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

[Justice and Rule]

I make no such claim, only that it it could be an artistic choice to use it. If there is an artistic backlash against its use and no one ships the feature, then great, approximately everyone agreed it was a bad tool. It doesn't matter either way to me what choices devs and artists make here, as...

I find it hard to be an artistic choice when you don't have a clue of what it outputs. I mean, heck, even the courts say no one owns Generative AI work.

When Jensen and the game devs that use DLSS 5 take away gen AI-less video games and compel me to play theirs, I will apologize for not seeing the writing on the wall that I'd become forcefully subject to gen AI content.

Better to be angry now and show them the distaste and backlash to the technology than to be flippant about concerns and then find out they were merited. It's not like we aren't getting hard-pushed AI programs and AI-generated content all over the place.

Be angry at the people*, those making the tool and using the tool, if you want. Being angry at the tool's existence is pointless.

*: just noting, in general and not accusing anyone, don't be the kind of angry where you send death threats, because apparently that's happening because of all of this, which is also ridiculous to me.

Uh, I think that both are kind of inseparable? Much like blockchain and bitcoin things, where the tool itself has real ecological consequences, I think it's perfectly fine to get angry at something that will almost certainly have real cost and real problems. Like, if I am complaining about every person who uses a bad tool instead of the tool itself, it feels like I'm missing the actual problem.

 

[trappedslider]

I find it hard to be an artistic choice when you don't have a clue of what it outputs. I mean, heck, even the courts say no one owns Generative AI work.

while the output isn't copyrightable, the prompt you use and other aspects of it are.

 

[bsss]

I find it hard to be an artistic choice when you don't have a clue of what it outputs. I mean, heck, even the courts say no one owns Generative AI work.

I made no claim regarding the predictability of the output or whether or not it was copyrightable. I merely said that an artist may choose to use the tool, and that in my opinion that choice makes outsiders' broad pleas of "artistic intent" irrelevant until a specific artist or studio has this tool forced upon them.

Better to be angry now and show them the distaste and backlash to the technology than to be flippant about concerns and then find out they were merited. It's not like we aren't getting hard-pushed AI programs and AI-generated content all over the place.

I choose to not be angry about a situation that can't happen (me being forced to purchase and play games with generative AI). Sorry.

 

[Justice and Rule]

while the output isn't copyrightable, the prompt you use and other aspects of it are.

I'm not going to go out of my way to confirm whether or not that's true (Nothing against you, mind you, I just don't want to say something definitive about a specific aspect I haven't looked into), but in this case I'm talking about the output. But thank you for the clarification.

I made no claim regarding the predictability of the output or whether or not it was copyrightable. I merely said that an artist may choose to use the tool, and that in my opinion that choice makes outsiders' broad pleas of "artistic intent" irrelevant until a specific artist or studio has this tool forced upon them.

It's not about "making a claim about predictability", I just don't know what your "artistic intent" can be when you have no control over it, which is why I bring up the whole point of the inability copyright the output.

I choose to not be angry about a situation that can't happen (me being forced to purchase and play games with generative AI). Sorry.

And I choose to express my displeasure to create resistance to try and prevent a point where we can't get games without generative AI. Better to be safe than to be sorry and all that.

 

[grankless]

good to see that the last 10 pages have done nothing to disprove my point of "if you think this looks good or is at all usable or reproducible you are the most gullible people on earth". also that you may need to go talk to another human being to remind yourself what people look like.

 

[Hygge Halfling]

I wonder if AI-generated images always look a bit painterly/glowy to me because of all the Thomas Kinkade stuff the models inevitably hoovered up…

 

[Umbran]

good to see that the last 10 pages have done nothing to disprove my point of "if you think this looks good or is at all usable or reproducible you are the most gullible people on earth".

Mod Note:
Having a different opinion from you does not justify insulting people.
You have earned yoruself a warning point, and a ban from this thread.
Treat people better.

 

[bsss]

It's not about "making a claim about predictability", I just don't know what your "artistic intent" can be when you have no control over it, which is why I bring up the whole point of the inability copyright the output.

All I claim is that if the hypothetical artist intends to outsource that work (whatever portion of that work) to gen AI via DLSS 5, any claim someone else makes about the "artistic intent" behind the output (or that portion) evaporates, as, to whatever degree "artistic intent" means anything, the artist intentionally said "DLSS 5's output is fine" and got the output of that choice. I don't mean anything about the evaluation of the output, just that it was, until proven otherwise, literally the intent of the artist to use the tool.