Video games made with AI (especially if it's the images) should be rejected.

General Discussion
, , ,
41

Dude, I’m just sharing my thoughts (which are middle-ground at best). The fact you’re taking this so serious, replying to everyone, and trying to rebuttal every thing everyone has said here to your own agenda is a real red flag. That’s not being part of a community. Especially with the time it took you to write all your replies, you’re clearly not taking time to reflect on them, actually respond with any intent other than to rebuke, or generating these responses with the same AI you’re trying to argue against disingenuously.

Take some time and chill, step back, and enjoy life. Learn to have a discourse with people and communicate two ways. This just all comes up as trying to rally folks up, creating division isn’t going to help society and more than AI is.

2 Likes
42

Actually, it is not for you or moderators to decide which project get more applause. I don’t play in visual novels, but I have seen on this forum some visual novel projects with neural network generated pictures which got a lot of attention and looks like a lot of people liked those “games”. Even if for me all this generated pictures look bad somehow many other people like it. Different people have different tastes and I am against any restrictions on the distribution of projects that use neural networks in any way. Are neural networks stealing artists’ bread? Yes. Does training neural networks violate the copyrights of artists? Yes. Is it necessary to block neural networks because of this? No. Do I think that in the future, neural networks will cause the disappearance of artistic diversity? No. There will definitely be much less artistic diversity compared to all the stuff that was generated by neural networks, but artists will adapt to the situation and start using neural networks themselves to create better content than those who don’t have the skills.
It is now clear that the moment for regulating the spread of neural networks by the global community has long passed. Different countries will not be able to agree among themselves and adopt international rights to limit AI spread. People will just have to accept the situation and adapt to it.

1 Like
43

I’ll keep it a buck; you are not going to beat people in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ re; the destructive nature of modern LLM systems as currently labelled ‘’‘AI’‘’. Until people get directly affected, they are rarely going to change their opinion based on what someone they don’t know says about the topic.

If people were that easily moved, we would’ve cut greenhouse has emissions decades ago, solved world hunger and poverty, etc. I vehemently support the notion that any system that redirects money from workers towards tech billionaires (in one way or another) is harmful, even if this is a bubble that will inevitably burst in the near future. But, ultimately, this is a debate that has been had on this forum several times by this point.

As I’ve said before, the biggest harm I see long-term is in the number of people that will invest the time, effort, and stress necessary to become a good artist, because generated art (even when it isn’t obvious ‘slop’) crowds-out mediocre art produced by artists that are still working on their skills and need commissions in order to avoid being stuck in whatever their day job would otherwise be.

Why? That just means they’re passionate about the topic.

6 Likes
44

i quite honestly have to agree using it as a tool to help and just speed up is fine but mainly using a AI for it should be unacceptable and we already have one on here that does mainly use a AI for its game

1 Like
48

people with those conditions still make art, a girl with no arms or legs was able to make paintings using her MOUTH, don’t use others disabilities to excuse your laziness

1 Like
49

Ignorance of technology is not the same as laziness. Nor is petty lashing out the same as constructive debate.

50

i gave you an example of your argument being a fallacy, and you deflect it to be me “lashing out” if you really had a good enough reason to use ai, tell me an actual one besides “i’m too lazy to do the work, or hire someone else” and you aren’t disabled, so don’t pretend you are, cause I AM, and i can STILL draw, I can still write, so don’t claim false valor just for a fallacy

1 Like
51

I get what your saying. Back when “fill me up” was actually worked on the dev released a version with ai generated images at some point and it just looked so much worse imo. Your reasons as someone who respects art are 100% valid but i would say that even as a consumer AI just looks bad. And even if it will look better down the line, all AI can do is rebrand and repackage what is being fed into it. AI art by virtue of its creation will always be homogenized, samey´and derivitive without intent. The same slop over and over. The death of creativity, really.

2 Likes
52

It is not generative AI.

3 Likes
53

The saddest thing with this, is every person who feverishly defends generative AI is essentially giving their soul, humanity, and free will to corporations because they like the thing it makes.

They don’t want to admit that they don’t care how ethically bad it is. A lot of people, when generative AI was becoming mainstream, kept saying “well it looks bad”. It no longer looks bad. Focusing on aesthetics was always going to fail at some point.

The annoying thing is also that because AI is such a big umbrella term, people are retroactively saying things are generative AI. Stuff like spell check, sorting algorithms. It’s people who don’t understand how computers really work labeling any automated process as the exact same thing as generative AI.

The truth is that society as a whole has always thought of art as a product. People as a whole do not care about the people who make art. They just want the thing they like.

The reason why people defend generative AI stuff is because they value aesthetics over art. The art and artist is disposable to them.

5 Likes
54

I think the thing that’s really sad; is in the past when people who wanted to make their own project, but couldn’t afford to, they learned how to do things.

People learned to draw because they couldn’t afford art. They learned to code because they couldn’t afford a dev. They learned to write because they couldn’t afford stories. There was a need to be innovative, wonder, create. Now it’s not a need.

We’ve lost countless potential artists because generative AI has been pushed so heavily. It’s sad thinking about how many stories won’t be written or how many art pieces won’t be drawn because the person was convinced that learning to create is pointless.

4 Likes
56

Actually, forget that. I’m taking my own advice.

57

I agree that AI image generation needs to be used ethically. I believe it can be used ethically but I don’t think it is in general.

To your point that people learned how to do things in the past before AI, some people gave up. So there is a population of people that are making games with AI images who would not have made a game if we didn’t have AI. There are people like you said who would have learned to draw if AI didn’t exist. But there are also people who still take the time to learn to draw even though AI exists.

Ultimately AI does help the little developer.

They might not be able to draw or afford to hire an artist. And they might not have time to learn on top of developing the game they want to develop on top of their real live responsibilities.

If there was a ban on AI image generation a lot of little developers who have a fixed amount of time and money to develop a game wouldn’t have the resources to include art in their games and might just give up.

Everyone who has a problem with AI is right to have a problem with it. It’s a problematic technology. But It should be fixed not banned.

4 Likes
58

I presume you’re aware translators and language teachers are some of the highest risk groups? If your conviction is so strong that you need to lecture others on what they should and shouldn’t do because it’s harmful, then why haven’t you taken the time to actually learn translation skills yourself? It’s entirely the same in principle - another “labor process which has been absorbed by automation” as you claim. There’s no reason you shouldn’t be held to the same standards that you’re judging others for.

All of the needless political punditry aside, I don’t quite understand what your goal is. It seems like you’ve come here to flex your debate class skills given your opinionated attitude and disdain towards people’s creative choices. I can assure you there are plenty of high quality projects that make use of generative assets, the opposite is also true. The methods used aren’t always the defining factor of overall value.

Says who? you? You speak as if you’re an authority on the matter, yet you insult fellow developers who don’t follow your narrow definition of how to run a project. It’s disrespectful, considering you have no practical experience yourself.

You aren’t going to make any impact on the world by dictating to creators on an obscure hobbyist forum. The answer to your woes, at least here, is to filter the projects created with methods you dislike and stop trying to control what others can enjoy in order to facilitate your own personal beliefs.

6 Likes
59

Art is hard. I think a lot of people forget this. Learning a new skill is difficult and takes months or years. It doesn’t change the fact the technology is being used to screw people over. It’s being pushed so that artists are devalued even more than they already are. The reason it’s being pushed so much is so that business costs can be lowered.

It’s pushing the idea that art isn’t worth it. Whenever I hear people talking about generative AI, it’s ALWAYS in conjunction with making money. People were making games before generative AI was around. Just because something can be done instantly doesn’t mean it’s better.

The main points:

  • The images are made without intention or purpose
  • The images are made due to a belief that the individual is not capable of creation, or even thinking for themselves
  • Eventually, when it gets to a certain point with relying on generative images, the work in question loses any amount of individuality or humanity in it.

People need to stop deflecting and lying about the reasons they like it.

The main effect is that people can’t trust art anymore. You used to be able to see an image and know that it was made by a person.

I think a lot of people miss the bigger picture when it comes to this stuff. It’s accepting the idea that human made art isn’t worth it. Human effort and creativity aren’t valued. Human creativity is disposable.

“Why should I pay people if a computer can make stuff faster for free?”

4 Likes
60

There’s a few reasons people defend generative AI materials:

  • They don’t want to pay people
  • They’re not confident enough to create themselves
  • People are scared of being judged by their peers, so by having the computer make it, they don’t have to be embarrassed by making something bad.

Everyone makes “bad” art at the beginning of learning a skill. That’s how you learn. You do something, look over what parts you don’t like, then the next time you do something you improve on it.

4 Likes
61

If I may, I’d like to offer a thought exercise.

Throughout history, people have told stories and created art that was informed by how they experienced the world. From the earliest recorded cave paintings, to ancient sculptures through the evolution of language. People have used the gift of art and creativity to share their life with others.

I, and many others, have been touched, moved, and brought to tears by the words and efforts of people who we will never meet. We’ve become better people through finding art informed by people who are going through similar things that we are.

Art also is a record of time as well. If you look at even mundane pieces from the past, you’ll notice that things are described a certain way. In a sense, art is a way to preserve a moment in time. It’s a record that someone existed, or that an event happened. It’s proof of existence.

Art has also been used for people who’s voices will never be heard. People who, through marginalization, suppression, or any other number of reasons, are not able to get people to listen to them. Art is a way for people who are suffering to express themselves, and to help people understand their life experiences.

Art historically has saved people. People resonate with stories and games and other forms of media and it gives them hope. It gives them a purpose. People see something, and they realize that they’re not alone. They feel seen and understood because the artist has created something that resonated with them.

Art is a way for people to meet people that never existed. Art is a way to visit places that will never be. Art is a way to wonder. It’s a way to explore the very special facet of humanity that is the creative spirit.

Art is an extension of the soul. Even art that is deemed “unimportant”, as a lot of NSFW works are, still are informed by someone’s lived experiences. Someone might do a certain medium because of life circumstances. Someone might have to improvise due to not being able to afford something, or not having the time or room for something. It’s leaving behind a piece of yourself that will be around after you’re gone, as proof that you existed and were a real person.

With generative AI, all of that is being called into question. All of it. People can no longer trust what they see, hear, or read. People no longer can confidently say that the media they see is real.

With generative AI, and the EXTENSIVE adoption of it, the general consensus is:

  • You can’t make art, and it’s not worth the effort.
  • Art should become a product instead of an extension of humanity.
  • Art should not be thought about. It should not be explored. It shouldn’t be discussed.
  • With art not being able to be trusted anymore, the dynamic between human and art is shifted
  • The internet is flooded with generative AI images, music, literature, and a lot more. Millennia of art is being pushed aside due to the sheer volume of generative material being created.
  • Generative AI creates media that is EXTREMELY similar, and as a result the different variations of human existence and experience is shaved down into a soft, smooth, safe, non-challenging form.
  • Marginalized and oppressed people should not express themselves, as it’s not what the systems created want.
  • You should be alone.

Art is EXTREMELY important to me, and is one of the few things that I believe is one of humanity’s greatest aspects. Art is a way to give people hope. It’s a way for people to process tragedy. It’s a way to learn about other people and other viewpoints. It’s a way to connect with people you’ll never meet. It’s a way to touch peoples’ lives who you’ll never know exist.

I don’t want to lose this very precious aspect of humanity. I don’t want people to lose themselves to a modern day succubus. Exchanging their soul for “what they want.”

To any defenders of AI, what do you think your interests, desires, and passions will be in a year of relying on generative AI? What about 5? What about 10? What about 20? Do you think in that time you’ll still be a human at your core, or will you have surrendered so much of your free will and thought that you lose who you are at your core?

I don’t like generative AI because it’s destroying who we are. If anything, the goal should be holding onto our humanity. It should be holding onto love and hope. It should be holding onto the human spirit. It should be holding on the human nature to never give up.

I’m against generative AI because I want people to be creative. I want people to feel like they can create. I want people to express themselves. I want people to feel confident enough to try.

Life currently wants us to fight. It wants us to hate. It wants us to hunt people down and push them away.

I want things to be better. People can be better.

In short: I want people to not willingly give up who they are as a person. We need all the hope and we can muster. We need the beauty of the human spirit that never gives up.

7 Likes
62

this does sound inspiring, lately i’ve been pretty focused on my hobby because of work and a feeling of relaxation, but after reading this, i can say that it’s almost as inspiring as my thoughts on the possible creation of a project that can surpass space rangers 2 (namely the latest updates, revolution, those updates that (if i remember correctly) are still being made by fans, it was so 1) ahead of its time 2) great), i will most likely talk about this game quite a lot, simply because it had no less of an influence on me, welcoming me to the path to try, to create a project that, perhaps, will not be better than it, but at least compare to it (although i’m of course striving for heights that i may not reach, but i will try).

1 Like
63

@dessychan I agree with a lot of what you’ve said. I agree that “out of sight, out of mind” explains a lot of people’s blasé attitudes toward AI. And I agree that the majority of people tend to think of images only in terms of the end result, rather than the creative process.

In that regard, I feel like the rise of generative AI is forcing us to reevaluate the definition of “art”. Previously, “art” could refer to either non-photographic visual media or, more generally, “works of art”—anything that shows that someone has put a lot of time and effort into refining it. Before, the former implied the latter, because the only way to get non-photographic images was to draw them by hand. Now, however, you can get such images quickly and cheaply via AI, so they don’t necessarily meet the definition of “art” in the way they once did. Perhaps our usage of the word “art” will eventually change to reflect this. We’ll see.

The main claim of yours that I wish to examine, however, is this: That humans need external pressure in order to be creative. That humans will only grow, learn, and be creative if they are forced to.

To a certain extent, it’s true that any assistive tool will enable a certain amount of laziness. A person who walks 5 miles to work every day because they lack other means of transportation will probably have stronger legs and better physical condition than someone with an otherwise similar lifestyle who drives a car or rides a bus. But I don’t see anyone using that as an argument to ban all cars, buses, and trains. We recognize that while walking may offer certain benefits, there are other beneficial ways that people could spend their time and energy. Having access to the tool (transportation) gives people greater freedom—and yes, that includes the freedom to be lazy. But it also includes the freedom to, say, practice drawing in the time you would have spent walking to work.

Weirdobeardo89 and some others have already elaborated on what this freedom and assistance means for them. Game development isn’t a one-skill task. You might be good at writing and coding but not art. And sure, you could try to learn to draw as well, so you could complete the package. But many people don’t get that far. There are countless ideas and projects on this site that never materialized in playable form simply because the challenges of development were too great. Some people overcome, as you hope that they will, but others give up. That’s just the inevitable harsh reality of presenting people with the options of “learn or fail”, with no in-between. AI can help bridge that gap. People who would have given up can instead put out something, with the skills that they already have. And maybe, having taken the first step—having proven that they can make SOME sort of game, or at least part of one—they’ll keep going. Maybe they’ll keep making games, and start to learn and grow, refining their skills just like you hoped. That’s something that can happen too, isn’t it?

More generally, I disagree with your fear that AI will kill human creativity. I don’t believe that creativity is only born of necessity. I don’t believe that ancient people drew on cave walls solely because of some external need for survival. I believe that human creativity is innate. You yourself said:

I believe that we have a NEED to create. And even in a world where AI assists us—even in a world where we have the freedom to be lazy—we will still create. There will always be people who draw things by hand, not because they HAVE to, but because they WANT to. There may not be as many artists, but they will always exist, even in a world that doesn’t strictly NEED them.

I also want people to be creative. And I also want people to feel confident enough to try. But sometimes, what they need to gain that confidence isn’t the unforgiving pressure of Necessity. Sometimes, what they need is assistance. And sometimes, when the assistance of another human is unavailable or too costly, the assistance of an unthinking, unfeeling AI is better than nothing.

I have seen people be hated for their use of AI. I’ve seen devs get pushed away from this site for it, even though AI was only used to generate part of their games, ignoring the creativity that they did pour into other aspects. I don’t want that. I don’t want the people who use AI to become the scapegoats for AI’s problems as a whole. I don’t want to withhold tools from them out of a disproportionate fear that they will choose laziness. I want to believe in them.

Creativity is human. And it will not be killed. Not by AI, or by anything else. As long as we exist, we will create.

4 Likes
64

Just feel like I should add, the opening post and almost all of your responses read like, and include the hallmarks of an LLM output. The constant use of the Em dash (—), the excessively long-winded meandering sentences, the ‘cited sources’ right down to page numbers, and all of the other oddly generic, high level talking points that aren’t even particularly relevant to this forum.

The community depends on a machine to exist? A structural weakness? What does this even mean, really? It looks like it makes sense, but it doesn’t in the context of the forum.

This kind of stuff doesn’t come from a simple google translation of one’s thoughts and opinions, I suspect you’re just plugging the replies from this thread into an LLM. I’m not sure if you’re trolling or just a delusional hypocrite, either way I’m chalking it up to more server space wasted on pointless moral semantics.

Ah, another one. Nice of you to have your LLM to weigh in on the topic as well. Has all of the tell-tale signs mentioned before, but those abnormal quotation mark symbols really give it away. Honestly I find LLM-posting much more creatively bankrupt than developers generating certain assets.

Absolutely whack. Step it up, keyboards aren’t a skill you need to learn.

3 Likes