I feel like it does. theunknownmuncher thinks it’s somehow inconsistent to be against generative AI while being ok with procedural generation, which implies that they think they’re equivalent in some way. As if the reason people don’t like generative AI is because it makes bad games.
Edit: throughout this discussion, my opinion has evolved somewhat. Procedural generation is fine, because it only uses things created by the developer, and it will necessarily generate a better product than a generative AI, because the developer is the one who tunes it. An AI will generate any text that might fit within the genre, with no consideration for what’s canon to the work it’s being inserted in.
I’m willing to grant literally all of this. I have a deep-seated hatred of generative AI that clouds my ability to have productive discussions about it. It turns me into an asshole, specifically to people who defend it.
When did I demand an equivalence? That’s what I asked 37 minutes ago, and what you’ve spent several replies now pivoting away from answering
both are used to produce more content with less effort. There’s your equivalence.
Bingo.
As if the reason people don’t like generative AI is because it makes bad games.
Nice, point proven. 😎 If it doesn’t make games bad, then the complaints are simply invalid and bandwagoning, and developers cannot be faulted for using it. LOL
There are many reasons why people in general actively dislike generative ai. Many of those reasons have to do with the creation of the ai (including environmental damage and harm to artists, and more besides), and are applicable regardless of the quality of the end product.
Furthermore, using generative ai does tend to make the end product worse, regardless of what that product is. This does not mean that it is impossible to make good shit with ai, nor does it mean that ai only makes good shit. There’s nuance to the issue that is often ignored.
Furthermore again, there is bandwagonning happening in the hate of ai. However, just begause bandwagonning is a logical fallacy, does not automatically make the arguments wrong (see the fallacy fallacy).
Furthermore the third, developers absolutely can be held at fault for using generative ai. Valve demands ai use be disclosed, they didn’t comply, ipso facto, devs are at fault. However, not all fault is equal. The example being discussed in the original post is much less egregious than most in my opinion. It’s not like they ai generated the entire game asset by asset.
I had another point but already forgot what it was so I’ll leave it at that for now.
If it doesn’t make games bad, then the complaints are simply invalid and bandwagoning, and developers cannot be faulted for using it. LOL
“If slavery doesn’t harm the economy, then the complaints are simply invalid and bandwagoning, and plantation owners cannot be faulted for using them. LOL”
I know Lemmings have a lot of trouble reading, so I’ll get this out of the way now: no, I’m not saying that generative AI is slavery, nor am I saying they’re equivalent. I’m drawing one similarity to make a point. That’s called a simile. The point being, that one supposed criticism isn’t valid doesn’t mean that no criticisms are valid.
theunknownmuncher thinks it’s somehow inconsistent to be against generative AI while being ok with procedural generation, which implies that they think they’re equivalent in some way.
It’s genuinely wild that you wrote this and then minutes later tried to make a “comparison but totally NOT equivalency, guys” to SLAVERY. 🤦🤦🤦
EDIT: btw, not that it matters at this point, but that’s not what a simile is. It is analogy, though, but a super flawed and shitty one
I like how l saw this repIy coming and accounted for it and pre-repIied to it, and you stiII Ieft it. Yeah, it would be outrageous to equate generative Al and slavery, that’s why l didn’t do that
So the reason behind that was to point out that, by your logic, slavery would be excusable. That’s the argument you’re making. The consumer won’t notice the difference, therefore it’s fine for the producer to use it.
by your logic, slavery would be excusable. That’s the argument you’re making.
I’m sorry, we’re talking about the implementation of generated content in video games. That only works if it’s EQUIVALENT to slavery, it’s not (which you yourself said in an attempt to have it both ways lol), so “my logic” does not apply to slavery… Dude.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
I feel like it does. theunknownmuncher thinks it’s somehow inconsistent to be against generative AI while being ok with procedural generation, which implies that they think they’re equivalent in some way. As if the reason people don’t like generative AI is because it makes bad games.
Edit: throughout this discussion, my opinion has evolved somewhat. Procedural generation is fine, because it only uses things created by the developer, and it will necessarily generate a better product than a generative AI, because the developer is the one who tunes it. An AI will generate any text that might fit within the genre, with no consideration for what’s canon to the work it’s being inserted in.
both are used to produce more content with less effort. There’s your equivalence.
What would actually add value to the conversation is discussing why a particular criticism of one may or may not apply to the other.
I actually disagree with the original premise, and explained why in another comment.
Sharing one thing in common does not make two things equivalent. You’re welcome to try again though
you demanded an equivalence. I gave you one. If you don’t like it then that’s a you problem.
When did I demand an equivalence??? This is what using ChatGPT does yo your brain, it destroys your reading comprehension
You’re projecting, and being an asshole. Pause a minute and collect yourself.
What am I projecting??? Why is it that now that I am asking you to explain things, you won’t?
I’m willing to grant literally all of this. I have a deep-seated hatred of generative AI that clouds my ability to have productive discussions about it. It turns me into an asshole, specifically to people who defend it.
When did I demand an equivalence? That’s what I asked 37 minutes ago, and what you’ve spent several replies now pivoting away from answering
Your previous comment proved my point, thanks
Bingo.
Nice, point proven. 😎 If it doesn’t make games bad, then the complaints are simply invalid and bandwagoning, and developers cannot be faulted for using it. LOL
Point not proven.
There are many reasons why people in general actively dislike generative ai. Many of those reasons have to do with the creation of the ai (including environmental damage and harm to artists, and more besides), and are applicable regardless of the quality of the end product.
Furthermore, using generative ai does tend to make the end product worse, regardless of what that product is. This does not mean that it is impossible to make good shit with ai, nor does it mean that ai only makes good shit. There’s nuance to the issue that is often ignored.
Furthermore again, there is bandwagonning happening in the hate of ai. However, just begause bandwagonning is a logical fallacy, does not automatically make the arguments wrong (see the fallacy fallacy).
Furthermore the third, developers absolutely can be held at fault for using generative ai. Valve demands ai use be disclosed, they didn’t comply, ipso facto, devs are at fault. However, not all fault is equal. The example being discussed in the original post is much less egregious than most in my opinion. It’s not like they ai generated the entire game asset by asset.
I had another point but already forgot what it was so I’ll leave it at that for now.
“If slavery doesn’t harm the economy, then the complaints are simply invalid and bandwagoning, and plantation owners cannot be faulted for using them. LOL”
I know Lemmings have a lot of trouble reading, so I’ll get this out of the way now: no, I’m not saying that generative AI is slavery, nor am I saying they’re equivalent. I’m drawing one similarity to make a point. That’s called a simile. The point being, that one supposed criticism isn’t valid doesn’t mean that no criticisms are valid.
👀 SLAVERY??? Come on man. Outrageous.
It’s genuinely wild that you wrote this and then minutes later tried to make a “comparison but totally NOT equivalency, guys” to SLAVERY. 🤦🤦🤦
EDIT: btw, not that it matters at this point, but that’s not what a simile is. It is analogy, though, but a super flawed and shitty one
I like how l saw this repIy coming and accounted for it and pre-repIied to it, and you stiII Ieft it. Yeah, it would be outrageous to equate generative Al and slavery, that’s why l didn’t do that
Yes, of course I did, it would be gross of me to let that slide
So the reason behind that was to point out that, by your logic, slavery would be excusable. That’s the argument you’re making. The consumer won’t notice the difference, therefore it’s fine for the producer to use it.
I’m sorry, we’re talking about the implementation of generated content in video games. That only works if it’s EQUIVALENT to slavery, it’s not (which you yourself said in an attempt to have it both ways lol), so “my logic” does not apply to slavery… Dude.