212
After GOTY pull, Clair Obscur devs draw line in sand over AI: 'Everything will be made by humans by us' (www.polygon.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/games@sh.itjust.works
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -39 points 10 months ago (54 children)

The anti AI crowd is getting crazy. Everyone uses it during development.

It's a tool for fuck's sake, what's next? Banning designers from using Photoshop because using it is faster and thus taking jobs from multiple artists who would have to be employed otherwise?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 54 child comments
    •
  • [–] 55 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    Use your AI generation all you want but don't enter a painting contest using machine generated content trained on other people's work without their consent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] -17 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    Do human artists usually get consent before training on content freely available on the Internet?

    There are plenty of reasons to hate on AI, but this reason is just being pissed that a silicon brain did it instead of a carbon one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Humans aren't machines, dummy

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    The fact that you’re comparing human artists to slop machines is really sad. There is no “silicone brain” making any of this stuff. I think you should take a few minutes and learn how this stuff works before making these comparisons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    Wow thank you for this comment. It helps detail your level of knowledge on this subject, which is very helpful to myself and others. There is nothing else to discuss here on my end.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    I never claimed that Gen AI has consciousness, or that what they produce has emotions behind it, so I'm not sure why you're focusing on that.

    I'm specifically talking about the argument that AI is bad because trains on copyrighted material without consent from the artist, which is functionally no different than humans doing the exact same thing.

    This isn't me defending AI, this is me saying this one specific argument against it is stupid. Because even if artificial consciousness was a thing, it would still have to be trained on the same data.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (8 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Oh, someone did read a Wikipedia article! No, it was not "appeal to popularity," it was meant to show that you'd be hard to find a product where at least small part wasn't generated with AI, meaning singling this company out because they admitted it is bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    So, correcting your nonsense is "ad hominem" now, huh? Newsflash: If you're wrong and someone corrects you, it's not ad hominem. And what the hell is the nonsense about moving the goalpost? Do you read what you type or do you just tell an AI to write your comments for you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 24 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Not everyone, and it probably multiplies review time 10 fold. Makes maintenance horrible. It doesn't save time, just moves it and makes devs dumber and unable to justify coding choices the AI generates.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    We’re pushed to use AI a lot at our job and man is it awful. I’d say maybe 20-30% of the time it does okay, the other 70% is split between it just making shit up, or saying that it’s done something it hasn’t.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I'm in an entirely different industry than the topic at hand here, but my boss is really keen on ChatGPT and whatnot. Every problem that comes up, he's like "have you asked AI yet?"

    We have very expensive machines, which are maintained (ideally) by people who literally go to school to learn how to. We had an issue with a machine the other day and the same ol' question came up, "have you asked AI yet?" He took a photo of the alarm screen and fed it to ChatGPT. It spit out a huge reply and he forwarded it to me and told me to try it out.

    Literally the first troubleshooting step ChatGPT gave was nonsense and did not apply to our specific machine and our specific set-up and our specific use-case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    The only question I've asked chatgpt recently was how to delete my account, and it couldn't even get that right. It told me to click on the profile button on the top right of the screen. The profile button was on the bottom left, and looked more like a prompt to upgrade to a paid version. Fucking useless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    "I will be investigating this shortly."

    That way, you don't have to commit to AI and can distance a bit from the micromanagement. If he persists. "I have a number of avenues I'd like to go down and will update on progress tomorrow".

    Though I'd be tempted to flippant, "if you're feeling confident to pick it up, I'm happy to review it". If they hesitate, "that's OK, I'll go through the process."

    Standups should be quick. Any progress, any issues, what you're focussing on. Otherwise you waste everyone's time. Any messages I'll ignore until I have 5 mins. Micromanagement environments are not worth it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, it's a tool. You can use a hammer to smash someone's skull in or you can use it to put some nail on a wall.

    If you see it used like that, it's shitty developers, the AI is not to blame. Don't get me wrong, I do have coworkers who use it like this and it sucks. One literally told to next time tell Copilot directly what to fix when I'm doing a review.

    But overall it helps if you know how and most importantly when to use it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    AI writes buggy and insecure code. It is not usable for any task beyond simple ones, such as asking what color is a carrot, given how much it hallucinates. You should check out Microsoft, with all their infrastructure outages, Windows bugs, and constant screw ups, as an example of the consequences.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    That simply isn't true. It's really great at a certain kind of tasks. And it does help you be more productive if you learn to use it well.

    And yeah, the code is sometimes buggy and sometimes insecure. That's why you can't just blindly merge whatever it writes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    Not really. We just have to wait long enough for either enough disasters to occur that the crowd successfully rejects it; or the current crop of workers will be so unable to accomplish simple tasks without it, the rest of us will just move up the ladder past you. They'll ask ChatGPT, "how to spreadsheet.", because they just can't remember since use of LLMs has been creating cognitive decline in users. Those of us who use our brains, rather than the stolen knowledge and hallucinated regurgitation of a blind database, will be the drivers in the work force.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    An unethically developed tool that's burning the planet faster with the ultimate goal of starving the working class out of society.

    Inb4 alarmism lol tell me the fucking lie if you can.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Dude, go touch grass, please. This is embarrassing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, it is indeed embarrassing that you insist on defending AI.

    My sister insisted on using an AI this year to generate our secret santa.

    She didn't get a gift. Ahahahaha.

    AI is strictly for stupid people that can't do good work on their own. No reasonably intelligent person is using AI to make a draft that they can then correct, because it will always be more practical to just make it yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I mean, one of us is "defending" use of a technology that helps people, the other is publicly bashing their sister, implying she's stupid (which might or might not be true, not the point). I'll leave the conclusion to other readers, I have no more to say to a person like you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    More-so I'm concerned for my sister, but yes, I did "publicly" bash her. On lemmy. Lol. The absurdity of your moral outrage is astounding.

    My sister is not above criticism because I care about her.

    But don't worry, you didn't raise any good points and you failed to deflect away from my poignant anecdote. The readers will indeed side against you, because you have failed to produce a sound argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I'm not going to fault someone for driving to work in a car, but I certainly wouldn't call them the winner of a marathon even if they only drove for a few minutes of that marathon.

    There's a difference between something that runs the race for you (LLM AI) and something that simply helps you do what you are already doing (I suppose photoshop is the equivalent of drinking gatorade).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    I'm not going to fault you for that - but do you think you should receive an award for the work you didn't do? Even if you only use the car on the "easy" parts of the race that nobody cares about?

    In the case of this particular game, perhaps the bulk of the creative work was done by humans. But if the GOTY committee isn't confident with drawing a line between what work is OK to offload onto an AI and what work isn't, then I think it's fair for then to say this year that any generative AI use is a disqualifier.

    You and I can say with ease that an implementation of a basic swap function (c=a, a=b, b=c) doesn't require any creative work and has been done to death, so there's no shame in copypasteing something from stackoverflow or chatgpt into your own code to save time.

    But it's harder to gauge that for more complex things. Especially with art - where would you draw the line? Reference material? Concept art? Background textures or 3d models of basic props (random objects in the scene like chairs, trees, etc)?

    I don't think there's a clear answer for that. You might have an answer you think is correct, and I might have one as well, but I think it will be difficult and time consuming to achieve consensus in the game development community.

    So, the most efficient answer for now is to have any generative AI be a disqualifier.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I generally don't write code to get an award, it's just a tool to implement a business requirement.

    Sure, the committee can decide that absolutely no AI can be used, doesn't mean I can't call it out as stupid because I disagree with it. They're right to do that and I can not like it. It's not like I'm sending death threats or anything, I just stated my opinion.

    I wouldn't draw the line at all. If you just tell AI "give me a texture for this and that" it will look like shit most of the time. You either have to be lucky or edit it anyway. Let alone if you want consistency across multiple textures/models/whatever. So, if the end result is good, I don't particularly care.

    I never claimed my answer is the One True Answer™ and I obviously think my answer is correct as does everyone else who has an opinion. And I'm pretty sure the consensus can only be one of two things: either the AI companies crash because it's financially unsustainable to provide the services or every game company uses it to generate various amounts of code/models/textures etc.

    I don't think having AI be disqualified is the most efficient answer at all, nor do I think it's an efficiency issue at all. The companies don't care about that. They pay analysts to tell them which of these decisions will bring them more money. For now the analysts decided to play it safe and disqualify it. One day one young analyst with something to prove will say "well, everyone's disqualifying it, why don't we try a different way" and slowly everyone's gonna allow it. IMO, anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] -10 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Most of the major software development tools have some form of AI-based assistance features now. And the room those, be nearly all have those assistance and completion features enabled by default.

    If you want absolutely no AI in your games, then you need to verify all of those functions were disabled for the entire development time. And you have no way to verify that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 31 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    So it's safe to assume all code generation was trained on GPL code from GitHub and therefore the game code is derived work of GPL code and therefore under GPL itself? So decompilation and cracking is fine?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (6 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Please quote me the line where this covers machine generation as well? I'd love to sell Google translated Harry Potter books for being transformative work. Maybe I can transform the lastest movie releases to MKV and sell those.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

    transformative use or transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original, and thus does not infringe its holder's copyright.

    You can use a book to train an AI model, you can't sell a translation just because you used AI to translate it. These are two different things.

    Collage is transformative, and it uses copyrighted pictures to make completely new works of art. It's the same principle.

    It's also important to understand that it's a tool. You can create copyright infringing content with word, google translate or photoshop as well. The training of the model itself doesn't infringe on current copyright laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Not a single line in your comment offers anything that machine generation, which is not at all human creative work, falls under fair use.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It uses the content in a different way for a different purpose. The part I highlighted above applies to it? Do you expect copyright laws to mention every single type of transformative work acceptable? You are being purposely ignorant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    In the Office’s view, training a generative AI foundation model on a large and diverse dataset will often be transformative. The process converts a massive collection of training examples into a statistical model that can generate a wide range of outputs across a diverse array of new situations. It is hard to compare individual works in the training data—for example, copies of The Big Sleep in various languages—with a resulting language model capable of translating emails, correcting grammar, or answering natural language questions about 20th-century literature, without perceiving a transformation.

    https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf

    You can read the whole doc. The part above is cherry picked. I haven't read through the whole thing but at a glance, the doc basically explains how it depends. If the model is trained specifically to output one piece content, it wouldn't be acceptable.

    The waters are muddy but holy fuck does taking the copyright juggernauts side sound bloody stupid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)