a perceived threat.
Yeah, I don't want to minimize how much absolute garbage generative AI can flood the art market with. That is a real problem, and one the main actors in the space are working to deal with. But I also want to underline the fact that just because an artist or writer or musician used AI doesn't automatically mean it is garbage or worse, immoral.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
I was talking more about the comments in these threads. It is abundantly clear that lots of people have opinions without having done much research.
Guilty as charged. All I know about AI was gathered from Wikipedia articles--so I'm only barely above "clueless" here.

Yeah, I don't want to minimize how much absolute garbage generative AI can flood the art market with. That is a real problem, and one the main actors in the space are working to deal with. But I also want to underline the fact that just because an artist or writer or musician used AI doesn't automatically mean it is garbage or worse, immoral.
For me, it is only immoral if it is being used to replace actual artists. "Our shareholders demand more profits this year, so we're cutting the art budget and pivoting to generative AI instead. Here's a list of artists we used on the last four projects; use their work to train the AI." Pbbbth.
 

Reynard

Legend
Guilty as charged. All I know about AI was gathered from Wikipedia articles--so I'm only barely above "clueless" here.

For me, it is only immoral if it is being used to replace actual artists. "Our shareholders demand more profits this year, so we're cutting the art budget and pivoting to generative AI instead. Here's a list of artists we used on the last four projects; use their work to train the AI." Pbbbth.
How do you feel about the derth of switchboard operators?
 

Celebrim

Legend
Guilty as charged. All I know about AI was gathered from Wikipedia articles--so I'm only barely above "clueless" here.

For me, it is only immoral if it is being used to replace actual artists. "Our shareholders demand more profits this year, so we're cutting the art budget and pivoting to generative AI instead. Here's a list of artists we used on the last four projects; use their work to train the AI." Pbbbth.

AI is so bad right now that if your job is in danger of being replaced by AI, either the job never generated much value or you aren't very good at your job. After the initial "gosh wow" of AI wears off, it's flaws really show. The only people who are (or should) be using AI are people who couldn't afford human art in the first place.

But at some level this is like painters being afraid they are going to be replaced by photographers or photographers being afraid that the digital camera makes them obsolete. There is a limited way in which those fears are realistic, but the jobs are still around it's just that photos are no longer something so expensive and inaccessible that only the rich can afford them.

And if you really were getting paid to do the sort of scut work that AI can do, well, generate images with AI, touch them up and hold down more jobs with less effort than before. Meanwhile, I'll be trying to get image generators to generate serviceable gaming illustrations that don't look anything like what I'm imagining in my head simply because I am not an artist and don't have money to indulge in human art. Heck, I have a whole campaign I worked up currently on the shelf because I can't do the art for it or at least, find it too much like work to learn how.
 


MGibster

Legend
AI is so bad right now that if your job is in danger of being replaced by AI, either the job never generated much value or you aren't very good at your job. After the initial "gosh wow" of AI wears off, it's flaws really show. The only people who are (or should) be using AI are people who couldn't afford human art in the first place.
The IBM Watson Explorer AI replaced 34 workers at the Fukoku Mutal Life Insurance company back in 2017. The AI replaced employees whose job it was to calculate payouts to policyholders which, at the time, was about 132,000 that year alone. These weren't low value employees doing unnecessary work. Now I'm not going to say that this means it's curtains for humans. Machines are supposed to make us more efficient after all. But AI is going to transform a lot of job sectors and while it may be a net positive there will be short term costs.
 

Reynard

Legend
I know I'm supposed to take an argumentative stance here, and start talking about false equivalences and such, but I'm not gonna.

Instead of drifting off into the topic of technology-writ-large, I'd like to stay focused on the topic of AI in Gaming.
I think it's relevant, but sure.

Technology disrupts labor, even artistic labor, and always has. It's a thing that is true.

We absolutely need guard rails for generative AI, for a lot of reasons: social, political, economic and yes artistic. But that doesn't mean it isn't a) inevitable and b) in the end a tool that produces a net good.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top