Games

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Gonzako@lemmy.world 12 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

I draw the line at using it personally. I can't control everyone else using it but I'll gladly prioritize the work of someone who put the sweat in over one that simply prompted a model.

To me the AI use has become tantamount to endorsing and accepting the problems it is creating. Once we solve the problems it has created, I'll feel fine using it again.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 hours ago (1 child)

When it comes to the harms of these systems, that has a lot more to do with how these companies allow use of these tools...

The real harm is in these tools being pushed as learning tools, medical advice, companionship, etc. That they can even give medical advice seems like something Doctor's Unions should be suing over, I can't do it so why can the AI's? Using these in learning situations is demonstrably doing the opposite, inducing cognitive offloading and dependency. The companionship thing is probably the most dangerous facet, it's causing genuine psychosis in some people and honestly I feel that is by design.

None of this has to be for these tools to be used for coding. They represent a regulatory failure (complicity?) to constrain the dangerous uses.

Whereas I work with a small studio (<10 ppl) as the only programmer, asking Claude for bug hunting in regex's and shader code has saved my behind a few times.

I'd argue there is a responsible way to use these tools. Letting an agent run amok in my project folder is a hard no; I ask about specific issues, providing generalized code, and insert and test the code by hand to ensure reliability. The amount of code inserted by an AI is zero, but the code written by AI would be <1% of my codebase.

I might use the tools for coding but I advocate locally to keep them out of schools, and support all efforts to limit the harms. You can use a tool for a useful purpose (hammer for a nail), while still restricting that tool's usage (wielding a hammer to threaten people). So I disagree that using these tools is tantamount endorsing them for all purposes.

Frankly I've never paid any of them a dime, so I'm actually driving up their costs and hastening the decline 🤷

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Gonzako@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

Nah, too many friends of mine have been fired because of "AI". It's the mothern cathedral, what the powerful are using to make us dependent on them. I can argue than even when you didn't pay them a dime, you still gave them training material for the next model; furthering their goals ever so slightly.

I'm taking a stance that looks harsh on the outset, but it's basically the only one that doesn't further the massive theft of our body of work onto the hands of 5 oligarchs.

parent

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago (1 child)

While I wouldn't consider myself an AI purist I do have different views when it comes to using AI for coding compared to using it for art or music.

I feel that expecting a game to be completely AI free when it comes to coding is pretty much an impossible task. Now matter how much you try at some point a developer will have to use a tool or library or whatever that were developed with the use of AI. Expecting them to audit everything they use would mean spending more time on that than coding the actual game or spending time developing non-AI alternatives. The genie is out of the bottle for coding and there's no putting it back.

Now when it comes to art, music and music I personally am less accepting. AI has been trained on the art of millions of people around the world without their permission or offering them any compensation. That is unacceptable to me. It also feels very weird that people are trying to replace art with something generated by a machine, it feels soulless, each piece of human art no matter how simple has some meaning to the artist. AI just mashes it together with no rhyme or reason.

Now some people are going to say that I'm a hypocrite and coding AI has also been trained on the code of millions of people without them getting compensation or asking for approval. While that is true I think that for coding it's different just for the simple fact that at the end of the day it's just a set of instructions. There is code that could be considered art? I would say there definitely is but the vast majority of it is just telling the computer to do a thing in just slightly different ways. This is just how I see it and no doubt people are going to disagree.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Bugamn@lemmy.zip 7 points 11 hours ago

While I agree with the main message, I'll be one to say you are a hypocrite. Code doesn't have to be art for the use without consent to be wrong. Arguing that way is the same as when people say that using AI to generate images is fine because they have the idea but not the skills to execute it.

Either way you are diminishing someone's else work because you find this tool useful to achieve the results you want.

parent

[–] steelplatedmech@piefed.ca 1 point 4 hours ago

I'm fine with AI for things that it had already been used for in the past but hadn't been called AI like code suggestions or randomization of existing textures for existence for blades of grass for example.

What I don't like is asset generation of AI music, AI voice work, and AI art.