As much as I hate to admit it, non-flagrant AI use will likely become generally accepted. The truth is that there’s a lot of content in games these days that sometimes just isn’t that important to dedicate man hours to it (Ex: Generic brick texture #431). The fact that this slipped through the cracks is proof enough.
However, overly slacking to the point the end point looks obviously AI generated with just bad art. It’s pretty much akin to just delegating to some shady third party studio that works for pennies and spits out generic, low quality stuff.
Ethics and copyright, are of course, different questions entirely. (In my opinion most AI providers are committing blatant copyright infringement by using machines that crunch down copyrighted data and resell it back to you). But it seems like Silicon Valley’s marketing and public relations team managed to figure out the copyright one at this point. <>/
You are all over this thread repeating variations of the same comment which, despite wildly different responses from voters, mostly show you do not at all understand how image model training and generation work.
This sort of absolutism is dead. Do you think they should be disqualified if they Google something and the answer is in Google’s AI summary?
No? Great, now we understand your line is subjective and you get to decide what is or isn’t acceptable use of AI.
Yes? Cool. Describe how the you police this and how do you choose between fhe three games made next year that will qualify, of which 2 are furry Visual Novels made entirely of RPG maker assets and 1 is the fifty-seventh Pokemon entry.
That part is, the next part is who is it going to replace? Which artist isnt going to be hired because they just made something with AI instead? Thats some pure creativity just lost from the world.
As much as I hate to admit it, non-flagrant AI use will likely become generally accepted. The truth is that there’s a lot of content in games these days that sometimes just isn’t that important to dedicate man hours to it (Ex: Generic brick texture #431). The fact that this slipped through the cracks is proof enough.
However, overly slacking to the point the end point looks obviously AI generated with just bad art. It’s pretty much akin to just delegating to some shady third party studio that works for pennies and spits out generic, low quality stuff.
Ethics and copyright, are of course, different questions entirely. (In my opinion most AI providers are committing blatant copyright infringement by using machines that crunch down copyrighted data and resell it back to you). But it seems like Silicon Valley’s marketing and public relations team managed to figure out the copyright one at this point. <>/
Edit: 3 AM, and tired.
Trained on stolen art of people who actually spent time making that brick texture?
Games are an artform, AI shouldnt be used at all.
You are all over this thread repeating variations of the same comment which, despite wildly different responses from voters, mostly show you do not at all understand how image model training and generation work.
This sort of absolutism is dead. Do you think they should be disqualified if they Google something and the answer is in Google’s AI summary?
If it’s trained on licensed material, would that be acceptable?
That part is, the next part is who is it going to replace? Which artist isnt going to be hired because they just made something with AI instead? Thats some pure creativity just lost from the world.