I'm an artist who suffered pretty severe depression last winter because of AI art. That said, I'm all better, and I agree with Callum here 100%. People will not care if things are made by AI or made by a human. What people are starting to realize though is it's not just graphic artists that this will happen to. It'll happen to accountants, to web-designers, to social media influencers, to youtubers, to game-developers, musicians, tv shows, movies, books, magazines, webcomics, animation; anything that is digital WILL be used to construct AI that will emulate it, just like with AI images. And, just like what happened to the graphic artists, you cannot stop it. They already have all of that data. Everyone's just going to have to deal.
To game developers? Yeah, right. Influencers? The moment people know a bot is talking they won't listen. RUclipsrs even profit from less time they have to put into videos. Webdesigners are still needed to well, design the site?
As long as its good enough i wouldnt care who or what made it. sure its shit for people like you because you kinda loose your job but than again Progress always needs sacrifice.
"The moment people know a bot is talking they won't listen." VTubers are a thing, and so are Idols. People will love the Bots as long as they are sexy and/or moe. @@RavenWoodsDE
I care. A game is partly about human expression of the people who made it. Maybe it's personal but i enjoy the work that artists put into a game. AI art doesn't have any draw to me since it's so impersonal.
One correction -- the novelist's book wasn't written entirely by ChatGPT. It was mostly written by her and AI was only used in some sections. The novel was also about AI so she was incorporating AI utterances artistically. I think that context changes how the AI use should be interpreted imho
Your correction here.. right now.. is a prime example of how any real argument by most against AI because of ethics... is hollow. They won't self-correct, they won't re-evaluate the issue, nor will they as publicly claim something as a correction when they were among the loud that made a wrong statement. Seriously, just think about that and I welcome you to wonder what I do. "Why would I take those seriously whom don't correct or even attempt to undo impacts & impressions they give under false information, when it comes to arguments about ethics."
@@DePhoegonIsle As someone who is very much on Callum's side here and agree with everything said in the video, I actually don't agree with your take here. I think that the context here does matter. I think Callum's point still stands overall, and it's only time until someone actually does release a fully AI-generated novel that wins awards. Rie Kudan, the author, used AI to help her write her novel and has been very open about it. The vast majority of it is her own work. She hasn't tried to trick anyone into thinking she did it all on her own. I'm still a little conflicted with how AI is used an aid (obviously the line between being an aid and overreliance is blurry and an entirely separate conversation), but that's a different subject.
That also sounds like an answer a company would come up with to pretend likey they didn't do it to be lazy. What tf about Palworld is about social commentary on AI?
Adobe adding AI to Photoshop is putting a tool in an artist's hand. Corporations replacing artists with AI is putting art direction in the hands of hedge-fund managers. It's sad that more gamers don't see the huge implications this will have for the overall quality of games.
The Palworld devs and people in general have already proven that they didn't use AI to make its assets, although the devs aren't against AI wholesale. They did make a pretty blech party game revolving around AI generated images but the whole point was to point out which image was the real one among fakes. It's not a great concept but more a joke minigame type thing. The Nintendo fanclub and PETA fanatics have been grasping at straws since release to get it taken down somehow, Nintendo even had to make a statement saying they would "look into it" to shut them up. People have also been caught and admitted to faking evidence of models being stolen. The AI hysteria is only a part of it and quite frankly I'm over it from every side. Real artists have been bullied into leaving the internet by claiming their art was AI generated with no evidence as early as the initial uptick in AI popularity and on the internet that's enough to get you blacklisted permanently even if you prove yourself innocent somehow. If people start making games using AI as a consumer I don't quite frankly care as long as it's a good game, and for the most part, quality games aren't going to be fully AI generated for a long time because that would still take effort, and as we know from Unreal and Unity shovelware projects that's already very lacking.
Can't agree more... The whole "OMG THEY USED AI!" is a fucking bullshit thing... Okay, I want to make a video game... I am not good at art... but I also can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars to make the art... so I have to go out and get the tens of thousands of dollars to make the art, so I can make a video game? I don't see how this is OVERALL a bad thing for society? At some point video game developers will be mostly replaced by AI as well, and frankly, I am kind of looking forward to it. I would be able to make my dream game with a few prompts, a few clicks, and boom, a full game... I'd fucking KILLED for that when I was younger... This is the "OMG CARS REPLACE HORSE RIDERS!" all over again... Seriously, in the past, they considered legally having car drivers throw out horse shit from their cars so the horse shit cleaners didn't lose their jobs. It is just an elitist group of people thinking their job is somehow more sacred than the horse shit cleaners, because art is somehow more important... back then horse shit cleaners were INSANELY important, otherwise everyone would be walking in shit to their knees.
@@SioxerNikita I think Photoshop and digital art tools like drawing tablets and apps that work with them did more "damage" to the artist world than AI is doing because at the end of the day you can't copyright anything done with AI, that means anyone can steal your prompted designs. I know a dev that uses Ai assets as placeholder art for their games. They're an artist, they can draw and a lot of the art is already done for their game but for anything that isn't done yet a generated visualisation placeholder is pretty good. That way you're not staring at a blank screen. I think ethical use of AI could be a boon to everyone. When I do art comms while I'm brainstorming poses and stuff I generate a bunch of pictures to see what kind of scene or lighting or shit like that would look good and then I do the final myself. For iterative work like pixel art which is very time consuming AI could also be a great tool but the world doesn't have time for nuance. It's black and white all the time and as much as I like Callum. It's hysteria because everything revolves around twitter.
The thing with these algorithms (they are not AIs) are not nearly as good as the people who love them and hate them say they are. One can't just make a game with image or text generating algorithms. One still needs artistic and coding skills. Just using these algorithms would create something no better and very likely worse than a hastily made asset flip game. To actually make something good with these tools one would need to modify all the assets algorithmically created to fit with the themes and esthetics of the game, and to make everything fit together, that requires artistic skill. They would have to put the code together in a way were it works, that requires modifying the code, they would then have to debug and optimize the code, all of which requires coding skill. Any script (in the writing sense) created by ChatGDP will be mediocre at best and have many plot holes, it would need to be rewritten to make it good, maybe multiple times, that would require writing and story telling skills. Given they way these systems work they can't made things that are good, they are not AIs, they are not intelligent. They have no understanding of what they are creating because they are just algorithms putting things together based on statistical data. They will never be nearly as good as a person and will always requiter actual makers. Maker to create the base images/text/codes to "train" the algorithms and makers to modify the assets/text/codes to fit the assets/text.code to where they need to be. @SioxerNikita
@@clwho4652 Responding to: *"The thing with these algorithms (they are not AIs) are not nearly as good as the people who love them and hate them say they are. One can't just make a game with image or text generating algorithms. One still needs artistic and coding skills. Just using these algorithms would create something no better and very likely worse than a hastily made asset flip game. To actually make something good with these tools one would need to modify all the assets algorithmically created to fit with the themes and esthetics of the game, and to make everything fit together, that requires artistic skill. They would have to put the code together in a way were it works, that requires modifying the code, they would then have to debug and optimize the code, all of which requires coding skill. Any script (in the writing sense) created by ChatGDP will be mediocre at best and have many plot holes, it would need to be rewritten to make it good, maybe multiple times, that would require writing and story telling skills. Given they way these systems work they can't made things that are good, they are not AIs, they are not intelligent. They have no understanding of what they are creating because they are just algorithms putting things together based on statistical data. They will never be nearly as good as a person and will always requiter actual makers. Maker to create the base images/text/codes to "train" the algorithms and makers to modify the assets/text/codes to fit the assets/text.code to where they need to be. "* ---- Quite a bit of your talk is a bit rambly, but I guess I agree with your sentiment. We are replacing one set of people with others, and for some level of convenience even for the people hired (A lot of "art" jobs are factory level work where there is no creative input, and overworked as HELL, especially in the anime industry), the thing is, these tools will get better, and at some point better than humans, like manufacturing. At one point the most accurate you could get was a human, but now we have sub milimeter accurate manufacturing. And frankly, I don't mind.
@@SioxerNikita There are hard limits to how good these algorithms can be. These have no intelligence or imagination, they just regurgitate what other people have made. These are not AIs, they have no intelligence or creativity. They can't do what a human can do. Humans will always be needed to create the media to "train" (create the statistical data the algorithms use) these and then a human artist/writer/animator would be needed to modify the media to make it fit and/or make it good. These tools are not nearly as good as the tech industry hype makers, the techno fetishists, and those afraid of them have presented them as and can't be.
This will level the playing field between AAA and indies. When both sides are using AI yet the indies actually care about what they're making, it'll be quite the upheaval.
I can see how a real artist can use AI for textures, coloring, or even rendering. And since they are a professional artist, they would fix all mistakes and even do manual corrections. Some artists already use Photoshop to create textures for metal, plate armor, guns, and concrete, so it would make sense to use AI for repeating patterns such as those. And, most likely, in the next 5 years, a big company will release a game full of art flaws since there are no artists left on the team.
I don't think it can level the playing field, because there's nothing stopping tencent subsidiaries (dave the diver) using AI to just flood the indie market. More budget will mean more reach. You're thinking that the small indie can just use the AI and it's good, but I think that's a very foolish assumption. The increase in slop means marketing becomes more important. Word of mouth will work less and less. In other words, the smaller indies are at an increasingly bigger disadvantage as things go on, because the marketing will become unaffordable.
And as far as I know to post a game on Steam with AI you certainly have to disclose that information with Steam/Valve. I'm gonna take the gamble and say this game was probably made generally ethically otherwise we would of heard about it in the 3 years leading up to its release (but we didn't). Edit: Finished the video, steam really walked that back didn't they?
@@KUPSMusic They have to tag it as using AI generated content yes and they have to say it isn't infringing on any existing copyrights. I don't think Epic has taken that stance yet, and that's where you still find the majority of NFT derivative bullshit too. Fancy that.
Is this possible to keep track of, if a game outsourced concept art, game assets or design and writing would they even know? If the programmers use AI to assist them in writing code, would we even know? What level of AI assistance is considered using AI if we live in a world where we all start using it for assisting us with learning and creating things.
To be fair with the whole thing about studios cutting back a lot of workers, I think that covid has a lot to do with that too. So many studios looked at the massive boost in profits that they got in 2020-21 when everyone was locked in their house all day playing video games, and were like "oh my god this is gonna last forever!" and then were shocked when things returned to normal in the last couple of years and things were unsustainable. Blaming all of the layoffs on AI is I think reaching a bit. It's possible that some of them might be motivated by the idea of replacing workers with AI I won't deny that, but we're talking about massive huge sweeping changes, hundreds if not thousands of people being laid off in a single company. That's not the kinds of cuts you make for AI without it having already proving that it's worth it. There's definitely other factors at play beyond just "We're replacing everyone with AI" And to be fair, if you ban the use of training data that you don't own, then logically they should also ban the use of AIs that were already trained on that data. As long as that is included as well, then all of those companies would have to basically re-do their AIs from scratch. Like the point is that the AI itself is what's unethical because it was trained on that data. If we banned the use of that data and let them keep using the AIs trained on it, then that would just be moronic.
It's also tax season. Lots of big companies have massive lay offs to save a little bit of money and make their stocks look good so the investors don't complain.
It goes a lot deeper than that, it's basically standard practice in the tech industry to hire a bunch of people to expand whenever a new thing comes along, only to fire most of them once the bubble bursts
I don't buy the consequences of the argument that people don't care I agree with the statement, we can see it all around. Political candidates that are criminals and literal monsters are voted for because people don't care. They don't care where their food is from, who makes their clothes and other consumables. They don't care if slave labour is used etc. But that's too defitist in my opinion. With that argument we wouldn't have labour laws and consumer protection laws and laws against exploitation in the supply chain. All of our cultural achievements stem from a few people who did care, and relied enough people to bring change. Same with AI. People need to be protected by themselves. Every progress might be frozen when it's only the same building blocks rearranged "randomly" and nobody is left with a chance to come up with something entirely new that's not just the same BS just rearranged differently.
I don't know how to feel about this. There have been many technological jumps that changed/destroyed industries. Literally the Industrial Revolution, to Assembly Lines with Ford... and now AI is just the newest thing.
The major thing to note about AI compared to those other advancements... is that it uses COPYRIGHTED works to produce value. It cannot function otherwise. The general concept of assembling a car is not copyrighted, so creating something that assembles a car faster is not directly exploiting or stealing from laborers. AI DOES steal products of labor without consent. Artists are not being given a way to protect themselves or opt out. So this is not just a matter of "new technology scary", it is "we are having the right to own the products of our labor taken."
@@cometthedog1 Check Adobes policy history, they have cloud storage, and they used everything stored there (or were going to) to train their models. And it was opt-out, so by default, the regular user who is not fully plugged to all the drama would have all their work "stolen". The truth is, an AI trained on only real public domain, would be incredibly outdated and poorly trained, they need to steal from artists to make AI useful beyond the hobbist level.
I believe the Artstation and Steam comparison is a bit off. Steam main purpose is to curate what you see using everything it knows about you. RUclips is similar. millions of videos are uploaded every day, yet you only see relevant ones. Artstation lacks this, which is why it's become unusable.
gonna be honest, hearing that AI is gonna be turning out nothing but slop in games and entertainment...steam alone has had slop for YEARS along wither entertainment like movies and shows
@@CallumUpton I genuinely don't see how that is possible. The ratio of slop to good is already so bad that even making the ratio 4 times worse won't have a significant impact. However, less good games being made would have a significant impact. AI lowers the skill floor, meaning that more people will be making games. Yes, that means more bad games, but the probability that there will be a net reduction in good games being released is incredibly unlikely. Look at palworld as an example. While it didn't use AI, it is an excellent example of a group of devs who had to push hard to make a game and barely made it to release. If that barrier was lowered, more devs who otherwise would have a good game would reach that point. Given the direction that triple AAA companies keep going, the big devs who definitely can make it to that finish line of release are continuing to release less and less good games and they are doing so without the benefit of AI to make it easier on them. So, either things change and new devs start making games, which requires lowering the barrier to entry which at this point only AI or Epic games seems able to do, or less good games get released. (As a side-note, interesting that the two biggest threats to triple A "supremacy" are constantly under attack and those things that aren't a threat are almost never attacked...)
@@CallumUpton ai will get better. And it will not stop at human level. Ur arguments are sound, as long as ai stays at the lvl it is now. Also u shouldnt dismiss the fact that artists now can create hyper enhanced images, focusing on enhancing the art to a next level, because the artist could save the grunt work, off-loading to ai. When games become cheaper, there will be more produced, and human artists can find a place enhancing the groundwork of ai. U are criticizing from a very temporary, very present perspective. I get that there are hiccups and ripples in the economy, up to philosophy and ethics. The race to the bottom is a prognosis that is similar to those workers in the steel mill, who lost their jobs through machines. Those machines that lift the standard of living for many, many people. Yes poor decisions get made and were made, bad products will always flood the market, but u will find the gems in them, and those gems will set a new standard for ai integration. There are so many possibilities to make life better with this technology, and u pick the examples of exploitation and corruption. The examples that always exist, in every change. And change is the only constant.
If you gamers keep buying the hypothetical AI-generated games made by soulless corporations, then their existence is your own fault. Everyone's crying about the "death of art" as if the existence of robots will somehow stop artists from creating things, and as if AI just magically makes money appear from nowhere. Get real, guys.
The issue is they are going to utilize AI to increase profit, not to increase efficiency or quality. I design tools all the time for things that I do to reduce the tediuous aspects of the task, these things in theory free up that time spent on those tasks to be utilized elsewhere. Unfortunately, with the way things work in most companies, they would utilize these tools to replace people and inturn turn that labor cost into profit as opposed to quality spent elsewhere.
If AI games come out like Palworld and games made by real people come out like Gollum or that King Kong game then the reality is that consumers will end up siding with the AI.
I think that's already been a problem in a way for decades before generative AI became big. There's been this notion of "Why should we pay artists (in general) when I don't like everything they put out?" The idea that if you personally don't like something then whoever hired them shouldn't have paid them for any of them work. Which is great for companies who try to get out of paying whenever they can already, and very bad for the people who are putting in passion only to be ground down and told they're worthless because of choices someone higher up made.
Palworld is developed in 3 years at least while Gamemill forces studios to develop games under 12 months. Don't miscontrue AI problem with just bad management, but both I equally hate with every fiber of my being.
Part of the problem with people valuing the results over the process is that this problem isn't new, especially in the gaming industry. Game companies have very deliberately discouraged customers from questioning the details of production process almost since video games were first invented, and through their policies prevented developers from getting even the bare essentials, like taking credit for their work or working for reasonable hours without forced overtime (ie, that "crunch" thing everyone's been on about). The fact that it's only now that we've started questioning it, after they've already started sacking large amounts of their staff to replace them with machines, shows that their plan worked. They're already reaching the final stages of liquidating their employees to maximize capital, a process that started as far back as the 80s when Atari wouldn't allow its developers to put their names on their work, and those employees lack any means to do anything about it. No labor unions, no customer boycotts, not even meaningful legislation. Most people don't even realize it's a problem until it's their job on the chopping block. If there's not some serious changes soon, and especially if people don't START caring about who makes the things they enjoy, then things are gonna get really bad a lot faster than anyone ever imagined they could. And to those who are inevitably going to argue about AI democratizing art production or whatever: If you think an economy where everyone is trying to sell and there's nobody left to buy is a functional economy, then there's a near-endless list of MLM victims and crypto bag-holders who could easily prove why you're wrong...
THIS. Devaluing and disrespecting artists has gone on since forever, and since it's now the popular opinion it's hard to convince people to even see it from another perspective. All this talk about how it will improve efficiency misses the point of art. Whenever someone is against AI, they're told that it's the future, yet also already here, and to shut up and let it happen (presumably because of people question it's viability the stocks will tank and they really don't want that to happen)
Also the crypto thing can be seen now: it's easy to create a crypto project, but very few last, and many aren't even made to last. They come in with hype and fomo to get people to buy in and then get abandoned. being able to hold a asset forever is worthless if you can't sell it. (one of the reasons NFT in-game items doesn't make sense. Once the game shuts down there simply isn't going to be other games that it will transfer to, because no one would want to do that, and nobody will buy an item they can't use in game- especially not at an inflated price)
i find it silly that people might try to argue that AI is Democratizing Art Production bit. if people are actually saying that then they really don't understand anything.
Also, AI democratization is bullcr*p made by X Twitter to be used by Capitalist propaganda. If it ain't, I won't have to deal with people complaining about electricity thefts for their neighbor's server activity. Also, people with low spec barely functioning Intel GPUs should have access to AI... but they don't. Also, poor people would still be able to make art. It's all a guise for rich man getting richer from the beginning. Expect Dead Internet Theory becoming reality and everyone on the internet being absolutely hostile from now on because nothing in it is trusted except timelapse videos and raw files, things consumers never see.
The shift into dependance on AI throws up too many red flags to me. It shows we're valuing the end result instead of the process to get to it. Art, music, games, food, you name it. It just has to be good enough, just scrape through the surface level checks to be accepted by your fleeting glance and attention spam before you're served the bigger works. And that will come to a problem as failures leak through the system because the system itself can't explain what it is that it is outputting. It is a black box. I can get an explaination from an artist why they've drawn a character's arm in such a way to work with foreshortening or emphasis a dynamic pose. I can't get that out of an AI model, it's just vaguely mimicing what it's seen before without context. If the dependance become entrenched. We run the risk of losing our ability to generate the new content that an AI model needs to prevent its own poisoning.
I mean, do you really care that the machine you're posting this from was likely made with sweatshop labour? Of course you don't and certainly not enough to pay a higher price for the same thing, except it wasn't produce through sweatshop labour. Neither do I. People caring mostly about the end product rather than the process it took to get there is not a new phenomenon. It's why we eat absolute garbage, over processed food too, even though it's full of crap that's bad for us.
If art, music, games, literature and film hadn't been turned into mindless slop by so many large companies over the last 20 years people might actually care. As it stands, you can pay £70+ for a copy of last year's trashy copy of the previous years release. Or you can spend half of that on something semi-original and fun. All AAA developers seem to do now is reskin existing assets and hope we don't notice. Look at every CoD game from the last 10 years and tell me I'm wrong, the industry already does this and fanboys even thank them. AI could allow small/one man dev teams to actually achieve something instead of spending years learning coding, character design, audio, animation and then having to be a 'good artist' on top.
It's frustrating seeing people who don't understand art going "It's already here, you'll fall behind if you don't use it" Obviously the end product is important but it's not everything. People love a good hand-crafted experience and people enjoy creating those experiences. There's an assumption that everyone against it is just mad because they don't know how to use it, but that's not true. The problems aren't solved by "throw away your past experience and learn to type prompts into the machine" The undermining of creating art paved the way for aggressively not seeing the problem with it. Those who really don't care now probably won't care in the future as long as their AI stocks keep going up, but it will be a massive cultural loss to be locked into merely requesting art and settling for the result rather than having a personal take on ideas. The AI fans' impatience with society for not throwing literally tens of thousands of years of tradition out overnight and put all art under the control of a handful of AI companies is concerning.
i mean yea, food is a funny one too, i saw a video about a restaurant that had 1 worker to basicly maintain the machines and whatnot but otherwise was 100% operated by machines only and it was running like a train on nitro, customers were happy and the owner was making bank, because they didn't need any essential personel
@dakat5131 nobody has ever said that we need to hand 'all art' over to AI. To even take that viewpoint is absurd. There will always be space for 'hand crafted' items. Just look at the textile industry where hand made items sell for a huge premium. Sure, a machine 'can' make it. But it doesn't undermine anything and loss of culture would only occur if the 'artists' are solely creating for profit. Real artists create for the art itself, not because it pays well.
This last only until they realize that AI does not come with copyright. A machine making something with out very significant human interaction means it can be taken and copied without violating copyright. It is no different than a monkey taking a picture of itself. So the question becomes how protective are companies over IP and copyright.
What if they generate the AI image using an offline model, and then have an artist check for mistakes, make corrections, etc. Would it become derivative? What if they create a whole new art using the AI one as the basis? If so, can't they copyright the modified version? That's a scary thought, but I can see big companies managing to pull it off, legally speaking.
Unfortunately, trademark is how companies are protecting their IP, not copyright. Disney just happened to decide to make Steamboat Willy part of it's company branding a few years before the copyright was set to expire.
@@IvoryShard So much "AI" is backed by some cheap worker in India or Vietnam - one of those fancy "self-driving car" companies turned out to use an average of 1.5 person per car who sat there monitoring the driving and used manual control if the AI failed in some way.
no no, if you as a company for example release a game with ai generated characters, or they release a game cover with ai art, those products will still be fully protected by copyright, the copyright applies to the end-product!
@@raafmaat ... but if I then feed that "end product" (read: Collection of assets and code) into an AI, and extract, well, most of it for my own "creation", that is fine according to the AIboys...
I do miss a lot of "what do we do" in the "what do we do?" Section. It feels quite defeatist, like "ah well, games are gonna lose q lot of talented art, steam will get flooded, copyright will no longer get respected, etc. Etc." But I would love to hear what you think we CAN do about it. Do you think we can force companies to respect the rights of artists with AI poisoning tools like Nightshade? Do you think new laws about generating someone's likeness/sound can be written in an effective way? I don't think we should just roll over and let AI run rampant in the hands of those who only care about money and not the humans under them. The current evolution in AI is a step towards a sci-fi future, but if we are not careful, this future will be a lot more Cyberpunk and a lot less Star trek.
I think the defeatism plays right into the hands of people who want to squash dissent about AI. They're aggressively arguing that we should just give up and let it happen. The idea of it being "futuristic" is used to prevent critical examination of how the software works- we're just supposed to believe that the magic box will eventually be an amazing positive force if we sacrifice enough, and that we owe it to the future to make it happen. When in reality, the fundamental way it works means a future that depends on it won't be so bright. If there's such an improvement, it won't be because we've shoveled a few more terabytes of data into it. It's not just some "naive optimism" thing- if we collectively assume they've won then they have won, but if no one's buying their product then they have no reason to make it. shutting up about it means letting them lure more people into accepting it as a normal and necessary part of life, just to make a bit more money.
its very difficult to really do anything. we can yell about it all we like but in the end its the money that talks the loudest. now i don't think its all Doom and Gloom, we will over time find a balance. i do think for the Video game industry, its going to be a Bubble that will very quickly burst. its going to be a Video game crash 2.0. if we start seeing games Pumped out by the minute, people will stop buying. we only have so much time and money after all.
One, nightshade is nonsense. It is trivial to emulate the effects they show and trivial to bypass them. Two, steam is already flooded, the solution isn't to stop flooding it but instead better ways to sort through the trash. Three, the AI direction we are going right now is far more likely to push towards a meritocratic system than what we have right now which is basically "whoever has the biggest marketing budget wins". Or, to put it another way, the AI aspect is literally the best way to combat the corporatism we have now. Corporations always want to raise the barrier of entry because that always helps them by getting rid of competition. Four, the idea that any mathematician who chooses to use a slide-rule instead of a calculator in the modern age is somehow "better" than his peers is foolish in the extreme. Talent is the ability to adapt to the current environment faster than your peers. Therefore, definitionally, no, games won't lose a lot of talented artists.
AI is vulnerable to model collapse. It will inevitably start consuming its own stuff in increasing amounts, which will cause model collapse. It might take a few years or even decades, and artists will suffer during that. Support your small artists and buy actual art from them until that happens. And after that.
@@user-fv8pg5fr3s No, it does not. That ridiculous "project nightshade" has already been thoroughly debunked in-terms of effectiveness. It's soundly mocked by the AI community. I work with AI and love the field. The fact artists and people like you try to destroy models using nightshade and glaze leaves very little room for sympathy for any of you. Newsflash - there are already countless datasets that were created before AI really took off. Not to mention the countless pieces of literature, textbooks, and newspapers from before "AI" in it's current form even existed. Which means new models can be trained on "non-AI" material and completely avoid model collapse. AI is here to stay, like it or not. You try to destroy the things I love? Then I and many others won't shed a tear when artists are replaced.
@@user-fv8pg5fr3s yup, and its a conceptual nightmare to clean up esp if the company is using a bot to scrape indiscrimnately. the damage isnt instant but over time.
I stopped even being able to support small artists because the number of grifters pretending to be artists for small commissions has accelerated the past year or two. It now takes too much work to have to validate whether someone is legit. It's not necessarily too hard, but I often have to cold accuse someone because other people don't even notice.
So many things wrong here. The premium version of chatgpt can't even notice I've missed a $ in a variable after several attempts. You have made several incorrect statements like this to fear monger. You also fail to mention that passionate indie devs without money now have access to tool's to make new and fun games.
I might disagree with Martin Scorsese on the Marvel films (I like them a lot and feel they are definitely "cinema"), but he is, in my strong opinion, our Greatest Living Filmmaker, and beardo dismissing him as "old man" is mind-blowing. We can disagree with great directors and still respect them as great directors. _We should_ still respect them as great directors.
The issue with AI with concerns to art is the AI can only reference from source material and twist it into something "original". Where as a human can imagine something or get an idea and get it down on paper or whatever art program they use and then improve upon it if they want/have to. AI makes copies from references, humans imagine and think.
The vast majority of human originality is taking what already exists, iterating on it, and doing something new... No different... The vast majority of artists learned to draw, techniques and so on from watching others, seeing art, etc... so please .. don't make humans sound better than we are...
0:00 to 0:12 Then why the f*** is it in the title then? I get that its addressed, but it feels out of place in the title. In the description or the tags, sure, that's fine, but in the title it just feels wrong.
I think one of the most terrifying consequences is the fact that less and less people will create new, unique art. So AI will not get new data with new ideas and at one point it will just create same stale stuff over and over again. It's like heat death of Universe but for art. And it will happen not only with art, but with everything that involves human imagination.
Much of AI soup is already devoid of ideas, which is entirely unsurprising since much of its userbase has not spent any real time and effort into developing their imagination in a way that commonly goes hand in hand with making art (largely on account of not being interested in the process of making art).
regardless of how far technology comes, it will always be more satisfying to make something with your hands then to type keywords into an ai. The people who are getting into creating ai images are the ones who've always wanted to be artists but never wanted to put in the effort, they were never going to do it to begin with. Your kids aren't going to learn to make ai images in kindergarten, their gonna learn to draw, it will always be a part of our culture as humans.
@@TrickyDryadthose ppl doing ai art might also have put in effort but were too untalented and moved on to other ways of expression or what not. It's not fair to assume they didnt put work into become an artist if they wanted to. I just hope we keep getting unique human created art etc as well.
i don't really think this is true, the internet has been popular for ~2 decades now and there isn't a big novel concept which nobody has thoroughly explored and made art out of. plus AI art gets uploaded back onto the internet anyway so more content will emerge no matter what.
Okay. I'm old enough to know how the world works and that it's right, in the end the people who give the money and buy AI stuff basically form the opinion; I still can't believe how everyone glosses over the fact that said AIs are mainly trained with stolen art and make that stolen art available for everyone, technically speaking. It's mind boggling.
It's a complicated territory, because human artists do the same thing. Not _exactly_ the same thing, but that's just how learning works, whether in art or any technical subject. We build on top of the work of the previous "generations". AI generation just makes the process more obvious and explicit in a way... and of course, robs the process of the things that make the end artist meaningfully different from those he learned from. Though to be clear, that's also true of most _human_ artists, and was even more so before reproductions became much simpler and cheaper than just having another artist make a reproduction "manually". Those humans were replaced with phonographs, printers, televisions... The main problem I see is that when an AI adopts the style of a human artist (who developed that style distinctively), they basically lose. Everyone will just see their style as AI art, especially if it becomes particularly common. And they don't have the luxury to develop new distinctive style over the _next_ twenty years of their practice. Again, much the same _did_ happen with a lot of professions - you see a similar pattern between factory furniture and artisan furniture. It takes a lot of experience and effort to develop something... and it is (usually, not always) easier to copy or adopt that than doing something distinctive. I think one thing that would help would be a bit of attribution built in - just like with human artists, it's impossible to list all the influences you had in creating your art (and developing your style)... but most people can point out to two or three artists that had particular influence. And destroying corporations, of course. Corporations are the worst :P
@@LuaanTi Human artists do not "do the same thing" and implying the processes are similar is anti-scientific. Its computer software, not a human brain. It's doing exactly what its told, breaking down and reconstructing data. It has no capacity to understand what it's making, which is why it looks so nonsensical so often. Its also why removing other people's copyrighted works from the dataset or adding "poisoned" images reverts AI to being useless. The only reason it can produce anything of value is because of the products of labor it is exploiting, and those artists cannot opt out. So it isn't really a "grey area", it's just theft.
@@Tayturs You're imagining there is some data set that the AI is using to produce its images. That's not the case. It uses the same storage mechanism humans use - the pictures aren't in there the way a file exists on your disk. That's why removing anything "reverts the AI to being useless" - you're not removing the data from the finished system, your only option is to remove it from the _initial_ data set used to teach the AI in the first place. Then you have to do the whole learning process from scratch. If we used the same logic you use for AI for humans, you'd be arguing for murdering an artist who got inspiration from another artist and refused to pay a fee.
@@LuaanTi you don't know anything about anything, and in your ignorance you are simping for overgrown toasters. humans don't blindly consume massive amounts of data and rely on purely statistical correlations. the human brain is optimized to recognize and understand specific constructs that allow it to actually comprehend its inputs. at the very closest, there are AI technologies like "neural networks" that are loosely inspired by the brain, but it's worth remembering that there are _many_ kinds of neuron in a real brain, we haven't even identified how many of them function, and we haven't reverse engineered their layout. even artificial neural networks ultimately have nothing in common with a real brain and its capabilities. you don't understand the science, don't understand art, and are actively cheerleading the problem.
It's because the ethics of intellectual property are fundamentally artificial, as they do not come from an everyman's intuition but rather business interests. Thus, it's only natural that the overall public wouldn't really care about the "stolen" aspect. Especially considering that every human art is also "stolen" if we really boil down the neurological mechanics of inspiration.
As a voice actor I've lost about 50% of my clients in the past year. Creatives who work as freelancers are going to go first, commission based artists, voice actors, freelance coders, small time music producers and copywriters. There are ALOT of white collar jobs that required a lot of education and training to build up to that are now going to be bagging groceries. The real repercussions are going to be political. No one cares when the coal miners are go on welfare, but when white collar dudes with MScs are mass unemployed...stuff is gonna go down.
Gonna have to disagree with this video I'm afraid. I think that people do care about how their games are made- see Blizzard and Konami for examples of how you still need a good reputation in order to sell games. And with AI, at the very least I expect the prices of games to go way down if they cost much less to make. But we all know companies. They will want to keep prices high as possible, so now it is important to know which games are AI made, and thus demand a lower price for them.
Love the enthusiasm, but no. So pretty much everyone hates JK Rowling because she’s a TERF, so when people heard about the Harry Potter video game coming out, I saw a bunch of people saying they were going to boycott it. However, that game still sold thousands of copies and was very profitable because even more people didn’t care what Rowling did, and just wanted a Harry Potter game.
Pal designs have been known for years - before we even had the AI tech to do that. I get the conversation around AI needs to happen, but the attack on Palworld was absurd.
Maybe I'd be interested in knowing more about what prompts AI discussion from Palworld more, I've heard lots of rumours but never looked into them. It's definately not old enough to rule out though. A lot of AI art stuff really got popularised 3-4 years ago with Artbreeder which started in 2018. I remember watching tutorials on how to use Artbreeder to assist in costume designs for RPG games by an artist who worked on Path of Exile.
Cant AI legislation be retroactive to people who have trained AI on data without concent? Force them to retrain with only ethically sourced images? If the answer is because you cant tell if an AI was trained on illegally taken images or not, then how would legislation be enforced?
Just like outsourcing labor - a good 90% of people aren't going to care that Nike used child labor sweat shops. They might care while its in the news cycle, but people only have so much attention to spend. Without regulation, it just not going to be comfortable. I don't think anyone could have stopped AI, it's a programmatic thing. It's not like a thing that needs components that can be kept from the hands of the public. The only thing we could have done was setup regulations before it became popular. We had too many people focused on trying to stop it, without real idea how it worked, and very few people laying legal groundwork to work WITH it. It was an all or nothing attitude. I think plenty of us knew it wasn't going to work. When it comes down to it, the amount of rubbish pumped out via AI will be its undoing for a time. No idea what to do about the training data honestly. The more I try to think about it, the less I think anyone can do anything about it. Just about any company can lie about where that data came from. The LAION-400 dataset did it, and they still have never seen the inside of a courtroom!
The reason why it's at the point where we either need to ban it completely or accept it is because they were doing the training and other stuff without permission and now they don't actually need it anymore to win. When I say outright ban it I mean that completely including the mundane stuff too.
Absolutely this. We're at the point where no benefit of AI outweighs the cost. Every argument I've seen from AI bros boils down to either "It makes things cheaper" or "it makes things easier." Both arguments completely ignore the very real cost of always taking the easy path, no matter the consequences. Also there's the whole blatant theft side of it which they just brush under the rug and downplay whenever it's brought up. The one possible place AI has an actual, beneficial, transformative impact is in tackling diseases, but I would argue a bigger hurdle to get over there is killing the "for profit" business models pharmaceutical companies have
Yeah you are 100% right dude. We have passed the point of no return. No matter what law passes from this point, corporations will continue training their models in secret and just pay the fine when caught. They stand to make far more money from firing all of their staff and automating their company than any fine could ever impact. I don't mind that everyone is going to lose their jobs and everything will be copied. I do mind having to pay for AI to copy my own artwork though, which is essentially what happens when you have to pay for AI art. If they are going to copy basically every artist that ever existed without paying them, then they shouldn't have the hide to ask for money to access that art. You can't stop companies from ripping off other people's IP, but you can stop them from profiting off it, which might be the only deterrent we have.
I think Palsworld opened another problem. The people see the design is uninspired and copied without any kind of creativity. The first idea they get it must be AI. And this is excacly what the crypto bros and AI fans want. For them It's a success if people think they can make a full game. Especially if its a bad game that everyone is loving. Palworld likely is not made with AI. But it proves you can get away with bad copy past designs and features as long as the people enjoy it. This is the best news the AI pusher could hear.
At the end of the day, games are made for entertainment first and other purposes second. In what way or method they entertain you, by being fun, by making you think, by having interesting concepts, or by having something that appeals to you, it doesn't matter. Sadly, or fortunately depending on your view of the world, people want product to be good, fun, tasty, etc. Even if it makes them think twice about what they are consuming if they see by whom or how it is made, the product at the end of the day, is still a good one. And so, people are compelled to put their biases from said product and fuse said argument about the product's quality, with how it is made (the morality/ethics of it), and said biases. This isn't even a problem for games, but rather just anything you can consider or define as a "product" nowadays. This whole situation is basically a mirror of the whole vegans thing that people had and have had for a while, or that one time we had a bunch of ""deep"" debates about how big, giant corporation making netflix number 14 bad, or that one time we hated plastic for so long until no one talks about it anymore. I could go on and on, but really, you get the point. You have been part of the world for long enough, not just the internet, to know that this is a constant with just about anything. And the worst part? You could very well be right. This COULD pose a MAJOR problem in the industry. Problem is, is that that isn't the only problem. Next big and major problem will take over this one, and so on, and so forth. The new big, shiny pile of shit of a discussion topic takes over the other one, and we are back to square 1. With the people that *now* talk about it, being called "pretentious" or "live under a rock." Hence why so many people just think at this, justified or not: I don't care. The game's fun.
The only reason this game got any kind of attention at all is because it's ripping off designs. Otherwise, it would have been drowned in other mediocre slop within a day. And games that only aim to cause controversy will never cause anything good.
@@toolatetothestory Though I do agree with your take, the objective information supporting it is blatantly wrong. Palworld's first trailer was shown in 2021. It already had a bunch of people being on the hype train since that initial "concept" (I am putting it in quotations since people are actively debating this as well) was revealed. Even though so many more people were in major disbelief about something regarding the game *now,* it was then about it being satire or a gag, but an equal amount of people wanting this game to be real. To say that people weren't actually hooked on the concept is just wrong and can be statistically proven so. However, as I said: This is very much a take I agree with, if it comes down to the bigger part that is subjective. P.S The objective information I am correcting here is that 1. People didn't like the pitched concept to the point that if it wasn't drama-related it would go down under, and 2. This game's reason for having such a spike in popularity since release is caused by controversy and nothing else.
There's a difference between a copy paste game and a game that doesn't hide its influences , how many games exist now that are inspired by Stardew Valley , or Mincecraft, Mario ,Golden Eye, Street Fighter / etc. ? Tens of thousands some extremely successful and becomign hteir own unique variant of the same style of game within the genre. People crticize Palworld for being copy-paste but it is just as heavily influenced as any other game series it just does a piss poor job of hiding its influences. THAT meter is from Breath of the wild, That tech tree is from Ark, those characters are practically pokemon , and so on and so forth. I think the unfortunate thing is because its influences are laid so bare people ignore how well it marries mechanics and systems across multiple games and manages to feel like a Unique and interesting experience without common game development plaguesl ike microtransactions and lootboxes sprinnkled in to intentionally hurt your experience as a player . It's unfortunate I think there's a lot to be learned from Pal World in the modern game industry but because people can't get past " It's pokemon with guns" It's not going to be able to teach the lessons it should which should be " simpler gameplay-driven games are what fans are for " Not Looter Shooter 12 , Micro Transaction Colletor 5, or another dead in 2 years Battle Royale
In some ways, I think artists themselves - and hear me out - are a little at fault. They're so focused on being against AI, so dead set on following this narrow path of "boycott everything," but fail to realize that boycotting doesn't work. Like, ever. We're not in the late 1800s anymore. Markets are global and intertwined in ways you cannot even imagine where all the worst aspects of capitalism are literally inescapable. They've blinded themselves to other solutions, and it's hurt them already, and is going to continue to hurt themselves.
the thing about games prices is a.i art isnt going to lower the cost of the game it just raises the profits the people at the top and are then incentivized to go for a.i art so there is no catch up to competitors argument, there will at least for a long time be places that have real artists and i imagine we'll see a spike in more creatively artistic games as a result mainly in smaller indie stuidos from the influx of high skilled artists
this whole topic stems from the alegations against palworld, nobody knows if they did or didnt, and as i stated it doesnt matter. the game is fun regardless.
@@CallumUptonAbsolutely zero accountability. No respect for you mate. Just because you don't know doesn't mean you have any reason to even mention them. I don't call my bank teller a murder just because I don't know if they are one.
"Now, if you have morals and you don't believe in the ethics of AI, you would say 'Well, I would have the staff'. Now your competitor doesn't have morals and they have fired all their staff, minus one or two artists [...] if 80% of the work can be done instantly and they're doing that, you have to do it to catch up. Because at the end of the day your customers do not care" This is such a bad argument. Game Studios will not sell games made with AI tools cheaper, so for the consumer this at most means a faster release. That aspect is pretty irrelevant for the consumer though. As consumer it doesn't matter whether the game was in production 2, 5 or 8 years, all that matters is the point from which on you can buy it. Now for the company it means lower production cost (again, not on the consumer, totally different argument) BUT as long as you can run your company in a profitable way without AI usage, then does that matter? All you are giving up is profit maximization. This is not an AI problem, that is a capitalism problem. The only way the consumer matters here is if the usage of AI would affect the price of the game due to the lower production cost. Because otherwise I just have 2 games for 60 bucks each and my decision will be based on quality/theme/mechanics or in other words, the actual game. This is ultimately a capitalism issue, not an AI issue.
The point the video creator was making is that companies that don't currently use AI will start to utilize AI to be competitive with companies that use AI. If one company requires 4 years of development time to produce a 40 hours of gameplay without AI, and another company only requires 1 year to accomplish the same thing with the help of AI, then that other company can make 4 games by the time the first company makes one. That is an exaggerated example, but the the idea is that if cost can be saved with AI, and the profits are the same either way, there's no reason for companies to not use AI. Of course, this is under the assumption that the quality - from the eyes of the end-user - is the same between the games both companies can push out. We'll assume the quality is the same, or expected to be, for the sake of the example.
The AI bros are pulling the wool over your eyes Callum. Bending over and calling defeat is just what they want. Especially if you're telling it to all your fans. You gave them a win here. You empower them with this. It genuinely would've been better to stay silent. You stay silent to your community anyways so it shouldn't be unfamiliar territory for you. You don't really ever read what anyone has to say unless what they say already aligns with your opinion. Give the comments another scroll through. Try to read entire threads that start with an opinion you don't agree with. There's plenty of answers, right here, on your doorstep. Including but not limited to: 1. Palworld isn't AI 2. It does matter 3. There are things that can be done about it 4. Make a technical blog for NMW. Many games and 3d social hangouts already do this with large success, and keeps their community well... communicated with. "Boring stuff" is better than silence.
I've been in labor force for 30 years.any of us will tell you the c and c machines are half automated already ,assembly lines,AMAZON ,all these labor jobs will disappear and then they're gone forever.
My solution is universal basic income, but I feel that conversation is even more heated than AI. The perfect solution now is just to tax any company using AI to create this income. Good luck getting anything resembling this to go through though
It also had an unfortunate peak of AI influx until they added filtering options. Still, when AI can generate characters and backgrounds separately from the artist it's hard to tell. There's myriad of ways of how different premium AI programs are being used.
i don't really disagree with anything you said in the video... but i wonder if it's really going to -noticeably- affect the overall quality of things. "shovelware" isn't a new term, and steam is already packed full of it.
Minor correction: the Taylor Swift nudes (at least, the ones made on DALL-E) were absolutely made on the online tool. Microsoft just had very lax prompt and generation control. Anyone could have generated those images freely.
And the same thing could happen with Sora but they will probably put a lot of filters which will make the tool more restricted to the content it has to generate. It happened the same with Chat GPT at the beginning where you could ask it to write Malware Code, but even now, I find it really dumb that you cannot even ask more basic questions how to use pointers in C++ because it automatically thinks that everything related to memory is bad.
I'm not familiar with ArtStation but does art/image site in the west do not have "AI-Generated" filter or the user has to disclose that said piece was made entirely/mostly by an AI? Because when the machine generated blew up, within a week, Japanese sites put up a new rule that you have to tag your piece if it was made by an AI or not. Not doing so will result in a severe punishment such as permanently removal of the user account. With the tagging, you can filter them out and not having them pollute you when browsing anymore.
@@FreedomFighterEx ArtStation does have an AI Generated tag, but unfortunately there are plenty of people who will post their generated art without that tag in order to pass it off as human made, and often times they get away with it because that rule is not well enforced. Another popular site DeviantArt has a similar situation, and they do not allow you to fully filter AI generated pictures out. At best your only option is to "see less" of them... But there's still so many that it's still all over the place. Now if I want to find only human artists, I have to be on much smaller sites that disallow AI art entirely.
No offense to what you said, but the three major companies that are using AI are always going to be on top if you ban it, or not. They are monopolies. Who tf can compete against Microsoft making a nuclear island for the soul purpose of powering AI
You're absolutely right about gaming. Games were already bad from AAA studios, now it will just be easier and cheaper to make those. As a programmer I will worry about my job when AI can figure out what a client actually wants! Frankly I think it would be a mistake to let AI work on complex, bespoke systems too. I haven't seen premium versions but I find it hard to believe we'd reach a point were we can trust it not to make mistakes and not have people who can code check it. If it was that trustworthy why not just have it write machine code? Its undoubtedly a great tool though. I would be very sad if it killed this career path. Hopefully it only removes the dead wood, its incredible how many bad programmers are out there.
Yes, people are already warning about code extracted from GitHub Copilot or other sources (basically automated "copy-pasting from StackOverflow) which pretends to solve your particular problem, you slap it in, and then three months later you return to it and you don't understand it because you didn't need to back then. Many programmers don't think about later maintenance.
Not enough assembler or straight machine code on github to make a model out of it, but C is close enough. google/microsoft/apple would have enough software to make it work, but again, the compilers have had 30-40 years of work put into them, why throw them away? C is portable and has all of the libraries, apis and protocols, that's what you want to output. What Callum is saying about the pro version of chat-gpt is completely true. You make agents and assign them tasks (yes, exactly like a manager or tech team lead) and tell them what to do. It's not a chat bot anymore, it's a full workforce.
@@PaulSpades Exactly though. It is completely reliant on the work of others to be any good at anything. And it should be noted not everything you will ever build has a million examples online to be used. I will take the fact companies are not outright replacing all their developers with this as the tell tale sign that people do not trust such a tool to replace their entire dev team. And frankly I find it hard to believe you could trust such a thing to not make mistakes. I find it almost comparable to replacing devs with cheaper labour from abroad/outsourcing, only to find those devs are inept and screw things up.
@@adam7802 There aren't really mistakes in development. There are 1) bad assumptions from misunderstanding and miscommunication and there's 2) incompetence. The first problem is fixed with planing, meetings, presentations, graphs - and chatgpt can interpret language very well. The second problem is now also not a problem, it can write python better than every python coder I've worked with, but it can do everything (no knowledge limitation or preference for a particular framework or stack). It always goes for the most common, well documented solution which is 99% best. And again, it's no longer a tool. It's a workforce with individual agents that you can configure to communicate between themselves.
@@PaulSpades Part of software development is understanding what the client wants, being able to scope out what needs to be done and delivering it. But if all you can do is write python code to solve problems that have been solved a million times on stack overflow, yes you will be replaced.
On the hands argument. I come from a long line of painters, and number of my ancestors' paintings are in my house. None of the portraits have good looking hands.
I hate to say this but i agree with those asking to change the title and thumbnail. Enough comments show this. People dont watch the whole video. Some look at just the thumbnail or title and form their opinion. Its been like this for years. As a youtuber you should be more than aware of the affect. Please be better than this and dont use allegations proven false as clickbait. It doesnt matter if you explain otherwise in the video, and you know this.
The UKs car industry refused to innovate in an attempt to protect jobs. The UK no longer has a mainline car industry. This was unstoppable from the start.
The US car industry also refused to innovate when faced with competition from Japan, South Korea and Europe. What they _did_ manage was... surprise, surprise... use the government to eliminate or restrict competition. Did you ever wonder where the US fascination with pickup trucks for personal transportation comes from? It's not because they are in any way practical as a passenger vehicle (especially in cities!), it's because of light truck tariffs shielding their manufacturers from competition. All you have to do is convince people pickups are cool and bam, you can effectively sell them for 25% more (all else equal, which it isn't because otherwise you wouldn't have to worry about the competition in the first place - you _know_ they're doing a better job, that's why you bring violence into it :D ). Not to mention that even despite all these tariffs, subsidies, "free loans" and such... much of the US car industry died anyway. The growing consolidation of the manufacturers is quite disturbing too, all over the world. Of course, they're just as happy to fight _against_ all sorts of government regulation when it doesn't suit _them_ ...
In my opinion, work automation in all fields is inevitable. The solution isn't to try to stop AI, it's to adapt our society so that we don't starve when there is less work to go around, so that we can make and do things we're passionate about without needing it to be profitable.
I think it does not apply only to games or entertainment. That people don't care how things are made. Only when you indoctrinate them to always see the conditions how a product was made or how the production caused harm. For example cod liver oil or ivory.
there is countless examples. in the past, the Fur Trade didn't care about the Environmental impact killing thousands of animals would do, it was purely about making money off fur products.
Oh the extreme irony, that we thought AI would be used to do the boring monotonous jobs so we humans could focus and arts and stuff, then AI come out and the first thing it replaces is artists. But as we've done with every technological advancements of the past, we'll adapt to it, for better or worse (probably better, let's be honest)
One of the issues for your position of "we should have" Callum, is that the world isn't under one government. So if people in the US, Europe, etc. hadn't done it, someone in China, Russia, Kazakhstan etc. would have.
Honestly... How I see it is, the moment we start taking stands that would be ideological in nature and we would have ZERO way to verify the validity of any claims made for or against something involving that stand.... We start to turn into a mad world where we all get purity tested ... all the fing time. Do we want to make sure people are treated well, and get what they rightly earned... Yes, but at the same time... like my guy ... how much research should I be doing before I spend my 40-100$ on something? How long do I have to spend checking & rechecking? Furthermore, while I will openly laugh at VO who get replaced by AI, and feel bad for the artists, .... the fact of the matter is AI is a tool.... a very powerful tool and I don't think I wanna see a world where we start to draw lines because 'a tool is too good', and the absolute wars that will create. A calculator is a tool... is that unfair to math majors? Programs like GIMP/Photoshop/Corel Draw/etc. are exceptionally powerful tools as well.... is that fair to the now wealth of art supply businesses which will never see a dime from all the digital versions of art that will never generate a physical version... in final or in it's building & learning? Also, what makes the AI argument much weaker is .. the fact those results can be achieved ... without AI, and yes it'd require far more talented person with digitial artwork skills. These programs come with all kinds of brush strokes and techniques under names, that in the real world would take years to master if at all.. and suddenly some little timmy can reproduce that in no time at all. We've had convincing Voice fakery/alteration for the longest time... and yell even in the late 90's I remember seeing sound mixers & re-mixers, of which you could do some clever stuff with enough talent. I myself, have seriously powerful audio/video cleaners as software and no one bats an eye. These tools are exceptionally powerful and are meant to remove .. noise (both audio/video) which simplifies the skill requirements and shortens the time required to exceptionally reasonably levels where you could practice on a bad piece of media and learn the required skills on the go, where as before.. 'you had to know' else nothing good would come out of it, or sink ungodly amounts of time into it to produce results that were never going to be as good. Seriously though.... Most can not even fathom just how much 'aid' is given by modern technology... and suddenly we all care because an ai learns the way we would in such a way it has the ability to produce a more flawless memory, which means it's rate of forgetting what was learned... is far lower. I can't tell you the sheer amount of time that I save when I use Bing AI to actively sort & look through not only my own media, but on the web to try and find something to fit a need... that would have taken me hours... on hours, assuming i could ever find .. a user of a site that did the piece I enjoyed, or the site it self because I never could use the right SEO terms... and could never get past the flood of artificially boosted results because of the insane abuse of SEO by bad actors. I am not able to tell you just how much of a headache being able to contextually compare litature from historical figures, and when I pull up the used material to read it myself remains accurate and even provides a POV that I may not have considered because I failed to grasp an aspect of one of their works that I could never find because of obscurity. I don't know what things will look like, but If you must go 'AI is bad' .. take a look at your life, what you own, what you use, and ask yourself what's the difference between being able to reach into the organized database of something like the internet archieve and pulling up the material of things that only 20 years ago you never could even touch without being arrested for doing so because it would damage the material, and ask yourself ... would you rather have it so only those with the right skills and credentials get access to that set of knowledge & tools? Our lives are full of so many shortcuts cutting out the horrendous skill & knowledge required to even begin thinking about doing it the old way, that it is taken for granted.. and I'ma goingto be real with you all... Real art will always be made by people. Art is OUR expression, no matter if an AI could reproduce it or not. I believe our world is so full of ..the technically competent gate keeping tools that make that thing easier, to a point it hurts. We're in a bad place when it comes to creative works atm, and have been for ... 50 years or so... Art has become ... WAY to commercialized, and this isn't to say .. artists shouldn't make a living.. but to say... art has been taken from ... expression and meanings (even of the fart sniffers kinds) into ... a soulless commodity, to the point that a game that might have had AI work in it... has more fucking expression & soul than the majority of AAA slop.... and then people attack the AI for it as if the ART community they want to defend hasn't already rotted its soul away for the promise of money, with even fewer people getting something for the looks of it. Hell, even corporate selling of art has seen that.. and has effectively leaned hard into pieces that are more meaningless on their own, but are meaningful when used by someone because it's in the placement of those who got it where it derives meaning from in combination of what's on the piece(S). You want an example? Go to Amazon and search 'Split Painting' and you'll see whole arrays of 'art pieces' that don't look bad, but no one would spend loads of money on either... but get their value as a functional aspect of versatile decoration and the imaginative placement of the owners who buy them. Honestly I believe the day & age of ... the art pieces from people who could rightly be called masters of their craft ... is dead. We want art to fit our tastes, our views... and frankly... while we will always have some uber talented people whom could be called masters at some time, ... well that commission from the talented person you paid to make something 'you wanted' will never really resell well or was meant to, and it means more to us than it say work of a master craftsman, who is called a master because ..someone who isn't you said their talent was masterful despite .... ya know never wanting it even if space & money were never an issue for you. It is sad, but I look forward to AI powered Art.. I look forward to aritsts being returned to being real artists putting expression back into their painting, into the things THEY want to create, and yes it shows through when someone does that. I also want it to be remembered when anyone says 'Well that is good looking' or to that tone without a hint of anything else, any other expressions... that's not the praise they think it is for the thing as a whole, or the praise you think it is..... Just because something is technically masterful and even is 'good looking', doesn't give it meaning. "Well that game looks fun to play, buuut I'm going to pick up this other thing"... Is not a good phrase to hear, and I would put out as more damnation than if someone railed about how the art style offended them.. or the how the mechanics pissed them off, or how it's stupid that xyz character was or wasn't there, or how this trope was used or how it needed that trope. Seriously, Seriously, look at any art around you... and if you honestly can't find anything but 'meh'.... or even in the games around you.. Think about .. just how horrible that is, and you can't even be ..rilled up over something meant to be an expression that stirs a personal response up.
My main training is in IT, and I was told often that they don't need me - they got "AI". So I worked a bit with art to make ends meet. "Oh, why should we commission you? We got AI". So now I do some work that I am not qualified for and only can do it because it is not heavy work. I am able to do it, but it is not even at minimum wage. And I am lucky that I have that. I went to manual labour places, where the foreman looked at me, and went "sorry, no. Please look elsewhere". I was told I am overqualified to be a janitor or a server. I was told I need even more stuff I can't afford to do shelf stacking or delivering pizza. So... "AI" will take our jobs, so when we can't do things - where will we get money? WHO will be able to buy any of the slop being tossed out? It is a monopoly, because these "AI" companies all made their internet scraping machines. We can't really fix this any more, I fear, but... People won't care. They don't want to care. It's not something you can fix if we install a fully automated gay space communism tomorrow - because this is using human apathy for the way it can spread. The future generations will "enjoy" the mass produced slop, and wonder why they feel empty.
If anyone cares they're quickly told to "shut up and embrace the future" by AI fans. It's like an infection on online discussion- as it gets more normalized, more people will repeat those talking points to the faces of people who it will affect.
@@dakat5131 Yep... You can see below, two guys already argue that this is all fake. They are not affected, I presume, by how I'll have to spend most of my income on just existing, so I won't be able to buy anything off the market that some people want to sell.
I know AI is coming for music soon too- the creative side of humanity is being eroded, outsourced, devalued. Which in a weird way will make analog creative projects more enriching as the world turns. What we need is hope and right now there doesn’t seem to be any left.
The changes in developer workforces may have some relation to AI, but in reality its more of an economical adjustment. Several years ago, the interest rates on loans were actually lower than the actual inflation rate... lots of businesses took out loans and hired lots of extra employees. Things have changed, development companies are adjusting to those changes. Do executives get paid too much? Yes! Is it crappy that a profitable business still fires employees? Yes! Is it standard practice? Yes! Businesses can't just be profitable, they have to keep being "more profitable" that's how the stock market works. The growing population and healthy economy used to let many businesses just keep scaling up, but as those two things decline, they have to lower their costs and also get more money out of the customers they already have since they aren't getting as many new customers. If AI is involved it's not the main driving factor behind any of what's happening in the tech industry.
we are marching to oblivion. read about who rules you and what their true motives are, i recommend you start with the Israel Lobby by john mearsheimer. remove the socialized blinders about individualism when you do. and ultimately, ask God for help in spite of how hard as it can be to credit His mercy in this sick world
Do not lose hope. That is literally the strategy of people who believe in AI. It's not hopeless. They just keep telling you it is. Whether it's directly, poisoned information like Callum and Asmongold spreads, or by huge articles written to gloat about huge one-offs that can't actually be used for anything (main intention is to attract investors, but has the side effect of tricking us into thinking AI is bigger than it is).
I think we're all wrapped up in the doomer mindset and I think that worrying about this entirely valid and we should be and should be continuing the conversation. Legitimately though, as an illustrator and a writer and a general creative, I do think we will eventually solve this like we've solved so many other problems that humanity has clashed with. I think that so long as we continue to advocate for workers protections and for the people responsible for what is very apparently widespread theft of intellectual property and the living wages of many people to be held responsible, this is something that can be overcome. I do believe that the ultimate endstate of everything going on now is just the justice and legal systems catching up with the people creating and utilizing these technologies. Unfortunately that means we're dealing with the speed of government, but when money and the economy at large are involved, governments tend to pay a little more attention. We managed to get a pretty quick turnaround on a lot of the nonsense surrounding NFTs and the art theft involved (it's still ongoing, but 5 years for something like that is astoundingly fast to me) and I think we're going to see a lot of traction pick up on this in a legal sense. Especially with Midjourney releasing effectively what is a list of "people we stole from" detailing where their dataset was scraped from, the writing is on the wall to me. Covid caused about an 11% unemployment rate in the USA and it ground the nation and a lot of the world connected to its economy to a grinding halt. Even just looking at what's going on in the gaming industry, we're seeing 5-10% of workforces getting laid off and even a spike in unemployment of 4-5% would be a huge upset that wouldn't go unnoticed. Extrapolate that to basically every industry and it's going to become apparent to even the most tech illiterate of policy makers. All that being said, do I trust policy makers? No. Do I trust that there isn't going to be million sketchballs trying to sneak this crap into stuff? Of course not. Is this going to get worse before it gets better? Absolutely. The state of things is truly depressing and I would be lying if I said that it doesn't make me and my work feel futile. It does not, however, make it feel worthless. Art and creation are to me an inherently humanitarian pursuit and no amount of greedy capitalistic cruft surrounding it will be able to take that away. I don't know what the solution to the problem is, but I am confident that there is one. For now we can only do what we can do. Make noise, cause a fuss, keep talking, because it's important. There's also promising prospects in counter technologies, weapons always outpace armours initially, but eventually they catch up and projects like Nightshade from MIT that can allow at least visual artists to add some level of protection to the things they necessarily must share in the online space give me a lot of hope that this is a defeatable problem. Even if most people don't care, we can care. And it's by caring and continuing to care that we can preserve human creativity and protect what is the reason to be alive and communicate and be people from a bunch of idiots who think optimizing the world into a featureless grey cube is progress. I genuinely believe that humanity is an aggregate force for good, we just have a lot of bad to contend with along the way, which is nothing new. I will keep creating and I hope everyone who reads this continues to create and/or support creators. The most annoying piece of all of this to me is that it is inescapable. There was never an opt-in and there is never going to be an opt-out. Even the more mundane uses of this technology are just not something I want in my life or around me, because I don't want what I say and what I write and what I text and the pictures I draw or the photos I take to be used against my will to contribute to a problem that I hate that will line the pockets of people I hate more, but I basically can't turn some of it off. I can delete all my stuff off google drive, which I did, but let's be real they probably have a backup and will steal from me anyway. I can jailbreak my phone and use a vpn and do all these things, but let's be real they probably get most of that data anyway. I appreciate everything you've said in this video Callum, we need to enter the "fix the problem we've caused" phase, since we're past the "prevent the problem" phase by a long shot. If it's any consolation, there are some very smart and passionate and caring people in the world who care about this and about humanity in general, so I do honestly believe we'll make it through this like anything else. Privacy is dead and we let the corporations kill it, so it's time to start looking into a little bit of necromancy and make sure that we never stop doing what makes life worth living.
Its true in every form. People dont care their fancy clothes were made in a sweat shop in a third world country. They dont care that they plastic ends up in the ocean as long as they can "have plastic straws". Im not suggesting im any better than any of these people. I am probably part of it, but this issue isnt new to AI or media.. its the case with everything. Enjoyment, Convenience and probably price, trump everything.
I'm not an artist or writer, but I know I would certainly be pissed off if I spend years and years honing and refining my craft, working my ass off to grow in skill and become a talented writer/artist. And then some random nobody comes along, using AI, and they're getting the same level of acclaim and attention, if not more. It's unavoidable and just the way of the world, but it really is disgusting and sad to me that humanity has the mindset of "I don't care. As long as I like it."
11:20 "...we don't benefit as gamers". Yea, maybe not with AAA games because they're all 70$, but the indie games will likely end up being cheaper than if they were made without AI image generation.
dunno if it's a hot take, but if you never cared about procedural generation in video games, then you can shut your mouth about generative AI, there are virtually zero arguments you could stage against the latter without nuking the former from orbit. They utilize essentially the same concepts.
Does it matter if a game is made with AI? As long as the game is good I see no problems. CoD or any sports game have been the same for decades and people do not care but a game made with AI is too far?
i mean if the ai was trained/modified other peoples art/work( EXAMPLE the false idea that the palworld devs used ai to modify pokemon models) would be theft
@@nophone9311 ??? if I were to take models from a pokemon game and modify them for my game that is copywrite infringement like with the pokemon mod that got nuke within like 8 hrs in your opinion if an AI did it wouldnt be?
@@shadoeboi212 Well how many different models were used to train the AI? Every art teacher I've had told me to look at references to learn. The only difference between me looking at a reference and an AI is the speed AI is able to achieve, as such I just do not see how what AI does fits the definition of theft but what I do doesn't.
I think all this is going to crash and burn. Here's why. You said it's "free" to use AI. It's not. Those models take massive amounts of resources to run, and that's expensive. You have to pay to get access to GPT-4. But that's not actually the main reason. The only thing that allows these models to work well is that they have massive amounts of training data that they can harvest automatically from the internet. But at the same time, more and more companies are using AI to generate huge amounts of internet content because as you said, it's very fast. Eventually there is going to be so much AI content on the internet compared to actual human-generated content, which will increasingly be locked behind paid APIs, or will not be public anymore, or will be doctored in ways that foil AI, and eventually so much of the available training data will be inferior AI-generated content that I don't think this kind of massive-data-based AI will get better and better as time goes on, it will get worse and worse as its only available dataset degrades and degrades and degrades. At some point, these companies are going to have to decide which is the higher cost: hiring back all the artists that they fired, hiring a new team to generate training data for their AI (which is a lot more work than just drawing the art in the first place), or seeing the quality of their products nosedive. I don't know which they will pick, but I think it will suck for them regardless. Also, the artists wouldn't have gotten fired if they had had a union like SAG-AFTRA did. Who knows, possibly this will also be the start of game developers unionizing. Also also, I can tell you from first-hand experience that software companies are not all champing at the bit to use AI to develop software. If you put your code into GPT-4 to get help with it, you've essentially just donated all of your IP to Microsoft. I don't think that's going to be an especially popular option. And even if GPT-4 could program flawlessly and you didn't mind giving up your IP, it still can't replace an actual programmer. Coding is actually a very small part of our jobs.
Where do I begin... "Eventually there is going to be so much AI content on the internet compared to actual human-generated content, which will increasingly be locked behind paid APIs, or will not be public anymore, or will be doctored in ways that foil AI, and eventually so much of the available training data will be inferior AI-generated content that I don't think this kind of massive-data-based AI will get better and better as time goes on, it will get worse and worse as its only available dataset degrades and degrades and degrades." You're immediately assuming that all AI-generated content is 'inferior' to content made by actual artists. You're forgetting that not all artists have strong shape-language, color-theory, gestures, etc... especially in regards to entry-level and intermediate artists. Sure, those individuals may have a unique style that sets them apart, but they could just train their own LoRA to generate something close to their style while also leveraging the benefits that AI gives. In short, you're not being completely honest by dismissing AI-generated art as inferior when the end-user only really cares about the final product. -- "At some point, these companies are going to have to decide which is the higher cost: hiring back all the artists that they fired, hiring a new team to generate training data for their AI (which is a lot more work than just drawing the art in the first place), or seeing the quality of their products nosedive. I don't know which they will pick, but I think it will suck for them regardless." I think companies are currently building up their datasets for their own generative models, so they can make the claim that it is their own Copyrighted/etc data, and they can prove it legally. They may initially try to generate art based on their models, and realize they need someone that is both a prompt-engineer, and also has good artistic skills, so the art generated can be modified and have a personal touch that isn't strictly limited to prompts. In short, they'll be looking for Artists that also have Prompt-engineering skills, but I do admit they won't need as many artists compared to 2+ years ago. Additionally, artists will likely face a dilemma in the future, where if they are hired onto a company, they may be required to sign an agreement that their works created for the company will be part of the company's AI dataset. -- "Also also, I can tell you from first-hand experience that software companies are not all champing at the bit to use AI to develop software. If you put your code into GPT-4 to get help with it, you've essentially just donated all of your IP to Microsoft. I don't think that's going to be an especially popular option. And even if GPT-4 could program flawlessly and you didn't mind giving up your IP, it still can't replace an actual programmer. Coding is actually a very small part of our jobs." Companies will likely be using Copilot X to fill out boilerplate code or possibly their own proprietary models trained on their own systems, enabling code-consistency and IP protection. I think Unity, for example, is training their Muse and Sentis frameworks such that Unity developers can leverage those technologies for their projects. It will take time, but companies will find a way to protect their IP while still leveraging the utility of AI. And yes, like you said, code is only part of the process... proper design and decisions on implementing it will not be easily doable for every scenario with AI.
@@dreamcatforgotten8435 As far as AI training goes, it is literally the case that all computer generated content is inferior to all human-generated content. AIs exist to do things that humans are good at that computers are very bad at - by definition human-created content is the ideal, gold standard and the AI cannot do better than that. If you train the AI on its own output, it'll just reinforce its tendency to draw too many arms and legs and fingers and will never learn to do otherwise. If you want the art in a specific style or with specific colors, you can tell the AI to do that in the prompt. You can't tell it "please only draw a normal number of fingers" and actually expect that to work. It needs training data of art drawn by real humans to be able to figure that out. I don't think you appreciate how much data these models need. This technology has been around for ages, the only reason it took until now to get these models is the cost and difficulty of finding and processing so much data. These algorithms are not particularly smart, they work mainly because they've had the entire unedited contents of the internet thrown at them. If the quality of that data decreases, the quality of the AI will decrease as well. Making a private dataset with the quantity of data that these models require will be insanely expensive. Copilot is not really a different kind of thing from GPT, it uses the same technology, it was just trained on code instead of text or art. Letting Copilot train on your code is still just donating your IP to Microsoft. There is no way to protect your IP when your company policy is to just give it away. There is also no way to remove training data from the training set once the model is trained, as soon as you let the AI see your data, it's gone.
@@ruthmorrison3962 "As far as AI training goes, it is literally the case that all computer generated content is inferior to all human-generated content." I disagree. Not ever artist is good at producing art for AI training, but I'm repeating myself by saying this. - "AIs exist to do things that humans are good at that computers are very bad at - by definition human-created content is the ideal, gold standard and the AI cannot do better than that. If you train the AI on its own output, it'll just reinforce its tendency to draw too many arms and legs and fingers and will never learn to do otherwise." You're dismissing the fact that output can be ranked/curated and then fed into a new model or LoRA. This is why some smaller models can perform efficiently at a specific task instead of having one large dirty model with generalized data. - "If you want the art in a specific style or with specific colors, you can tell the AI to do that in the prompt. You can't tell it "please only draw a normal number of fingers" and actually expect that to work. It needs training data of art drawn by real humans to be able to figure that out." You can use negative prompts to disregard data that has been ranked/labeled to have bad anatomy. Or use a model that has curated data. Or use a LoRA that is good at doing specific things. Or inpaint/sketch and regenerate based off of that, assuming you have the skills to do so. Hands aren't really a major issue for most modern models, due to the ranking/labeling of input, negative prompts, data curation, and inpainting+regen. Curation is still difficult since you need an effective model to curate data properly before a new model can be trained based on that output, but it is currently being done and is reasonably effective. - "I don't think you appreciate how much data these models need. " The theoretical minimum cost to make a new, usable model is something around $50k-150k. This is something that is not viable for the average individual, which is why LoRA exist (for Generative AI). However, this is a drop in the bucket for a company - literally 1-2 employee annual salary in cost. And of course those companies will invest more money for a more robust model if they can cut costs by downsizing departments, assuming they want to maintain their bottom-line. - "Copilot is not really a different kind of thing from GPT, it uses the same technology, it was just trained on code instead of text or art. Letting Copilot train on your code is still just donating your IP to Microsoft. There is no way to protect your IP when your company policy is to just give it away. There is also no way to remove training data from the training set once the model is trained, as soon as you let the AI see your data, it's gone." If I remember correctly, at least for GPT4 (paid service), you can keep your data private. However, Bing Chat, which is close to GPT4-capability, will indeed train off of data presented in a conversation.
@@dreamcatforgotten8435 Curating any training set, whether you're specifically selecting already-made art from a human or an AI, or making art anew, is going to be very expensive regardless. That's the point - the cheap data that you get from from just scraping the web is not going to be curated, and as that degrades in quality for use with AI, the AI quality will also degrade. The people who are using AI to generate web content are not curating that output with the intent of using it as a training set. They're generating a using all the stuff with odd numbers of limbs and fingers, and all those errors that AI frequently makes that people don't. They don't care about quality. They're not curating anything. "This is why some smaller models can perform efficiently at a specific task instead of having one large dirty model with generalized data." Sure, that's one way of doing AI - making an actually smart algorithm that performs a specific task rather than a generalized model. That's not what any of these generative AI companies are doing, though. They have very much put all their eggs into the "generalized model using as much data as possible" basket. Training a new model now is cheap because they can just use data sourced from the internet. When they can't do that anymore, it will get more expensive. MS may claim that whatever AI service doesn't train off your data, but there's no way to verify that, and also it won't be very good at generating code for your system if it can't do that. It is never going to be safe to expose an AI to IP you want to keep private.
Reminds me of a business owner for manufacturing lighters in mainland China my dad consulted. He said he couldn't afford to raise the price by even one cent, or he would go out of business. I think while all companies are racing to the bottom, it is even more important for artists (and other professions I guess) to race to the top by learning how to utilize AI to speed up their learning and creative processes. I believe it is possible to maintain ethics while using them, such as using AI to bombard yourself with stimulations that fuel your iterative design process. And it is crucial we learn how to inject our humanistic visions into our work by using AI as a tool, rather than allowing ourselves become reliant on AI to do our work for us and make us lazy. Because if everyone can achieve the same using AI, those that can offer that bit of human ingenuity, however tiny amount, will be the ones that get the job. The pressure to learn has never been greater.
This is something i've been trying to get through to people for a while, the way you put it that the time for laws or regulation is over, and it's now a question of how we react. I do think this is now the time to ask 'What do we do when there are more people then jobs'.. Because even in the low-end estimates- if AI Replaces 10% of jobs, it's not going to create an equal number of new programmer/data jobs. And AI is going to be faster to adapt to new jobs and tasks. I think it's very likely that we are going to see more people unemployed then we will see new jobs created. There just aren't going to be more tasks that require humans, compared to tasks that can be effectively replaced by an AI with minor oversight.
Another factor that works against bans on AI training is that numerous countries internationally just won't follow that rule, Russia comes to mind as they're notorious for that kind of thing. All it would do is cripple AI developers & businesses in countries where it's banned and force that business elsewhere. Or it can just be obfuscated by purchasing a working AI model (or the assets it produces) from those countries and then using it for your business/project. As you said pandora's box is already open.
This is actually perfect timing for something I've been messing with over the past few days. I'm a mostly solo developer who last year made a point and click horror game called Creation Chronicle's with a friend who made 3D models for the creatures. A few days ago he sent me a picture on discord of AI generated concept art of one of the characters from the game made using the Bing AI app (Note the game didn't use AI, this was simply an experiment done for the sake of curiosity). I was shocked at just how good the art was. It could have easily been something from the real game. Over the last few days we have both messed more with it and got results that are super close to the set pieces I've had in my head for years. Some of them do look goofy but most looks almost human. It's honestly kind of scary how close it's gotten to some of our designs. What made it more scary was a year or two ago when AI first became a buzz word I remember trying it out to see what the fuss was and laughing at it, because the designs I tried to make looked cursed and were utterly unusable. Within just one or two years AI has gone from what I considered an overhyped joke to an actively real threat. Now I'm worried about what else AI is capable of. I know it already can be used for voice's art and to some extent code but what's next? Music? Level Design?, 3D modelling and rigging? It worry's me. You mentioned here that games using AI will soon be possible to develop in a week. I've no idea how close we are to that but if last year's progress is anything to go by then I can't imagen it's going to be long.
The overly exessive use of AI will backfire at some point at each and every area of life. AI lacks creativity and can't be inovative. It's good for optimizing and redesigning but can only rely on what it has learned and can't develope new ideas on its own. Unfortunately it will take a couple of more years before people realize that technological advancement will stop when everything that needs creativity is done by AI because it's faster and cheaper. For example, AI can't create new art, it can only rearrange and redesign the parts they were added to its database, because of that i've trouble calling it "AI art" when it's actually just an "AI composition".
add: i guess the best visual reference to what i mean is the scene from the movie "The Core" right before they broke into that giant geode. The screen shows just a black space because the computer wasn't taught to display a hollow room and it couldn't make anything out of it on its own because of the lack of reference material.
The only reason why we are seeing this freak out is because the same artist that supported automation, are now seeing their field be automated. Lol, good luck, the genie came out of that bottle 30 years ago.
I fucking hate that this is how law making and public politics works. "Woh, here, this will become a giant problem down the line. Pls do something now!" "Is it a problem right now?" "No" "Then fuck off, we got important problems to solve" *wait 2 years* "Oh golly, this is a giant problem. But now since it already is here, we can't do anything" Like, what are people expecting. I swear this will happen to AGI the exact same way. But that won't be as "limited" in damage as the current situation is.
Cal I think the biggest issue with this whole situation is the use of the term "AI" - WE DON"T HAVE AI! All of this art is procedurally generated by a computer learning model. The issue this creates is that no one making art on the scale of entire video games ISN"T using procedural generation in some form or other; there's no way to ban that from a store like Steam.
@@Dave-rd6sp Oh I know. It's why all the arguments are just tiring. 'It's done by AI, but we have no proof!' 'You can climb anywhere so that was stolen from Zelda!' You can climb anywhere in Conan Exiles which came out before Zelda, so Zelda must have stolen that. 'There's a glider!' Enshrouded has one too, as do many games. Why are you not raging at all of them too?
@@Dave-rd6sp This stuff is all over the place and people only gripe and complain when it seems to involves something they're fanatical about. It's why I generally hate most fan bases.
Everything has to be profitable, marketable and reproduceable. I'm so sick of it. I didn't want Crypto, I didn't want NFTs and I didn't want AI image generation and writing prompts either. They've just been forced into the world until we accept them as the status quo by people with too much money and power.
Regarding AI programming, still the best way to use it in my opinion is when someone who understands the principles and rules and can do it by hand, that person uses it and can fine-tune for example module usage to a detail. I for example use it quite much in all kinds of regexes for scripts and as well looking up how to implement specific method for example in java class just to dabble in some small java programming and it works great. But once you have to write full cicd for GH via actions that is connected to on prem servers, it can get little bit more difficult. Though i would love to see it handle it on Premuim version .. maybe i should buy it and check how it does..
We could retroactively ban training on unauthorized data as well. Basically, “you have to remove all unauthorized data from your training sets AND retrain your models if they were built on stolen data”. There. That solves the monopoly problem
Thats not only with games and gamers. Thats the sickness of our world that 95% of the people do not ask background questions or so. They just consume and thats boring.
Have you asked some proper background questions about Callum? Did you properly vet his life story before you started watching? No, you just consumed... Welcome to the 95%
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm an artist who suffered pretty severe depression last winter because of AI art. That said, I'm all better, and I agree with Callum here 100%. People will not care if things are made by AI or made by a human.
What people are starting to realize though is it's not just graphic artists that this will happen to. It'll happen to accountants, to web-designers, to social media influencers, to youtubers, to game-developers, musicians, tv shows, movies, books, magazines, webcomics, animation; anything that is digital WILL be used to construct AI that will emulate it, just like with AI images.
And, just like what happened to the graphic artists, you cannot stop it. They already have all of that data. Everyone's just going to have to deal.
To game developers? Yeah, right. Influencers? The moment people know a bot is talking they won't listen. RUclipsrs even profit from less time they have to put into videos. Webdesigners are still needed to well, design the site?
have a go at asking the premium version to design a site based off your requests. you might be horrified @@RavenWoodsDE
As long as its good enough i wouldnt care who or what made it. sure its shit for people like you because you kinda loose your job but than again Progress always needs sacrifice.
"The moment people know a bot is talking they won't listen."
VTubers are a thing, and so are Idols. People will love the Bots as long as they are sexy and/or moe.
@@RavenWoodsDE
I care. A game is partly about human expression of the people who made it. Maybe it's personal but i enjoy the work that artists put into a game. AI art doesn't have any draw to me since it's so impersonal.
One correction -- the novelist's book wasn't written entirely by ChatGPT. It was mostly written by her and AI was only used in some sections. The novel was also about AI so she was incorporating AI utterances artistically. I think that context changes how the AI use should be interpreted imho
Thanks for the context
Your correction here.. right now.. is a prime example of how any real argument by most against AI because of ethics... is hollow. They won't self-correct, they won't re-evaluate the issue, nor will they as publicly claim something as a correction when they were among the loud that made a wrong statement.
Seriously, just think about that and I welcome you to wonder what I do. "Why would I take those seriously whom don't correct or even attempt to undo impacts & impressions they give under false information, when it comes to arguments about ethics."
@@DePhoegonIsle As someone who is very much on Callum's side here and agree with everything said in the video, I actually don't agree with your take here. I think that the context here does matter. I think Callum's point still stands overall, and it's only time until someone actually does release a fully AI-generated novel that wins awards. Rie Kudan, the author, used AI to help her write her novel and has been very open about it. The vast majority of it is her own work. She hasn't tried to trick anyone into thinking she did it all on her own. I'm still a little conflicted with how AI is used an aid (obviously the line between being an aid and overreliance is blurry and an entirely separate conversation), but that's a different subject.
That also sounds like an answer a company would come up with to pretend likey they didn't do it to be lazy. What tf about Palworld is about social commentary on AI?
Adobe adding AI to Photoshop is putting a tool in an artist's hand. Corporations replacing artists with AI is putting art direction in the hands of hedge-fund managers.
It's sad that more gamers don't see the huge implications this will have for the overall quality of games.
I think it's more likely that we get art directors like we do now, except they're directing the art of AI rather than of humans.
Business shoots with automatic tools and no artistic feedback will get what they deserve, clearly...
your life is valueless@@juuiko
@@kanjonojigoku8644What kind of comment is that?
@@SioxerNikita one that a class traitor deserves
The Palworld devs and people in general have already proven that they didn't use AI to make its assets, although the devs aren't against AI wholesale. They did make a pretty blech party game revolving around AI generated images but the whole point was to point out which image was the real one among fakes. It's not a great concept but more a joke minigame type thing. The Nintendo fanclub and PETA fanatics have been grasping at straws since release to get it taken down somehow, Nintendo even had to make a statement saying they would "look into it" to shut them up. People have also been caught and admitted to faking evidence of models being stolen.
The AI hysteria is only a part of it and quite frankly I'm over it from every side. Real artists have been bullied into leaving the internet by claiming their art was AI generated with no evidence as early as the initial uptick in AI popularity and on the internet that's enough to get you blacklisted permanently even if you prove yourself innocent somehow. If people start making games using AI as a consumer I don't quite frankly care as long as it's a good game, and for the most part, quality games aren't going to be fully AI generated for a long time because that would still take effort, and as we know from Unreal and Unity shovelware projects that's already very lacking.
Can't agree more...
The whole "OMG THEY USED AI!" is a fucking bullshit thing...
Okay, I want to make a video game... I am not good at art... but I also can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars to make the art... so I have to go out and get the tens of thousands of dollars to make the art, so I can make a video game?
I don't see how this is OVERALL a bad thing for society? At some point video game developers will be mostly replaced by AI as well, and frankly, I am kind of looking forward to it.
I would be able to make my dream game with a few prompts, a few clicks, and boom, a full game... I'd fucking KILLED for that when I was younger...
This is the "OMG CARS REPLACE HORSE RIDERS!" all over again... Seriously, in the past, they considered legally having car drivers throw out horse shit from their cars so the horse shit cleaners didn't lose their jobs.
It is just an elitist group of people thinking their job is somehow more sacred than the horse shit cleaners, because art is somehow more important... back then horse shit cleaners were INSANELY important, otherwise everyone would be walking in shit to their knees.
@@SioxerNikita I think Photoshop and digital art tools like drawing tablets and apps that work with them did more "damage" to the artist world than AI is doing because at the end of the day you can't copyright anything done with AI, that means anyone can steal your prompted designs. I know a dev that uses Ai assets as placeholder art for their games. They're an artist, they can draw and a lot of the art is already done for their game but for anything that isn't done yet a generated visualisation placeholder is pretty good. That way you're not staring at a blank screen.
I think ethical use of AI could be a boon to everyone. When I do art comms while I'm brainstorming poses and stuff I generate a bunch of pictures to see what kind of scene or lighting or shit like that would look good and then I do the final myself. For iterative work like pixel art which is very time consuming AI could also be a great tool but the world doesn't have time for nuance. It's black and white all the time and as much as I like Callum. It's hysteria because everything revolves around twitter.
The thing with these algorithms (they are not AIs) are not nearly as good as the people who love them and hate them say they are. One can't just make a game with image or text generating algorithms. One still needs artistic and coding skills. Just using these algorithms would create something no better and very likely worse than a hastily made asset flip game. To actually make something good with these tools one would need to modify all the assets algorithmically created to fit with the themes and esthetics of the game, and to make everything fit together, that requires artistic skill. They would have to put the code together in a way were it works, that requires modifying the code, they would then have to debug and optimize the code, all of which requires coding skill. Any script (in the writing sense) created by ChatGDP will be mediocre at best and have many plot holes, it would need to be rewritten to make it good, maybe multiple times, that would require writing and story telling skills.
Given they way these systems work they can't made things that are good, they are not AIs, they are not intelligent. They have no understanding of what they are creating because they are just algorithms putting things together based on statistical data. They will never be nearly as good as a person and will always requiter actual makers. Maker to create the base images/text/codes to "train" the algorithms and makers to modify the assets/text/codes to fit the assets/text.code to where they need to be.
@SioxerNikita
@@clwho4652 Responding to: *"The thing with these algorithms (they are not AIs) are not nearly as good as the people who love them and hate them say they are. One can't just make a game with image or text generating algorithms. One still needs artistic and coding skills. Just using these algorithms would create something no better and very likely worse than a hastily made asset flip game. To actually make something good with these tools one would need to modify all the assets algorithmically created to fit with the themes and esthetics of the game, and to make everything fit together, that requires artistic skill. They would have to put the code together in a way were it works, that requires modifying the code, they would then have to debug and optimize the code, all of which requires coding skill. Any script (in the writing sense) created by ChatGDP will be mediocre at best and have many plot holes, it would need to be rewritten to make it good, maybe multiple times, that would require writing and story telling skills.
Given they way these systems work they can't made things that are good, they are not AIs, they are not intelligent. They have no understanding of what they are creating because they are just algorithms putting things together based on statistical data. They will never be nearly as good as a person and will always requiter actual makers. Maker to create the base images/text/codes to "train" the algorithms and makers to modify the assets/text/codes to fit the assets/text.code to where they need to be. "*
----
Quite a bit of your talk is a bit rambly, but I guess I agree with your sentiment.
We are replacing one set of people with others, and for some level of convenience even for the people hired (A lot of "art" jobs are factory level work where there is no creative input, and overworked as HELL, especially in the anime industry), the thing is, these tools will get better, and at some point better than humans, like manufacturing. At one point the most accurate you could get was a human, but now we have sub milimeter accurate manufacturing.
And frankly, I don't mind.
@@SioxerNikita There are hard limits to how good these algorithms can be. These have no intelligence or imagination, they just regurgitate what other people have made. These are not AIs, they have no intelligence or creativity. They can't do what a human can do. Humans will always be needed to create the media to "train" (create the statistical data the algorithms use) these and then a human artist/writer/animator would be needed to modify the media to make it fit and/or make it good.
These tools are not nearly as good as the tech industry hype makers, the techno fetishists, and those afraid of them have presented them as and can't be.
This will level the playing field between AAA and indies. When both sides are using AI yet the indies actually care about what they're making, it'll be quite the upheaval.
I can see how a real artist can use AI for textures, coloring, or even rendering. And since they are a professional artist, they would fix all mistakes and even do manual corrections. Some artists already use Photoshop to create textures for metal, plate armor, guns, and concrete, so it would make sense to use AI for repeating patterns such as those.
And, most likely, in the next 5 years, a big company will release a game full of art flaws since there are no artists left on the team.
actually an interesting point...
So basically, using AI to *enhance your existing skills* as opposed to *replacing professionals* . That’s a great point.
I don't think it can level the playing field, because there's nothing stopping tencent subsidiaries (dave the diver) using AI to just flood the indie market. More budget will mean more reach.
You're thinking that the small indie can just use the AI and it's good, but I think that's a very foolish assumption. The increase in slop means marketing becomes more important. Word of mouth will work less and less. In other words, the smaller indies are at an increasingly bigger disadvantage as things go on, because the marketing will become unaffordable.
I also see it this way. This could be the end of massive companies monopolizing the market, and that's a great thing.
8:35 correction: games need to disclose if they used AI or not
And as far as I know to post a game on Steam with AI you certainly have to disclose that information with Steam/Valve. I'm gonna take the gamble and say this game was probably made generally ethically otherwise we would of heard about it in the 3 years leading up to its release (but we didn't). Edit: Finished the video, steam really walked that back didn't they?
@@KUPSMusic They have to tag it as using AI generated content yes and they have to say it isn't infringing on any existing copyrights. I don't think Epic has taken that stance yet, and that's where you still find the majority of NFT derivative bullshit too. Fancy that.
Oh yea Epic is awful when it comes to that, pretty sure they still got crypto games on their platform as well.@@ectothermic
yes thats correct!
Is this possible to keep track of, if a game outsourced concept art, game assets or design and writing would they even know?
If the programmers use AI to assist them in writing code, would we even know? What level of AI assistance is considered using AI if we live in a world where we all start using it for assisting us with learning and creating things.
To be fair with the whole thing about studios cutting back a lot of workers, I think that covid has a lot to do with that too. So many studios looked at the massive boost in profits that they got in 2020-21 when everyone was locked in their house all day playing video games, and were like "oh my god this is gonna last forever!" and then were shocked when things returned to normal in the last couple of years and things were unsustainable.
Blaming all of the layoffs on AI is I think reaching a bit. It's possible that some of them might be motivated by the idea of replacing workers with AI I won't deny that, but we're talking about massive huge sweeping changes, hundreds if not thousands of people being laid off in a single company. That's not the kinds of cuts you make for AI without it having already proving that it's worth it. There's definitely other factors at play beyond just "We're replacing everyone with AI"
And to be fair, if you ban the use of training data that you don't own, then logically they should also ban the use of AIs that were already trained on that data. As long as that is included as well, then all of those companies would have to basically re-do their AIs from scratch. Like the point is that the AI itself is what's unethical because it was trained on that data. If we banned the use of that data and let them keep using the AIs trained on it, then that would just be moronic.
It's also tax season. Lots of big companies have massive lay offs to save a little bit of money and make their stocks look good so the investors don't complain.
It goes a lot deeper than that, it's basically standard practice in the tech industry to hire a bunch of people to expand whenever a new thing comes along, only to fire most of them once the bubble bursts
Dreamworld devs: So you're saying there's a chance.
I don't buy the consequences of the argument that people don't care I agree with the statement, we can see it all around. Political candidates that are criminals and literal monsters are voted for because people don't care. They don't care where their food is from, who makes their clothes and other consumables. They don't care if slave labour is used etc. But that's too defitist in my opinion. With that argument we wouldn't have labour laws and consumer protection laws and laws against exploitation in the supply chain. All of our cultural achievements stem from a few people who did care, and relied enough people to bring change. Same with AI. People need to be protected by themselves. Every progress might be frozen when it's only the same building blocks rearranged "randomly" and nobody is left with a chance to come up with something entirely new that's not just the same BS just rearranged differently.
I don't know how to feel about this. There have been many technological jumps that changed/destroyed industries. Literally the Industrial Revolution, to Assembly Lines with Ford... and now AI is just the newest thing.
The major thing to note about AI compared to those other advancements... is that it uses COPYRIGHTED works to produce value. It cannot function otherwise. The general concept of assembling a car is not copyrighted, so creating something that assembles a car faster is not directly exploiting or stealing from laborers. AI DOES steal products of labor without consent. Artists are not being given a way to protect themselves or opt out. So this is not just a matter of "new technology scary", it is "we are having the right to own the products of our labor taken."
@@Taytursnot all ai uses copyrighted material. The photoshop generative fill tool was trained entirely on public domain works
@@cometthedog1 Check Adobes policy history, they have cloud storage, and they used everything stored there (or were going to) to train their models. And it was opt-out, so by default, the regular user who is not fully plugged to all the drama would have all their work "stolen". The truth is, an AI trained on only real public domain, would be incredibly outdated and poorly trained, they need to steal from artists to make AI useful beyond the hobbist level.
I believe the Artstation and Steam comparison is a bit off. Steam main purpose is to curate what you see using everything it knows about you. RUclips is similar. millions of videos are uploaded every day, yet you only see relevant ones. Artstation lacks this, which is why it's become unusable.
gonna be honest, hearing that AI is gonna be turning out nothing but slop in games and entertainment...steam alone has had slop for YEARS along wither entertainment like movies and shows
Its gonna make that even easier to do is the point
hear me out.... MORE SLOP! XD
Sadly, no NSFW slop... *Yet*...
... Or is it?
@@CallumUpton I genuinely don't see how that is possible. The ratio of slop to good is already so bad that even making the ratio 4 times worse won't have a significant impact. However, less good games being made would have a significant impact. AI lowers the skill floor, meaning that more people will be making games. Yes, that means more bad games, but the probability that there will be a net reduction in good games being released is incredibly unlikely. Look at palworld as an example. While it didn't use AI, it is an excellent example of a group of devs who had to push hard to make a game and barely made it to release. If that barrier was lowered, more devs who otherwise would have a good game would reach that point.
Given the direction that triple AAA companies keep going, the big devs who definitely can make it to that finish line of release are continuing to release less and less good games and they are doing so without the benefit of AI to make it easier on them. So, either things change and new devs start making games, which requires lowering the barrier to entry which at this point only AI or Epic games seems able to do, or less good games get released. (As a side-note, interesting that the two biggest threats to triple A "supremacy" are constantly under attack and those things that aren't a threat are almost never attacked...)
@@CallumUpton ai will get better. And it will not stop at human level. Ur arguments are sound, as long as ai stays at the lvl it is now. Also u shouldnt dismiss the fact that artists now can create hyper enhanced images, focusing on enhancing the art to a next level, because the artist could save the grunt work, off-loading to ai. When games become cheaper, there will be more produced, and human artists can find a place enhancing the groundwork of ai. U are criticizing from a very temporary, very present perspective. I get that there are hiccups and ripples in the economy, up to philosophy and ethics. The race to the bottom is a prognosis that is similar to those workers in the steel mill, who lost their jobs through machines. Those machines that lift the standard of living for many, many people. Yes poor decisions get made and were made, bad products will always flood the market, but u will find the gems in them, and those gems will set a new standard for ai integration. There are so many possibilities to make life better with this technology, and u pick the examples of exploitation and corruption. The examples that always exist, in every change. And change is the only constant.
If you gamers keep buying the hypothetical AI-generated games made by soulless corporations, then their existence is your own fault.
Everyone's crying about the "death of art" as if the existence of robots will somehow stop artists from creating things, and as if AI just magically makes money appear from nowhere. Get real, guys.
The issue is they are going to utilize AI to increase profit, not to increase efficiency or quality. I design tools all the time for things that I do to reduce the tediuous aspects of the task, these things in theory free up that time spent on those tasks to be utilized elsewhere. Unfortunately, with the way things work in most companies, they would utilize these tools to replace people and inturn turn that labor cost into profit as opposed to quality spent elsewhere.
The way you increase profit is by increasing efficiency
Damn, now that you say it, yeah, the most recent person I saw posting about losing their job was an artist...
If AI games come out like Palworld and games made by real people come out like Gollum or that King Kong game then the reality is that consumers will end up siding with the AI.
I think that's already been a problem in a way for decades before generative AI became big.
There's been this notion of "Why should we pay artists (in general) when I don't like everything they put out?"
The idea that if you personally don't like something then whoever hired them shouldn't have paid them for any of them work.
Which is great for companies who try to get out of paying whenever they can already, and very bad for the people who are putting in passion only to be ground down and told they're worthless because of choices someone higher up made.
real people also made Baldur's gate III
True 😅
Palworld is developed in 3 years at least while Gamemill forces studios to develop games under 12 months.
Don't miscontrue AI problem with just bad management, but both I equally hate with every fiber of my being.
If gamers keep making that kind of bad faith arguments then the industry will go more to shit that it already is.
Part of the problem with people valuing the results over the process is that this problem isn't new, especially in the gaming industry. Game companies have very deliberately discouraged customers from questioning the details of production process almost since video games were first invented, and through their policies prevented developers from getting even the bare essentials, like taking credit for their work or working for reasonable hours without forced overtime (ie, that "crunch" thing everyone's been on about).
The fact that it's only now that we've started questioning it, after they've already started sacking large amounts of their staff to replace them with machines, shows that their plan worked. They're already reaching the final stages of liquidating their employees to maximize capital, a process that started as far back as the 80s when Atari wouldn't allow its developers to put their names on their work, and those employees lack any means to do anything about it. No labor unions, no customer boycotts, not even meaningful legislation. Most people don't even realize it's a problem until it's their job on the chopping block. If there's not some serious changes soon, and especially if people don't START caring about who makes the things they enjoy, then things are gonna get really bad a lot faster than anyone ever imagined they could.
And to those who are inevitably going to argue about AI democratizing art production or whatever: If you think an economy where everyone is trying to sell and there's nobody left to buy is a functional economy, then there's a near-endless list of MLM victims and crypto bag-holders who could easily prove why you're wrong...
THIS. Devaluing and disrespecting artists has gone on since forever, and since it's now the popular opinion it's hard to convince people to even see it from another perspective.
All this talk about how it will improve efficiency misses the point of art.
Whenever someone is against AI, they're told that it's the future, yet also already here, and to shut up and let it happen (presumably because of people question it's viability the stocks will tank and they really don't want that to happen)
Also the crypto thing can be seen now: it's easy to create a crypto project, but very few last, and many aren't even made to last. They come in with hype and fomo to get people to buy in and then get abandoned. being able to hold a asset forever is worthless if you can't sell it. (one of the reasons NFT in-game items doesn't make sense. Once the game shuts down there simply isn't going to be other games that it will transfer to, because no one would want to do that, and nobody will buy an item they can't use in game- especially not at an inflated price)
i find it silly that people might try to argue that AI is Democratizing Art Production bit. if people are actually saying that then they really don't understand anything.
@@dakat5131 if the objective is making money, improving efficiency is (sadly) more important than preserving the point of art
Also, AI democratization is bullcr*p made by X Twitter to be used by Capitalist propaganda.
If it ain't, I won't have to deal with people complaining about electricity thefts for their neighbor's server activity.
Also, people with low spec barely functioning Intel GPUs should have access to AI... but they don't.
Also, poor people would still be able to make art.
It's all a guise for rich man getting richer from the beginning. Expect Dead Internet Theory becoming reality and everyone on the internet being absolutely hostile from now on because nothing in it is trusted except timelapse videos and raw files, things consumers never see.
The shift into dependance on AI throws up too many red flags to me. It shows we're valuing the end result instead of the process to get to it. Art, music, games, food, you name it. It just has to be good enough, just scrape through the surface level checks to be accepted by your fleeting glance and attention spam before you're served the bigger works.
And that will come to a problem as failures leak through the system because the system itself can't explain what it is that it is outputting. It is a black box. I can get an explaination from an artist why they've drawn a character's arm in such a way to work with foreshortening or emphasis a dynamic pose. I can't get that out of an AI model, it's just vaguely mimicing what it's seen before without context.
If the dependance become entrenched. We run the risk of losing our ability to generate the new content that an AI model needs to prevent its own poisoning.
I mean, do you really care that the machine you're posting this from was likely made with sweatshop labour? Of course you don't and certainly not enough to pay a higher price for the same thing, except it wasn't produce through sweatshop labour. Neither do I.
People caring mostly about the end product rather than the process it took to get there is not a new phenomenon. It's why we eat absolute garbage, over processed food too, even though it's full of crap that's bad for us.
If art, music, games, literature and film hadn't been turned into mindless slop by so many large companies over the last 20 years people might actually care.
As it stands, you can pay £70+ for a copy of last year's trashy copy of the previous years release. Or you can spend half of that on something semi-original and fun.
All AAA developers seem to do now is reskin existing assets and hope we don't notice. Look at every CoD game from the last 10 years and tell me I'm wrong, the industry already does this and fanboys even thank them.
AI could allow small/one man dev teams to actually achieve something instead of spending years learning coding, character design, audio, animation and then having to be a 'good artist' on top.
It's frustrating seeing people who don't understand art going "It's already here, you'll fall behind if you don't use it" Obviously the end product is important but it's not everything. People love a good hand-crafted experience and people enjoy creating those experiences. There's an assumption that everyone against it is just mad because they don't know how to use it, but that's not true. The problems aren't solved by "throw away your past experience and learn to type prompts into the machine"
The undermining of creating art paved the way for aggressively not seeing the problem with it.
Those who really don't care now probably won't care in the future as long as their AI stocks keep going up, but it will be a massive cultural loss to be locked into merely requesting art and settling for the result rather than having a personal take on ideas.
The AI fans' impatience with society for not throwing literally tens of thousands of years of tradition out overnight and put all art under the control of a handful of AI companies is concerning.
i mean yea, food is a funny one too, i saw a video about a restaurant that had 1 worker to basicly maintain the machines and whatnot but otherwise was 100% operated by machines only and it was running like a train on nitro, customers were happy and the owner was making bank, because they didn't need any essential personel
@dakat5131 nobody has ever said that we need to hand 'all art' over to AI. To even take that viewpoint is absurd. There will always be space for 'hand crafted' items. Just look at the textile industry where hand made items sell for a huge premium.
Sure, a machine 'can' make it. But it doesn't undermine anything and loss of culture would only occur if the 'artists' are solely creating for profit. Real artists create for the art itself, not because it pays well.
This last only until they realize that AI does not come with copyright. A machine making something with out very significant human interaction means it can be taken and copied without violating copyright. It is no different than a monkey taking a picture of itself.
So the question becomes how protective are companies over IP and copyright.
What if they generate the AI image using an offline model, and then have an artist check for mistakes, make corrections, etc.
Would it become derivative? What if they create a whole new art using the AI one as the basis? If so, can't they copyright the modified version?
That's a scary thought, but I can see big companies managing to pull it off, legally speaking.
Unfortunately, trademark is how companies are protecting their IP, not copyright. Disney just happened to decide to make Steamboat Willy part of it's company branding a few years before the copyright was set to expire.
@@IvoryShard So much "AI" is backed by some cheap worker in India or Vietnam - one of those fancy "self-driving car" companies turned out to use an average of 1.5 person per car who sat there monitoring the driving and used manual control if the AI failed in some way.
no no, if you as a company for example release a game with ai generated characters, or they release a game cover with ai art, those products will still be fully protected by copyright, the copyright applies to the end-product!
@@raafmaat ... but if I then feed that "end product" (read: Collection of assets and code) into an AI, and extract, well, most of it for my own "creation", that is fine according to the AIboys...
I do miss a lot of "what do we do" in the "what do we do?" Section. It feels quite defeatist, like "ah well, games are gonna lose q lot of talented art, steam will get flooded, copyright will no longer get respected, etc. Etc." But I would love to hear what you think we CAN do about it. Do you think we can force companies to respect the rights of artists with AI poisoning tools like Nightshade? Do you think new laws about generating someone's likeness/sound can be written in an effective way?
I don't think we should just roll over and let AI run rampant in the hands of those who only care about money and not the humans under them. The current evolution in AI is a step towards a sci-fi future, but if we are not careful, this future will be a lot more Cyberpunk and a lot less Star trek.
I think the defeatism plays right into the hands of people who want to squash dissent about AI. They're aggressively arguing that we should just give up and let it happen.
The idea of it being "futuristic" is used to prevent critical examination of how the software works- we're just supposed to believe that the magic box will eventually be an amazing positive force if we sacrifice enough, and that we owe it to the future to make it happen. When in reality, the fundamental way it works means a future that depends on it won't be so bright. If there's such an improvement, it won't be because we've shoveled a few more terabytes of data into it.
It's not just some "naive optimism" thing- if we collectively assume they've won then they have won, but if no one's buying their product then they have no reason to make it.
shutting up about it means letting them lure more people into accepting it as a normal and necessary part of life, just to make a bit more money.
its very difficult to really do anything. we can yell about it all we like but in the end its the money that talks the loudest.
now i don't think its all Doom and Gloom, we will over time find a balance. i do think for the Video game industry, its going to be a Bubble that will very quickly burst. its going to be a Video game crash 2.0. if we start seeing games Pumped out by the minute, people will stop buying. we only have so much time and money after all.
One, nightshade is nonsense. It is trivial to emulate the effects they show and trivial to bypass them.
Two, steam is already flooded, the solution isn't to stop flooding it but instead better ways to sort through the trash.
Three, the AI direction we are going right now is far more likely to push towards a meritocratic system than what we have right now which is basically "whoever has the biggest marketing budget wins". Or, to put it another way, the AI aspect is literally the best way to combat the corporatism we have now. Corporations always want to raise the barrier of entry because that always helps them by getting rid of competition.
Four, the idea that any mathematician who chooses to use a slide-rule instead of a calculator in the modern age is somehow "better" than his peers is foolish in the extreme. Talent is the ability to adapt to the current environment faster than your peers. Therefore, definitionally, no, games won't lose a lot of talented artists.
your third point is fucking nonsense did you write this after having a stroke@@SirSpence99
It's not defeatism if defeat is inevitable, it's just realistic thinking
AI is vulnerable to model collapse. It will inevitably start consuming its own stuff in increasing amounts, which will cause model collapse. It might take a few years or even decades, and artists will suffer during that. Support your small artists and buy actual art from them until that happens. And after that.
Also, nightshade and glaze all of your visual art, it hurts the models which consume it.
@@user-fv8pg5fr3s No, it does not. That ridiculous "project nightshade" has already been thoroughly debunked in-terms of effectiveness. It's soundly mocked by the AI community. I work with AI and love the field. The fact artists and people like you try to destroy models using nightshade and glaze leaves very little room for sympathy for any of you.
Newsflash - there are already countless datasets that were created before AI really took off. Not to mention the countless pieces of literature, textbooks, and newspapers from before "AI" in it's current form even existed. Which means new models can be trained on "non-AI" material and completely avoid model collapse.
AI is here to stay, like it or not. You try to destroy the things I love? Then I and many others won't shed a tear when artists are replaced.
@@user-fv8pg5fr3s yup, and its a conceptual nightmare to clean up esp if the company is using a bot to scrape indiscrimnately. the damage isnt instant but over time.
I stopped even being able to support small artists because the number of grifters pretending to be artists for small commissions has accelerated the past year or two.
It now takes too much work to have to validate whether someone is legit. It's not necessarily too hard, but I often have to cold accuse someone because other people don't even notice.
@@user-fv8pg5fr3sThere is no evidence that Nightshade and Glaze has any impact on larger models...
So many things wrong here. The premium version of chatgpt can't even notice I've missed a $ in a variable after several attempts. You have made several incorrect statements like this to fear monger.
You also fail to mention that passionate indie devs without money now have access to tool's to make new and fun games.
I might disagree with Martin Scorsese on the Marvel films (I like them a lot and feel they are definitely "cinema"), but he is, in my strong opinion, our Greatest Living Filmmaker, and beardo dismissing him as "old man" is mind-blowing.
We can disagree with great directors and still respect them as great directors. _We should_ still respect them as great directors.
The issue with AI with concerns to art is the AI can only reference from source material and twist it into something "original".
Where as a human can imagine something or get an idea and get it down on paper or whatever art program they use and then improve upon it if they want/have to.
AI makes copies from references, humans imagine and think.
The vast majority of human originality is taking what already exists, iterating on it, and doing something new... No different...
The vast majority of artists learned to draw, techniques and so on from watching others, seeing art, etc... so please .. don't make humans sound better than we are...
0:00 to 0:12 Then why the f*** is it in the title then? I get that its addressed, but it feels out of place in the title. In the description or the tags, sure, that's fine, but in the title it just feels wrong.
I think one of the most terrifying consequences is the fact that less and less people will create new, unique art. So AI will not get new data with new ideas and at one point it will just create same stale stuff over and over again. It's like heat death of Universe but for art. And it will happen not only with art, but with everything that involves human imagination.
Much of AI soup is already devoid of ideas, which is entirely unsurprising since much of its userbase has not spent any real time and effort into developing their imagination in a way that commonly goes hand in hand with making art (largely on account of not being interested in the process of making art).
regardless of how far technology comes, it will always be more satisfying to make something with your hands then to type keywords into an ai. The people who are getting into creating ai images are the ones who've always wanted to be artists but never wanted to put in the effort, they were never going to do it to begin with. Your kids aren't going to learn to make ai images in kindergarten, their gonna learn to draw, it will always be a part of our culture as humans.
@@TrickyDryadthose ppl doing ai art might also have put in effort but were too untalented and moved on to other ways of expression or what not. It's not fair to assume they didnt put work into become an artist if they wanted to. I just hope we keep getting unique human created art etc as well.
... swap "art" with "music" and it fits as well ... which is shocking. We didn't even need AI to produce bland crap after all to begin with :)
i don't really think this is true, the internet has been popular for ~2 decades now and there isn't a big novel concept which nobody has thoroughly explored and made art out of.
plus AI art gets uploaded back onto the internet anyway so more content will emerge no matter what.
Okay. I'm old enough to know how the world works and that it's right, in the end the people who give the money and buy AI stuff basically form the opinion; I still can't believe how everyone glosses over the fact that said AIs are mainly trained with stolen art and make that stolen art available for everyone, technically speaking. It's mind boggling.
It's a complicated territory, because human artists do the same thing. Not _exactly_ the same thing, but that's just how learning works, whether in art or any technical subject. We build on top of the work of the previous "generations". AI generation just makes the process more obvious and explicit in a way... and of course, robs the process of the things that make the end artist meaningfully different from those he learned from. Though to be clear, that's also true of most _human_ artists, and was even more so before reproductions became much simpler and cheaper than just having another artist make a reproduction "manually". Those humans were replaced with phonographs, printers, televisions...
The main problem I see is that when an AI adopts the style of a human artist (who developed that style distinctively), they basically lose. Everyone will just see their style as AI art, especially if it becomes particularly common. And they don't have the luxury to develop new distinctive style over the _next_ twenty years of their practice. Again, much the same _did_ happen with a lot of professions - you see a similar pattern between factory furniture and artisan furniture. It takes a lot of experience and effort to develop something... and it is (usually, not always) easier to copy or adopt that than doing something distinctive.
I think one thing that would help would be a bit of attribution built in - just like with human artists, it's impossible to list all the influences you had in creating your art (and developing your style)... but most people can point out to two or three artists that had particular influence. And destroying corporations, of course. Corporations are the worst :P
@@LuaanTi Human artists do not "do the same thing" and implying the processes are similar is anti-scientific. Its computer software, not a human brain. It's doing exactly what its told, breaking down and reconstructing data. It has no capacity to understand what it's making, which is why it looks so nonsensical so often. Its also why removing other people's copyrighted works from the dataset or adding "poisoned" images reverts AI to being useless.
The only reason it can produce anything of value is because of the products of labor it is exploiting, and those artists cannot opt out. So it isn't really a "grey area", it's just theft.
@@Tayturs You're imagining there is some data set that the AI is using to produce its images. That's not the case. It uses the same storage mechanism humans use - the pictures aren't in there the way a file exists on your disk. That's why removing anything "reverts the AI to being useless" - you're not removing the data from the finished system, your only option is to remove it from the _initial_ data set used to teach the AI in the first place. Then you have to do the whole learning process from scratch.
If we used the same logic you use for AI for humans, you'd be arguing for murdering an artist who got inspiration from another artist and refused to pay a fee.
@@LuaanTi you don't know anything about anything, and in your ignorance you are simping for overgrown toasters.
humans don't blindly consume massive amounts of data and rely on purely statistical correlations. the human brain is optimized to recognize and understand specific constructs that allow it to actually comprehend its inputs. at the very closest, there are AI technologies like "neural networks" that are loosely inspired by the brain, but it's worth remembering that there are _many_ kinds of neuron in a real brain, we haven't even identified how many of them function, and we haven't reverse engineered their layout. even artificial neural networks ultimately have nothing in common with a real brain and its capabilities.
you don't understand the science, don't understand art, and are actively cheerleading the problem.
It's because the ethics of intellectual property are fundamentally artificial, as they do not come from an everyman's intuition but rather business interests.
Thus, it's only natural that the overall public wouldn't really care about the "stolen" aspect. Especially considering that every human art is also "stolen" if we really boil down the neurological mechanics of inspiration.
We really dont need to talk about dystopian futures anymore. The dystopian present is here to stay and only going to get dystopier.
soon we'll see the bladerunner as paradise
As a voice actor I've lost about 50% of my clients in the past year. Creatives who work as freelancers are going to go first, commission based artists, voice actors, freelance coders, small time music producers and copywriters. There are ALOT of white collar jobs that required a lot of education and training to build up to that are now going to be bagging groceries.
The real repercussions are going to be political. No one cares when the coal miners are go on welfare, but when white collar dudes with MScs are mass unemployed...stuff is gonna go down.
Gonna have to disagree with this video I'm afraid. I think that people do care about how their games are made- see Blizzard and Konami for examples of how you still need a good reputation in order to sell games. And with AI, at the very least I expect the prices of games to go way down if they cost much less to make. But we all know companies. They will want to keep prices high as possible, so now it is important to know which games are AI made, and thus demand a lower price for them.
Love the enthusiasm, but no. So pretty much everyone hates JK Rowling because she’s a TERF, so when people heard about the Harry Potter video game coming out, I saw a bunch of people saying they were going to boycott it. However, that game still sold thousands of copies and was very profitable because even more people didn’t care what Rowling did, and just wanted a Harry Potter game.
Pal designs have been known for years - before we even had the AI tech to do that.
I get the conversation around AI needs to happen, but the attack on Palworld was absurd.
Maybe I'd be interested in knowing more about what prompts AI discussion from Palworld more, I've heard lots of rumours but never looked into them. It's definately not old enough to rule out though.
A lot of AI art stuff really got popularised 3-4 years ago with Artbreeder which started in 2018. I remember watching tutorials on how to use Artbreeder to assist in costume designs for RPG games by an artist who worked on Path of Exile.
"this game is unethical, it was made with ai!"
"Oh no! Anyways..."
"Your chocolate is made through slave labour!"
"Oh no! Anyways..."
What we need is a tech equivalent to Tony's Chocolonely...
No one cares.
Cant AI legislation be retroactive to people who have trained AI on data without concent? Force them to retrain with only ethically sourced images? If the answer is because you cant tell if an AI was trained on illegally taken images or not, then how would legislation be enforced?
Just like outsourcing labor - a good 90% of people aren't going to care that Nike used child labor sweat shops. They might care while its in the news cycle, but people only have so much attention to spend. Without regulation, it just not going to be comfortable.
I don't think anyone could have stopped AI, it's a programmatic thing. It's not like a thing that needs components that can be kept from the hands of the public. The only thing we could have done was setup regulations before it became popular. We had too many people focused on trying to stop it, without real idea how it worked, and very few people laying legal groundwork to work WITH it. It was an all or nothing attitude. I think plenty of us knew it wasn't going to work.
When it comes down to it, the amount of rubbish pumped out via AI will be its undoing for a time. No idea what to do about the training data honestly. The more I try to think about it, the less I think anyone can do anything about it. Just about any company can lie about where that data came from. The LAION-400 dataset did it, and they still have never seen the inside of a courtroom!
The reason why it's at the point where we either need to ban it completely or accept it is because they were doing the training and other stuff without permission and now they don't actually need it anymore to win. When I say outright ban it I mean that completely including the mundane stuff too.
Absolutely this. We're at the point where no benefit of AI outweighs the cost.
Every argument I've seen from AI bros boils down to either "It makes things cheaper" or "it makes things easier."
Both arguments completely ignore the very real cost of always taking the easy path, no matter the consequences.
Also there's the whole blatant theft side of it which they just brush under the rug and downplay whenever it's brought up.
The one possible place AI has an actual, beneficial, transformative impact is in tackling diseases, but I would argue a bigger hurdle to get over there is killing the "for profit" business models pharmaceutical companies have
...well that's depressing.
Yeah you are 100% right dude. We have passed the point of no return. No matter what law passes from this point, corporations will continue training their models in secret and just pay the fine when caught. They stand to make far more money from firing all of their staff and automating their company than any fine could ever impact.
I don't mind that everyone is going to lose their jobs and everything will be copied. I do mind having to pay for AI to copy my own artwork though, which is essentially what happens when you have to pay for AI art. If they are going to copy basically every artist that ever existed without paying them, then they shouldn't have the hide to ask for money to access that art.
You can't stop companies from ripping off other people's IP, but you can stop them from profiting off it, which might be the only deterrent we have.
I think Palsworld opened another problem. The people see the design is uninspired and copied without any kind of creativity.
The first idea they get it must be AI. And this is excacly what the crypto bros and AI fans want. For them It's a success if people think they can make a full game. Especially if its a bad game that everyone is loving.
Palworld likely is not made with AI. But it proves you can get away with bad copy past designs and features as long as the people enjoy it. This is the best news the AI pusher could hear.
At the end of the day, games are made for entertainment first and other purposes second. In what way or method they entertain you, by being fun, by making you think, by having interesting concepts, or by having something that appeals to you, it doesn't matter. Sadly, or fortunately depending on your view of the world, people want product to be good, fun, tasty, etc.
Even if it makes them think twice about what they are consuming if they see by whom or how it is made, the product at the end of the day, is still a good one. And so, people are compelled to put their biases from said product and fuse said argument about the product's quality, with how it is made (the morality/ethics of it), and said biases.
This isn't even a problem for games, but rather just anything you can consider or define as a "product" nowadays. This whole situation is basically a mirror of the whole vegans thing that people had and have had for a while, or that one time we had a bunch of ""deep"" debates about how big, giant corporation making netflix number 14 bad, or that one time we hated plastic for so long until no one talks about it anymore.
I could go on and on, but really, you get the point. You have been part of the world for long enough, not just the internet, to know that this is a constant with just about anything. And the worst part?
You could very well be right. This COULD pose a MAJOR problem in the industry.
Problem is, is that that isn't the only problem. Next big and major problem will take over this one, and so on, and so forth.
The new big, shiny pile of shit of a discussion topic takes over the other one, and we are back to square 1.
With the people that *now* talk about it, being called "pretentious" or "live under a rock."
Hence why so many people just think at this, justified or not:
I don't care. The game's fun.
The only reason this game got any kind of attention at all is because it's ripping off designs.
Otherwise, it would have been drowned in other mediocre slop within a day.
And games that only aim to cause controversy will never cause anything good.
@@toolatetothestory Though I do agree with your take, the objective information supporting it is blatantly wrong. Palworld's first trailer was shown in 2021. It already had a bunch of people being on the hype train since that initial "concept" (I am putting it in quotations since people are actively debating this as well) was revealed. Even though so many more people were in major disbelief about something regarding the game *now,* it was then about it being satire or a gag, but an equal amount of people wanting this game to be real. To say that people weren't actually hooked on the concept is just wrong and can be statistically proven so. However, as I said: This is very much a take I agree with, if it comes down to the bigger part that is subjective.
P.S The objective information I am correcting here is that 1. People didn't like the pitched concept to the point that if it wasn't drama-related it would go down under, and 2. This game's reason for having such a spike in popularity since release is caused by controversy and nothing else.
There's a difference between a copy paste game and a game that doesn't hide its influences , how many games exist now that are inspired by Stardew Valley , or Mincecraft, Mario ,Golden Eye, Street Fighter / etc. ?
Tens of thousands some extremely successful and becomign hteir own unique variant of the same style of game within the genre.
People crticize Palworld for being copy-paste but it is just as heavily influenced as any other game series it just does a piss poor job of hiding its influences. THAT meter is from Breath of the wild, That tech tree is from Ark, those characters are practically pokemon , and so on and so forth.
I think the unfortunate thing is because its influences are laid so bare people ignore how well it marries mechanics and systems across multiple games and manages to feel like a Unique and interesting experience without common game development plaguesl ike microtransactions and lootboxes sprinnkled in to intentionally hurt your experience as a player . It's unfortunate I think there's a lot to be learned from Pal World in the modern game industry but because people can't get past " It's pokemon with guns" It's not going to be able to teach the lessons it should which should be " simpler gameplay-driven games are what fans are for " Not Looter Shooter 12 , Micro Transaction Colletor 5, or another dead in 2 years Battle Royale
@@toolatetothestoryyeah, the parody designs are the whole joke.
In some ways, I think artists themselves - and hear me out - are a little at fault. They're so focused on being against AI, so dead set on following this narrow path of "boycott everything," but fail to realize that boycotting doesn't work. Like, ever. We're not in the late 1800s anymore. Markets are global and intertwined in ways you cannot even imagine where all the worst aspects of capitalism are literally inescapable. They've blinded themselves to other solutions, and it's hurt them already, and is going to continue to hurt themselves.
Any Nightmare world updates?
Honestly even knowing it's still being worked on would be nice.
they might aswell put AI to work... I think they just gave up, it was just a meme to get back at dreamworld
Almost assuredly a resounding no
I just commented this. It was never brought up again, Dreamworld won. E2 won
maybe using AI art to speed up the process would help.
/s
the thing about games prices is a.i art isnt going to lower the cost of the game it just raises the profits the people at the top and are then incentivized to go for a.i art so there is no catch up to competitors argument, there will at least for a long time be places that have real artists and i imagine we'll see a spike in more creatively artistic games as a result mainly in smaller indie stuidos from the influx of high skilled artists
"Palworld" in this video title is such clickbait, there's hardly any reason at all to think they used it, and you barely touched on it.
probably asked chat GPT to create the title for the video as well!
this whole topic stems from the alegations against palworld, nobody knows if they did or didnt, and as i stated it doesnt matter. the game is fun regardless.
@@CallumUptonand you still used them as a clickbait without any reputable proof.
That was shitty of you.
He made it crystal clear that it's because Palworld has caused the conversation to grow into mainstream discourse.
@@CallumUptonAbsolutely zero accountability. No respect for you mate. Just because you don't know doesn't mean you have any reason to even mention them. I don't call my bank teller a murder just because I don't know if they are one.
"Now, if you have morals and you don't believe in the ethics of AI, you would say 'Well, I would have the staff'. Now your competitor doesn't have morals and they have fired all their staff, minus one or two artists [...] if 80% of the work can be done instantly and they're doing that, you have to do it to catch up. Because at the end of the day your customers do not care"
This is such a bad argument. Game Studios will not sell games made with AI tools cheaper, so for the consumer this at most means a faster release. That aspect is pretty irrelevant for the consumer though. As consumer it doesn't matter whether the game was in production 2, 5 or 8 years, all that matters is the point from which on you can buy it.
Now for the company it means lower production cost (again, not on the consumer, totally different argument) BUT as long as you can run your company in a profitable way without AI usage, then does that matter? All you are giving up is profit maximization. This is not an AI problem, that is a capitalism problem.
The only way the consumer matters here is if the usage of AI would affect the price of the game due to the lower production cost. Because otherwise I just have 2 games for 60 bucks each and my decision will be based on quality/theme/mechanics or in other words, the actual game.
This is ultimately a capitalism issue, not an AI issue.
The point the video creator was making is that companies that don't currently use AI will start to utilize AI to be competitive with companies that use AI.
If one company requires 4 years of development time to produce a 40 hours of gameplay without AI, and another company only requires 1 year to accomplish the same thing with the help of AI, then that other company can make 4 games by the time the first company makes one.
That is an exaggerated example, but the the idea is that if cost can be saved with AI, and the profits are the same either way, there's no reason for companies to not use AI.
Of course, this is under the assumption that the quality - from the eyes of the end-user - is the same between the games both companies can push out. We'll assume the quality is the same, or expected to be, for the sake of the example.
RUclipsr doing click bait are the cancer of this platform
The AI bros are pulling the wool over your eyes Callum. Bending over and calling defeat is just what they want. Especially if you're telling it to all your fans. You gave them a win here. You empower them with this. It genuinely would've been better to stay silent.
You stay silent to your community anyways so it shouldn't be unfamiliar territory for you. You don't really ever read what anyone has to say unless what they say already aligns with your opinion.
Give the comments another scroll through. Try to read entire threads that start with an opinion you don't agree with. There's plenty of answers, right here, on your doorstep.
Including but not limited to:
1. Palworld isn't AI
2. It does matter
3. There are things that can be done about it
4. Make a technical blog for NMW. Many games and 3d social hangouts already do this with large success, and keeps their community well... communicated with. "Boring stuff" is better than silence.
I've been in labor force for 30 years.any of us will tell you the c and c machines are half automated already ,assembly lines,AMAZON ,all these labor jobs will disappear and then they're gone forever.
opinion circa 1900
My solution is universal basic income, but I feel that conversation is even more heated than AI. The perfect solution now is just to tax any company using AI to create this income. Good luck getting anything resembling this to go through though
Clickbait on RUclips - Callum Upton and the race to the bottom
Pixiv is predominately a Japanese art site and they have ways to exclude AI art, and it does get rid of most of the AI art
It also had an unfortunate peak of AI influx until they added filtering options.
Still, when AI can generate characters and backgrounds separately from the artist it's hard to tell.
There's myriad of ways of how different premium AI programs are being used.
We tricked rocks into thinking. And boy does it suck.
i don't really disagree with anything you said in the video... but i wonder if it's really going to -noticeably- affect the overall quality of things. "shovelware" isn't a new term, and steam is already packed full of it.
Minor correction: the Taylor Swift nudes (at least, the ones made on DALL-E) were absolutely made on the online tool. Microsoft just had very lax prompt and generation control. Anyone could have generated those images freely.
And the same thing could happen with Sora but they will probably put a lot of filters which will make the tool more restricted to the content it has to generate.
It happened the same with Chat GPT at the beginning where you could ask it to write Malware Code, but even now, I find it really dumb that you cannot even ask more basic questions how to use pointers in C++ because it automatically thinks that everything related to memory is bad.
I'm increasingly having to put a long tag of "-ai" "-midjourney" ect ect into internet searches.
I just add before:2020 when looking for art at this point
Damn, I thought ArtStation might be the last stand of art sites without an infinite flow of AI art...
I'm not familiar with ArtStation but does art/image site in the west do not have "AI-Generated" filter or the user has to disclose that said piece was made entirely/mostly by an AI? Because when the machine generated blew up, within a week, Japanese sites put up a new rule that you have to tag your piece if it was made by an AI or not. Not doing so will result in a severe punishment such as permanently removal of the user account. With the tagging, you can filter them out and not having them pollute you when browsing anymore.
@@FreedomFighterEx ArtStation does have an AI Generated tag, but unfortunately there are plenty of people who will post their generated art without that tag in order to pass it off as human made, and often times they get away with it because that rule is not well enforced. Another popular site DeviantArt has a similar situation, and they do not allow you to fully filter AI generated pictures out. At best your only option is to "see less" of them... But there's still so many that it's still all over the place. Now if I want to find only human artists, I have to be on much smaller sites that disallow AI art entirely.
No offense to what you said, but the three major companies that are using AI are always going to be on top if you ban it, or not. They are monopolies. Who tf can compete against Microsoft making a nuclear island for the soul purpose of powering AI
You're absolutely right about gaming. Games were already bad from AAA studios, now it will just be easier and cheaper to make those.
As a programmer I will worry about my job when AI can figure out what a client actually wants! Frankly I think it would be a mistake to let AI work on complex, bespoke systems too. I haven't seen premium versions but I find it hard to believe we'd reach a point were we can trust it not to make mistakes and not have people who can code check it. If it was that trustworthy why not just have it write machine code?
Its undoubtedly a great tool though. I would be very sad if it killed this career path. Hopefully it only removes the dead wood, its incredible how many bad programmers are out there.
Yes, people are already warning about code extracted from GitHub Copilot or other sources (basically automated "copy-pasting from StackOverflow) which pretends to solve your particular problem, you slap it in, and then three months later you return to it and you don't understand it because you didn't need to back then. Many programmers don't think about later maintenance.
Not enough assembler or straight machine code on github to make a model out of it, but C is close enough. google/microsoft/apple would have enough software to make it work, but again, the compilers have had 30-40 years of work put into them, why throw them away? C is portable and has all of the libraries, apis and protocols, that's what you want to output.
What Callum is saying about the pro version of chat-gpt is completely true. You make agents and assign them tasks (yes, exactly like a manager or tech team lead) and tell them what to do. It's not a chat bot anymore, it's a full workforce.
@@PaulSpades Exactly though. It is completely reliant on the work of others to be any good at anything. And it should be noted not everything you will ever build has a million examples online to be used.
I will take the fact companies are not outright replacing all their developers with this as the tell tale sign that people do not trust such a tool to replace their entire dev team. And frankly I find it hard to believe you could trust such a thing to not make mistakes. I find it almost comparable to replacing devs with cheaper labour from abroad/outsourcing, only to find those devs are inept and screw things up.
@@adam7802 There aren't really mistakes in development. There are 1) bad assumptions from misunderstanding and miscommunication and there's 2) incompetence. The first problem is fixed with planing, meetings, presentations, graphs - and chatgpt can interpret language very well. The second problem is now also not a problem, it can write python better than every python coder I've worked with, but it can do everything (no knowledge limitation or preference for a particular framework or stack). It always goes for the most common, well documented solution which is 99% best.
And again, it's no longer a tool. It's a workforce with individual agents that you can configure to communicate between themselves.
@@PaulSpades Part of software development is understanding what the client wants, being able to scope out what needs to be done and delivering it.
But if all you can do is write python code to solve problems that have been solved a million times on stack overflow, yes you will be replaced.
Asmongold has always been an outrage merchant and should stop poisoning all of gaming media.
On the hands argument. I come from a long line of painters, and number of my ancestors' paintings are in my house. None of the portraits have good looking hands.
Hands are hard. But I think I do a pretty good hand :)
I hate to say this but i agree with those asking to change the title and thumbnail. Enough comments show this.
People dont watch the whole video. Some look at just the thumbnail or title and form their opinion. Its been like this for years. As a youtuber you should be more than aware of the affect.
Please be better than this and dont use allegations proven false as clickbait. It doesnt matter if you explain otherwise in the video, and you know this.
The UKs car industry refused to innovate in an attempt to protect jobs. The UK no longer has a mainline car industry. This was unstoppable from the start.
The US car industry also refused to innovate when faced with competition from Japan, South Korea and Europe. What they _did_ manage was... surprise, surprise... use the government to eliminate or restrict competition. Did you ever wonder where the US fascination with pickup trucks for personal transportation comes from? It's not because they are in any way practical as a passenger vehicle (especially in cities!), it's because of light truck tariffs shielding their manufacturers from competition. All you have to do is convince people pickups are cool and bam, you can effectively sell them for 25% more (all else equal, which it isn't because otherwise you wouldn't have to worry about the competition in the first place - you _know_ they're doing a better job, that's why you bring violence into it :D ).
Not to mention that even despite all these tariffs, subsidies, "free loans" and such... much of the US car industry died anyway. The growing consolidation of the manufacturers is quite disturbing too, all over the world. Of course, they're just as happy to fight _against_ all sorts of government regulation when it doesn't suit _them_ ...
In my opinion, work automation in all fields is inevitable. The solution isn't to try to stop AI, it's to adapt our society so that we don't starve when there is less work to go around, so that we can make and do things we're passionate about without needing it to be profitable.
But those at the top would rather have us starve.
I think it does not apply only to games or entertainment.
That people don't care how things are made.
Only when you indoctrinate them to always see the conditions how a product was made or how the production caused harm.
For example cod liver oil or ivory.
there is countless examples. in the past, the Fur Trade didn't care about the Environmental impact killing thousands of animals would do, it was purely about making money off fur products.
Oh the extreme irony, that we thought AI would be used to do the boring monotonous jobs so we humans could focus and arts and stuff, then AI come out and the first thing it replaces is artists. But as we've done with every technological advancements of the past, we'll adapt to it, for better or worse (probably better, let's be honest)
One of the issues for your position of "we should have" Callum, is that the world isn't under one government. So if people in the US, Europe, etc. hadn't done it, someone in China, Russia, Kazakhstan etc. would have.
Honestly... How I see it is, the moment we start taking stands that would be ideological in nature and we would have ZERO way to verify the validity of any claims made for or against something involving that stand.... We start to turn into a mad world where we all get purity tested ... all the fing time.
Do we want to make sure people are treated well, and get what they rightly earned... Yes, but at the same time... like my guy ... how much research should I be doing before I spend my 40-100$ on something? How long do I have to spend checking & rechecking?
Furthermore, while I will openly laugh at VO who get replaced by AI, and feel bad for the artists, .... the fact of the matter is AI is a tool.... a very powerful tool and I don't think I wanna see a world where we start to draw lines because 'a tool is too good', and the absolute wars that will create. A calculator is a tool... is that unfair to math majors? Programs like GIMP/Photoshop/Corel Draw/etc. are exceptionally powerful tools as well.... is that fair to the now wealth of art supply businesses which will never see a dime from all the digital versions of art that will never generate a physical version... in final or in it's building & learning?
Also, what makes the AI argument much weaker is .. the fact those results can be achieved ... without AI, and yes it'd require far more talented person with digitial artwork skills. These programs come with all kinds of brush strokes and techniques under names, that in the real world would take years to master if at all.. and suddenly some little timmy can reproduce that in no time at all. We've had convincing Voice fakery/alteration for the longest time... and yell even in the late 90's I remember seeing sound mixers & re-mixers, of which you could do some clever stuff with enough talent. I myself, have seriously powerful audio/video cleaners as software and no one bats an eye. These tools are exceptionally powerful and are meant to remove .. noise (both audio/video) which simplifies the skill requirements and shortens the time required to exceptionally reasonably levels where you could practice on a bad piece of media and learn the required skills on the go, where as before.. 'you had to know' else nothing good would come out of it, or sink ungodly amounts of time into it to produce results that were never going to be as good.
Seriously though.... Most can not even fathom just how much 'aid' is given by modern technology... and suddenly we all care because an ai learns the way we would in such a way it has the ability to produce a more flawless memory, which means it's rate of forgetting what was learned... is far lower.
I can't tell you the sheer amount of time that I save when I use Bing AI to actively sort & look through not only my own media, but on the web to try and find something to fit a need... that would have taken me hours... on hours, assuming i could ever find .. a user of a site that did the piece I enjoyed, or the site it self because I never could use the right SEO terms... and could never get past the flood of artificially boosted results because of the insane abuse of SEO by bad actors. I am not able to tell you just how much of a headache being able to contextually compare litature from historical figures, and when I pull up the used material to read it myself remains accurate and even provides a POV that I may not have considered because I failed to grasp an aspect of one of their works that I could never find because of obscurity.
I don't know what things will look like, but If you must go 'AI is bad' .. take a look at your life, what you own, what you use, and ask yourself what's the difference between being able to reach into the organized database of something like the internet archieve and pulling up the material of things that only 20 years ago you never could even touch without being arrested for doing so because it would damage the material, and ask yourself ... would you rather have it so only those with the right skills and credentials get access to that set of knowledge & tools? Our lives are full of so many shortcuts cutting out the horrendous skill & knowledge required to even begin thinking about doing it the old way, that it is taken for granted.. and I'ma goingto be real with you all... Real art will always be made by people. Art is OUR expression, no matter if an AI could reproduce it or not. I believe our world is so full of ..the technically competent gate keeping tools that make that thing easier, to a point it hurts. We're in a bad place when it comes to creative works atm, and have been for ... 50 years or so... Art has become ... WAY to commercialized, and this isn't to say .. artists shouldn't make a living.. but to say... art has been taken from ... expression and meanings (even of the fart sniffers kinds) into ... a soulless commodity, to the point that a game that might have had AI work in it... has more fucking expression & soul than the majority of AAA slop.... and then people attack the AI for it as if the ART community they want to defend hasn't already rotted its soul away for the promise of money, with even fewer people getting something for the looks of it.
Hell, even corporate selling of art has seen that.. and has effectively leaned hard into pieces that are more meaningless on their own, but are meaningful when used by someone because it's in the placement of those who got it where it derives meaning from in combination of what's on the piece(S). You want an example? Go to Amazon and search 'Split Painting' and you'll see whole arrays of 'art pieces' that don't look bad, but no one would spend loads of money on either... but get their value as a functional aspect of versatile decoration and the imaginative placement of the owners who buy them.
Honestly I believe the day & age of ... the art pieces from people who could rightly be called masters of their craft ... is dead. We want art to fit our tastes, our views... and frankly... while we will always have some uber talented people whom could be called masters at some time, ... well that commission from the talented person you paid to make something 'you wanted' will never really resell well or was meant to, and it means more to us than it say work of a master craftsman, who is called a master because ..someone who isn't you said their talent was masterful despite .... ya know never wanting it even if space & money were never an issue for you.
It is sad, but I look forward to AI powered Art.. I look forward to aritsts being returned to being real artists putting expression back into their painting, into the things THEY want to create, and yes it shows through when someone does that. I also want it to be remembered when anyone says 'Well that is good looking' or to that tone without a hint of anything else, any other expressions... that's not the praise they think it is for the thing as a whole, or the praise you think it is..... Just because something is technically masterful and even is 'good looking', doesn't give it meaning.
"Well that game looks fun to play, buuut I'm going to pick up this other thing"... Is not a good phrase to hear, and I would put out as more damnation than if someone railed about how the art style offended them.. or the how the mechanics pissed them off, or how it's stupid that xyz character was or wasn't there, or how this trope was used or how it needed that trope.
Seriously, Seriously, look at any art around you... and if you honestly can't find anything but 'meh'.... or even in the games around you.. Think about .. just how horrible that is, and you can't even be ..rilled up over something meant to be an expression that stirs a personal response up.
My main training is in IT, and I was told often that they don't need me - they got "AI".
So I worked a bit with art to make ends meet. "Oh, why should we commission you? We got AI".
So now I do some work that I am not qualified for and only can do it because it is not heavy work. I am able to do it, but it is not even at minimum wage.
And I am lucky that I have that. I went to manual labour places, where the foreman looked at me, and went "sorry, no. Please look elsewhere". I was told I am overqualified to be a janitor or a server. I was told I need even more stuff I can't afford to do shelf stacking or delivering pizza.
So... "AI" will take our jobs, so when we can't do things - where will we get money? WHO will be able to buy any of the slop being tossed out?
It is a monopoly, because these "AI" companies all made their internet scraping machines. We can't really fix this any more, I fear, but...
People won't care. They don't want to care. It's not something you can fix if we install a fully automated gay space communism tomorrow - because this is using human apathy for the way it can spread. The future generations will "enjoy" the mass produced slop, and wonder why they feel empty.
If anyone cares they're quickly told to "shut up and embrace the future" by AI fans.
It's like an infection on online discussion- as it gets more normalized, more people will repeat those talking points to the faces of people who it will affect.
Bro is just making shit up
BS
@@dakat5131 Yep... You can see below, two guys already argue that this is all fake. They are not affected, I presume, by how I'll have to spend most of my income on just existing, so I won't be able to buy anything off the market that some people want to sell.
"Don't ask questions, just consume product and then get excited for next products." This still rings true.
I know AI is coming for music soon too- the creative side of humanity is being eroded, outsourced, devalued. Which in a weird way will make analog creative projects more enriching as the world turns. What we need is hope and right now there doesn’t seem to be any left.
It seems an odd thing to automate honestly... 😐
@@adam7802 it's because a lot of people want to be seen as creative but they don't want to put effort into it.
@@Speederzzz When everyone is special, no one is
The changes in developer workforces may have some relation to AI, but in reality its more of an economical adjustment. Several years ago, the interest rates on loans were actually lower than the actual inflation rate... lots of businesses took out loans and hired lots of extra employees. Things have changed, development companies are adjusting to those changes.
Do executives get paid too much? Yes! Is it crappy that a profitable business still fires employees? Yes! Is it standard practice? Yes! Businesses can't just be profitable, they have to keep being "more profitable" that's how the stock market works. The growing population and healthy economy used to let many businesses just keep scaling up, but as those two things decline, they have to lower their costs and also get more money out of the customers they already have since they aren't getting as many new customers. If AI is involved it's not the main driving factor behind any of what's happening in the tech industry.
This made me cry. Everything feels so fucking hopeless.
Stay strong, friend.
we are marching to oblivion. read about who rules you and what their true motives are, i recommend you start with the Israel Lobby by john mearsheimer. remove the socialized blinders about individualism when you do. and ultimately, ask God for help in spite of how hard as it can be to credit His mercy in this sick world
Do not lose hope. That is literally the strategy of people who believe in AI. It's not hopeless. They just keep telling you it is. Whether it's directly, poisoned information like Callum and Asmongold spreads, or by huge articles written to gloat about huge one-offs that can't actually be used for anything (main intention is to attract investors, but has the side effect of tricking us into thinking AI is bigger than it is).
Remember when you put out regular dev updates for Nightmare World? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
if people cared about how something was made, Sweatshops or sweatshop conditions wouldn't exist.
Damn...that is a very eyeopening point.
Spot on. Nobody wants to see how the sausage gets made as the expression goes
That makes 0 sense
@@TheBoardGamer Have you seen chocolate plantations and factories in Africa?
I think we're all wrapped up in the doomer mindset and I think that worrying about this entirely valid and we should be and should be continuing the conversation. Legitimately though, as an illustrator and a writer and a general creative, I do think we will eventually solve this like we've solved so many other problems that humanity has clashed with. I think that so long as we continue to advocate for workers protections and for the people responsible for what is very apparently widespread theft of intellectual property and the living wages of many people to be held responsible, this is something that can be overcome. I do believe that the ultimate endstate of everything going on now is just the justice and legal systems catching up with the people creating and utilizing these technologies. Unfortunately that means we're dealing with the speed of government, but when money and the economy at large are involved, governments tend to pay a little more attention. We managed to get a pretty quick turnaround on a lot of the nonsense surrounding NFTs and the art theft involved (it's still ongoing, but 5 years for something like that is astoundingly fast to me) and I think we're going to see a lot of traction pick up on this in a legal sense. Especially with Midjourney releasing effectively what is a list of "people we stole from" detailing where their dataset was scraped from, the writing is on the wall to me. Covid caused about an 11% unemployment rate in the USA and it ground the nation and a lot of the world connected to its economy to a grinding halt. Even just looking at what's going on in the gaming industry, we're seeing 5-10% of workforces getting laid off and even a spike in unemployment of 4-5% would be a huge upset that wouldn't go unnoticed. Extrapolate that to basically every industry and it's going to become apparent to even the most tech illiterate of policy makers.
All that being said, do I trust policy makers? No. Do I trust that there isn't going to be million sketchballs trying to sneak this crap into stuff? Of course not. Is this going to get worse before it gets better? Absolutely. The state of things is truly depressing and I would be lying if I said that it doesn't make me and my work feel futile. It does not, however, make it feel worthless. Art and creation are to me an inherently humanitarian pursuit and no amount of greedy capitalistic cruft surrounding it will be able to take that away. I don't know what the solution to the problem is, but I am confident that there is one. For now we can only do what we can do. Make noise, cause a fuss, keep talking, because it's important. There's also promising prospects in counter technologies, weapons always outpace armours initially, but eventually they catch up and projects like Nightshade from MIT that can allow at least visual artists to add some level of protection to the things they necessarily must share in the online space give me a lot of hope that this is a defeatable problem. Even if most people don't care, we can care. And it's by caring and continuing to care that we can preserve human creativity and protect what is the reason to be alive and communicate and be people from a bunch of idiots who think optimizing the world into a featureless grey cube is progress. I genuinely believe that humanity is an aggregate force for good, we just have a lot of bad to contend with along the way, which is nothing new. I will keep creating and I hope everyone who reads this continues to create and/or support creators.
The most annoying piece of all of this to me is that it is inescapable. There was never an opt-in and there is never going to be an opt-out. Even the more mundane uses of this technology are just not something I want in my life or around me, because I don't want what I say and what I write and what I text and the pictures I draw or the photos I take to be used against my will to contribute to a problem that I hate that will line the pockets of people I hate more, but I basically can't turn some of it off. I can delete all my stuff off google drive, which I did, but let's be real they probably have a backup and will steal from me anyway. I can jailbreak my phone and use a vpn and do all these things, but let's be real they probably get most of that data anyway. I appreciate everything you've said in this video Callum, we need to enter the "fix the problem we've caused" phase, since we're past the "prevent the problem" phase by a long shot. If it's any consolation, there are some very smart and passionate and caring people in the world who care about this and about humanity in general, so I do honestly believe we'll make it through this like anything else. Privacy is dead and we let the corporations kill it, so it's time to start looking into a little bit of necromancy and make sure that we never stop doing what makes life worth living.
Its true in every form. People dont care their fancy clothes were made in a sweat shop in a third world country. They dont care that they plastic ends up in the ocean as long as they can "have plastic straws".
Im not suggesting im any better than any of these people. I am probably part of it, but this issue isnt new to AI or media.. its the case with everything. Enjoyment, Convenience and probably price, trump everything.
completely correct!
have they finally proven pallworld used AI? because I still don't think they did
I look forward to the future where these companies run out of consumers as they have replaced all jobs with AI based robots...
They’ll just change their business model and start displaying ads to the ais.
I'm not an artist or writer, but I know I would certainly be pissed off if I spend years and years honing and refining my craft, working my ass off to grow in skill and become a talented writer/artist. And then some random nobody comes along, using AI, and they're getting the same level of acclaim and attention, if not more. It's unavoidable and just the way of the world, but it really is disgusting and sad to me that humanity has the mindset of "I don't care. As long as I like it."
tbh an AI could easily make games better than most modern AAA studios
Probably not.
Crap on it all you want, AI or not, it’s fun! Can’t argue with results.
11:20 "...we don't benefit as gamers". Yea, maybe not with AAA games because they're all 70$, but the indie games will likely end up being cheaper than if they were made without AI image generation.
dunno if it's a hot take, but if you never cared about procedural generation in video games, then you can shut your mouth about generative AI, there are virtually zero arguments you could stage against the latter without nuking the former from orbit. They utilize essentially the same concepts.
Does it matter if a game is made with AI? As long as the game is good I see no problems. CoD or any sports game have been the same for decades and people do not care but a game made with AI is too far?
i mean if the ai was trained/modified other peoples art/work( EXAMPLE the false idea that the palworld devs used ai to modify pokemon models) would be theft
@@shadoeboi212I don't think you know what theft means.
I don't think I watched the whole video or? otherwise u wouldn't ask questions when he already answered them
@@nophone9311 ??? if I were to take models from a pokemon game and modify them for my game that is copywrite infringement like with the pokemon mod that got nuke within like 8 hrs
in your opinion if an AI did it wouldnt be?
@@shadoeboi212 Well how many different models were used to train the AI? Every art teacher I've had told me to look at references to learn. The only difference between me looking at a reference and an AI is the speed AI is able to achieve, as such I just do not see how what AI does fits the definition of theft but what I do doesn't.
I think all this is going to crash and burn. Here's why.
You said it's "free" to use AI. It's not. Those models take massive amounts of resources to run, and that's expensive. You have to pay to get access to GPT-4. But that's not actually the main reason. The only thing that allows these models to work well is that they have massive amounts of training data that they can harvest automatically from the internet. But at the same time, more and more companies are using AI to generate huge amounts of internet content because as you said, it's very fast. Eventually there is going to be so much AI content on the internet compared to actual human-generated content, which will increasingly be locked behind paid APIs, or will not be public anymore, or will be doctored in ways that foil AI, and eventually so much of the available training data will be inferior AI-generated content that I don't think this kind of massive-data-based AI will get better and better as time goes on, it will get worse and worse as its only available dataset degrades and degrades and degrades. At some point, these companies are going to have to decide which is the higher cost: hiring back all the artists that they fired, hiring a new team to generate training data for their AI (which is a lot more work than just drawing the art in the first place), or seeing the quality of their products nosedive. I don't know which they will pick, but I think it will suck for them regardless.
Also, the artists wouldn't have gotten fired if they had had a union like SAG-AFTRA did. Who knows, possibly this will also be the start of game developers unionizing.
Also also, I can tell you from first-hand experience that software companies are not all champing at the bit to use AI to develop software. If you put your code into GPT-4 to get help with it, you've essentially just donated all of your IP to Microsoft. I don't think that's going to be an especially popular option. And even if GPT-4 could program flawlessly and you didn't mind giving up your IP, it still can't replace an actual programmer. Coding is actually a very small part of our jobs.
Where do I begin...
"Eventually there is going to be so much AI content on the internet compared to actual human-generated content, which will increasingly be locked behind paid APIs, or will not be public anymore, or will be doctored in ways that foil AI, and eventually so much of the available training data will be inferior AI-generated content that I don't think this kind of massive-data-based AI will get better and better as time goes on, it will get worse and worse as its only available dataset degrades and degrades and degrades."
You're immediately assuming that all AI-generated content is 'inferior' to content made by actual artists. You're forgetting that not all artists have strong shape-language, color-theory, gestures, etc... especially in regards to entry-level and intermediate artists. Sure, those individuals may have a unique style that sets them apart, but they could just train their own LoRA to generate something close to their style while also leveraging the benefits that AI gives.
In short, you're not being completely honest by dismissing AI-generated art as inferior when the end-user only really cares about the final product.
--
"At some point, these companies are going to have to decide which is the higher cost: hiring back all the artists that they fired, hiring a new team to generate training data for their AI (which is a lot more work than just drawing the art in the first place), or seeing the quality of their products nosedive. I don't know which they will pick, but I think it will suck for them regardless."
I think companies are currently building up their datasets for their own generative models, so they can make the claim that it is their own Copyrighted/etc data, and they can prove it legally. They may initially try to generate art based on their models, and realize they need someone that is both a prompt-engineer, and also has good artistic skills, so the art generated can be modified and have a personal touch that isn't strictly limited to prompts. In short, they'll be looking for Artists that also have Prompt-engineering skills, but I do admit they won't need as many artists compared to 2+ years ago.
Additionally, artists will likely face a dilemma in the future, where if they are hired onto a company, they may be required to sign an agreement that their works created for the company will be part of the company's AI dataset.
--
"Also also, I can tell you from first-hand experience that software companies are not all champing at the bit to use AI to develop software. If you put your code into GPT-4 to get help with it, you've essentially just donated all of your IP to Microsoft. I don't think that's going to be an especially popular option. And even if GPT-4 could program flawlessly and you didn't mind giving up your IP, it still can't replace an actual programmer. Coding is actually a very small part of our jobs."
Companies will likely be using Copilot X to fill out boilerplate code or possibly their own proprietary models trained on their own systems, enabling code-consistency and IP protection. I think Unity, for example, is training their Muse and Sentis frameworks such that Unity developers can leverage those technologies for their projects. It will take time, but companies will find a way to protect their IP while still leveraging the utility of AI. And yes, like you said, code is only part of the process... proper design and decisions on implementing it will not be easily doable for every scenario with AI.
@@dreamcatforgotten8435 As far as AI training goes, it is literally the case that all computer generated content is inferior to all human-generated content. AIs exist to do things that humans are good at that computers are very bad at - by definition human-created content is the ideal, gold standard and the AI cannot do better than that. If you train the AI on its own output, it'll just reinforce its tendency to draw too many arms and legs and fingers and will never learn to do otherwise. If you want the art in a specific style or with specific colors, you can tell the AI to do that in the prompt. You can't tell it "please only draw a normal number of fingers" and actually expect that to work. It needs training data of art drawn by real humans to be able to figure that out.
I don't think you appreciate how much data these models need. This technology has been around for ages, the only reason it took until now to get these models is the cost and difficulty of finding and processing so much data. These algorithms are not particularly smart, they work mainly because they've had the entire unedited contents of the internet thrown at them. If the quality of that data decreases, the quality of the AI will decrease as well. Making a private dataset with the quantity of data that these models require will be insanely expensive.
Copilot is not really a different kind of thing from GPT, it uses the same technology, it was just trained on code instead of text or art. Letting Copilot train on your code is still just donating your IP to Microsoft. There is no way to protect your IP when your company policy is to just give it away. There is also no way to remove training data from the training set once the model is trained, as soon as you let the AI see your data, it's gone.
@@ruthmorrison3962
"As far as AI training goes, it is literally the case that all computer generated content is inferior to all human-generated content."
I disagree. Not ever artist is good at producing art for AI training, but I'm repeating myself by saying this.
-
"AIs exist to do things that humans are good at that computers are very bad at - by definition human-created content is the ideal, gold standard and the AI cannot do better than that. If you train the AI on its own output, it'll just reinforce its tendency to draw too many arms and legs and fingers and will never learn to do otherwise."
You're dismissing the fact that output can be ranked/curated and then fed into a new model or LoRA. This is why some smaller models can perform efficiently at a specific task instead of having one large dirty model with generalized data.
-
"If you want the art in a specific style or with specific colors, you can tell the AI to do that in the prompt. You can't tell it "please only draw a normal number of fingers" and actually expect that to work. It needs training data of art drawn by real humans to be able to figure that out."
You can use negative prompts to disregard data that has been ranked/labeled to have bad anatomy. Or use a model that has curated data. Or use a LoRA that is good at doing specific things. Or inpaint/sketch and regenerate based off of that, assuming you have the skills to do so.
Hands aren't really a major issue for most modern models, due to the ranking/labeling of input, negative prompts, data curation, and inpainting+regen. Curation is still difficult since you need an effective model to curate data properly before a new model can be trained based on that output, but it is currently being done and is reasonably effective.
-
"I don't think you appreciate how much data these models need. "
The theoretical minimum cost to make a new, usable model is something around $50k-150k. This is something that is not viable for the average individual, which is why LoRA exist (for Generative AI). However, this is a drop in the bucket for a company - literally 1-2 employee annual salary in cost. And of course those companies will invest more money for a more robust model if they can cut costs by downsizing departments, assuming they want to maintain their bottom-line.
-
"Copilot is not really a different kind of thing from GPT, it uses the same technology, it was just trained on code instead of text or art. Letting Copilot train on your code is still just donating your IP to Microsoft. There is no way to protect your IP when your company policy is to just give it away. There is also no way to remove training data from the training set once the model is trained, as soon as you let the AI see your data, it's gone."
If I remember correctly, at least for GPT4 (paid service), you can keep your data private. However, Bing Chat, which is close to GPT4-capability, will indeed train off of data presented in a conversation.
@@dreamcatforgotten8435 Curating any training set, whether you're specifically selecting already-made art from a human or an AI, or making art anew, is going to be very expensive regardless. That's the point - the cheap data that you get from from just scraping the web is not going to be curated, and as that degrades in quality for use with AI, the AI quality will also degrade. The people who are using AI to generate web content are not curating that output with the intent of using it as a training set. They're generating a using all the stuff with odd numbers of limbs and fingers, and all those errors that AI frequently makes that people don't. They don't care about quality. They're not curating anything.
"This is why some smaller models can perform efficiently at a specific task instead of having one large dirty model with generalized data."
Sure, that's one way of doing AI - making an actually smart algorithm that performs a specific task rather than a generalized model. That's not what any of these generative AI companies are doing, though. They have very much put all their eggs into the "generalized model using as much data as possible" basket.
Training a new model now is cheap because they can just use data sourced from the internet. When they can't do that anymore, it will get more expensive.
MS may claim that whatever AI service doesn't train off your data, but there's no way to verify that, and also it won't be very good at generating code for your system if it can't do that. It is never going to be safe to expose an AI to IP you want to keep private.
Reminds me of a business owner for manufacturing lighters in mainland China my dad consulted. He said he couldn't afford to raise the price by even one cent, or he would go out of business.
I think while all companies are racing to the bottom, it is even more important for artists (and other professions I guess) to race to the top by learning how to utilize AI to speed up their learning and creative processes. I believe it is possible to maintain ethics while using them, such as using AI to bombard yourself with stimulations that fuel your iterative design process. And it is crucial we learn how to inject our humanistic visions into our work by using AI as a tool, rather than allowing ourselves become reliant on AI to do our work for us and make us lazy. Because if everyone can achieve the same using AI, those that can offer that bit of human ingenuity, however tiny amount, will be the ones that get the job.
The pressure to learn has never been greater.
This is something i've been trying to get through to people for a while, the way you put it that the time for laws or regulation is over, and it's now a question of how we react. I do think this is now the time to ask 'What do we do when there are more people then jobs'.. Because even in the low-end estimates- if AI Replaces 10% of jobs, it's not going to create an equal number of new programmer/data jobs. And AI is going to be faster to adapt to new jobs and tasks.
I think it's very likely that we are going to see more people unemployed then we will see new jobs created. There just aren't going to be more tasks that require humans, compared to tasks that can be effectively replaced by an AI with minor oversight.
Should matematicians complain that a cumputer cand do substraction and multiplication?
Another factor that works against bans on AI training is that numerous countries internationally just won't follow that rule, Russia comes to mind as they're notorious for that kind of thing. All it would do is cripple AI developers & businesses in countries where it's banned and force that business elsewhere. Or it can just be obfuscated by purchasing a working AI model (or the assets it produces) from those countries and then using it for your business/project. As you said pandora's box is already open.
This is actually perfect timing for something I've been messing with over the past few days. I'm a mostly solo developer who last year made a point and click horror game called Creation Chronicle's with a friend who made 3D models for the creatures. A few days ago he sent me a picture on discord of AI generated concept art of one of the characters from the game made using the Bing AI app (Note the game didn't use AI, this was simply an experiment done for the sake of curiosity). I was shocked at just how good the art was. It could have easily been something from the real game. Over the last few days we have both messed more with it and got results that are super close to the set pieces I've had in my head for years. Some of them do look goofy but most looks almost human. It's honestly kind of scary how close it's gotten to some of our designs. What made it more scary was a year or two ago when AI first became a buzz word I remember trying it out to see what the fuss was and laughing at it, because the designs I tried to make looked cursed and were utterly unusable. Within just one or two years AI has gone from what I considered an overhyped joke to an actively real threat. Now I'm worried about what else AI is capable of. I know it already can be used for voice's art and to some extent code but what's next? Music? Level Design?, 3D modelling and rigging? It worry's me. You mentioned here that games using AI will soon be possible to develop in a week. I've no idea how close we are to that but if last year's progress is anything to go by then I can't imagen it's going to be long.
The overly exessive use of AI will backfire at some point at each and every area of life.
AI lacks creativity and can't be inovative. It's good for optimizing and redesigning but can only rely on what it has learned and can't develope new ideas on its own.
Unfortunately it will take a couple of more years before people realize that technological advancement will stop when everything that needs creativity is done by AI because it's faster and cheaper.
For example, AI can't create new art, it can only rearrange and redesign the parts they were added to its database, because of that i've trouble calling it "AI art" when it's actually just an "AI composition".
add: i guess the best visual reference to what i mean is the scene from the movie "The Core" right before they broke into that giant geode.
The screen shows just a black space because the computer wasn't taught to display a hollow room and it couldn't make anything out of it on its own because of the lack of reference material.
You cant mountainundew whats been mountain done.
The only reason why we are seeing this freak out is because the same artist that supported automation, are now seeing their field be automated. Lol, good luck, the genie came out of that bottle 30 years ago.
I fucking hate that this is how law making and public politics works.
"Woh, here, this will become a giant problem down the line. Pls do something now!"
"Is it a problem right now?"
"No"
"Then fuck off, we got important problems to solve"
*wait 2 years*
"Oh golly, this is a giant problem. But now since it already is here, we can't do anything"
Like, what are people expecting.
I swear this will happen to AGI the exact same way.
But that won't be as "limited" in damage as the current situation is.
Cal I think the biggest issue with this whole situation is the use of the term "AI" - WE DON"T HAVE AI! All of this art is procedurally generated by a computer learning model. The issue this creates is that no one making art on the scale of entire video games ISN"T using procedural generation in some form or other; there's no way to ban that from a store like Steam.
To be honest using "latent diffusion and/or large language models and/or (whatever SoTA for music and 3D modeling is called)" is quite mouthful.
Title had me thinking someone finally had proof of Palworld and AI was a thing.
@@Dave-rd6sp Oh I know. It's why all the arguments are just tiring. 'It's done by AI, but we have no proof!' 'You can climb anywhere so that was stolen from Zelda!' You can climb anywhere in Conan Exiles which came out before Zelda, so Zelda must have stolen that. 'There's a glider!' Enshrouded has one too, as do many games. Why are you not raging at all of them too?
@@Dave-rd6sp This stuff is all over the place and people only gripe and complain when it seems to involves something they're fanatical about. It's why I generally hate most fan bases.
@@Dave-rd6spTo be fair, if by clone you're referring to Infiniminer, the two games are very different. Infiniminer didn't have any PVE combat.
Everything has to be profitable, marketable and reproduceable. I'm so sick of it. I didn't want Crypto, I didn't want NFTs and I didn't want AI image generation and writing prompts either. They've just been forced into the world until we accept them as the status quo by people with too much money and power.
Actual child slave labor doesn't stop folks from buying phones every year so I find AI a weird spot to draw the ethical consumer line.
Regarding AI programming, still the best way to use it in my opinion is when someone who understands the principles and rules and can do it by hand, that person uses it and can fine-tune for example module usage to a detail. I for example use it quite much in all kinds of regexes for scripts and as well looking up how to implement specific method for example in java class just to dabble in some small java programming and it works great. But once you have to write full cicd for GH via actions that is connected to on prem servers, it can get little bit more difficult. Though i would love to see it handle it on Premuim version .. maybe i should buy it and check how it does..
Palworld from the outside looks like pure unity jank
We could retroactively ban training on unauthorized data as well. Basically, “you have to remove all unauthorized data from your training sets AND retrain your models if they were built on stolen data”. There. That solves the monopoly problem
good luck proving a specific jpg was used in training a complete .ckpt file. you can't unbake those to see how they were made.
Thats not only with games and gamers. Thats the sickness of our world that 95% of the people do not ask background questions or so. They just consume and thats boring.
Have you asked some proper background questions about Callum? Did you properly vet his life story before you started watching?
No, you just consumed... Welcome to the 95%
@@SioxerNikita your entire presence throughout this comment section is just you being a smug, useless little dweeb.