There’s a problem in movies that I keep thinking about in relation to this.
Movies often use music from other movies in early cuts to get something rough together. They time the scenes around the music, they work with it for ages, and finally it’s time to make an original track to replace the rough copy.
But they have to use something that’s the same tempo, because of how the scenes were timed around the old music. And it has to fit in the same vibe, because that’s what the old music felt like.
So you end up with a piece of music that’s usually pretty close to the temporary music, and a lot of Hollywood osts sound almost identical as a result. When I see people talk about using gen ai for placeholders and concept art, I see that same problem turning up.
Famously, Stanley Kubrick used classical music as a temporary track for 2001: A Space Odyssey, and intended on having Pink Floyd do the soundtrack. However, he grew to like how the classical music felt so much that he decided to keep it.
I wonder if that’s why so many sequences use “4 on the floor” arranged roughly around a 12 bar pattern, or a specific piece of classical music that the studio could have gotten from public domain
There are many stories from gaming about placeholder music becoming integral part of the game.
In original doom games Carmack and Romero loved Black Sabbath and listened it during testing amd working on the game. That led to now legendary doom ost.
During the development of Max Payne 2 Remedy used Poets of the fall song as a placeholder and in the end they decited they wanted it in to the game, but because they could not get in to agreement with the publisher, and because PoF members are just cool guys, they eventually made song just for the game to get around the licensing debucle. That song was later released as a single.
I remember hearing story about Brutal Legend having some licenced music as a place holder in meeting with investors and it lead that music ending in to the game.
Im writing this while im little busy, so everything is coming from my memory, without fact checking, so who ever is reading this take it with a pinch of salt.
As with much discussion of generative AI, the difficulty of Hooded Horse’s position is pinning down what they’re trying to ban. Does an artwork count as generated if somebody used the tech to make a base image of some kind, then fleshed it out and finished it off at length by hand?
A very salient question. Is someone generates a rough outline and then redraws it, fixing errors and making modifications with their human artist eye, is the thing they draw a problem? It will involve a human artist, and human artistic skill.
Tracing is one way to teach children how to draw. If someone generates an image to trace for practice, is all their art problematic because they were trained with AI?
This seems kind of like asking a vegan if they’d eat lab-grown meat… I think the answer depends heavily on why the person believes what they do in the first place.
One way of looking at it is serving a vegan a vegan meal, after you slaughtered a cow for the first couple of tries. Some of the damage has already been done.
Also, we’ve had several kerfuffles already where GenAI “placeholders” were present in a released game, and caused plenty of outrage. It’s far safer to never have those placeholders to begin with. Just draw up something ugly in Paint, at least it’ll be plenty obvious you need to fix it before launching the game.
In order to generate that texture, AI bots have already been attacking every website hosting content on the internet for the past year, to the point that they were basically DDoSed and forced to take extreme measures to stay online. Plenty of copyrighted works have been slurped up without consent from their authors, a massive amount of energy has been used to inference the models and even more energy (far more than all cryptocurrencies combined for example) is used generating things from those models. So yes, a lot of damage has already been done. Far more than killing a couple of cows.
Massive energy is used to give you porn, its the way it is. Humanity needs more and more energy all the time. Making that one thing you don’t like the problem is not sensible.
And in the end, it doesn’t matter. The are tens of thousands of people dying each year to support the living standard you enjoy, but you have focused on ai. Your outrage is a fallacy.
You just made a fallacy of relative privation. While they no fallacious argument. They used hyperbole which is not a fallacy.
So shut the fuck up, if you want to call people out or make an argument. Actually make a point and don’t just drop to attacking people’s character with accusations of fallacy. It’s fucked up and does nothing but make you look stupid at the best of times.
Yes, a lot of datacentres use evaporative cooling, meaning that the heat is taken away as the water evaporates. It’s a cheap and effective way of doing things and the water returns to the water cycle and doesn’t really get locked up anywhere. So it’s not really a problem, right?
Well yes, in a vacuum that’s fantastic. However there’s two caveats to this: evaporative cooling works best in arid areas, because the air can hold more water. Thus they build these AI datacentres in naturally arid areas. Smart, they’re using physics to their advantage!
What’s the second problem then? They’re now using up the ground water in those arid areas to cool their datacentres and thus ruining it for the people that live there, leaving them without safe water to drink.
Also I don’t know how many anti-AI people will be all “bUt gOlF CoUrSeS ArE OkAy, We lOvE ThOsE!!” These things exist purely for rich people that don’t contribute anything, so we could get rid of both and the world would be a better place.
Maybe a better analogy would be the Ship of Theseus - how much of an AI-generated picture has to be replaced by human work for it to not be considered slop anymore?
Or to stick with the vegan/meat analogy - making the perfect vegan sausage patty by making several meat patties, each one with iteratively less meat until a vegan patty is left, as well as several dead pigs.
I’ve seen the argument that if you’re generating an image and making some edits, you’re robbing yourself of original concepts. Even if human hands do the editing you’ve already outsourced one of the most important parts.
I need to admit that in the past day, I asked an AI to write unit tests for a feature I’d just added. I didn’t trust it to write the feature, and I had to fix the tests afterwards, but it did save time.
I really don’t see any usefulness or good intent in the art world though. Sooo much of those models has been put together through copyright theft of people’s work. Disney made a pretty good case against them, before deciding to team up for a shitty service feature.
It’s sad Clair Obscur lost that indie award, but hopefully the game dev world can take that as a bit of a lesson.
I often use it in programming to either layout the unit testsor do something that’s repetitive like create entities or DTOs from schemas. These tasks I can do myself easily but they’re boring and I will also make mistakes. I always have to check every single line and need to correct things, plus have to write one or two detailed prompts to make sure that the correct pattern and style is followed. It saves me a lot of time, but always tries to do more than it should: if it writes tests it will try and run them, and then try and fix them, and then try to change my code which is annoying and I always cancel all of that.
I find AI art and creative writing boring and I only really see these things as a tool to support being more efficient where applicable, and you also have to know what you’re doing, just like using any other tool.
There are and I used to use them but they aren’t error-free either or following the style guides I need to adhere to so it’s essentially the same outcome.
I don’t know what you mean, but as a designer I can imagine my work without ai anymore. I get the same response from everybody I know In my line of work.
I don’t get banning it. At most for the ethical prudes is limiting one self to the models that were legally trained. But I have no problem admitting I am not one of those.
I still haven’t seen anything neat from any models that were certified following only legally permitted content. That said, to my knowledge there’s very few of that variety.
Training off of the work of current artists serves to starve them by negating the chance companies hire them on, and results in circumstances where AI trains off of other AIs, creating terrible work and a complete lack of innovation.
People suggest a brilliant future where no one has to work and AI does everything, but current generations of executives are so cut-throat and greedy to maximize revenue at the top, that will never happen without extreme, rapid political and commercial reform.
Artists have been always starving. The future is such that if you can’t compete with ai , chose another profession where you can. That’s not something I want, but the world is changing and people have to change with it. That’s either with another profession or by voting in politicians that can redistribute the wealth back to them. There is no option where the progress stops , where the clock stops ticking.
Many artists do starve, and many others succeed. Not sure what your point is, or why you want to shift the needle more in the former direction.
AI can’t compete with artists if they are not generating content to serve for the model. Even if the models could achieve consistent art, it would mean we get no new themes or ideas. People who would normally invent those new styles will start by repeating what’s existing, and will be paid for that.
Many nations provide grants for art, because they recognize it’s a world that doesn’t always generate immediate, quantifiable monetary return, but in the long run proves valuable. The base expectation is that companies recognize that value and uniqueness in fostered talent as well, rather than the immediacy of AI prompts giving them “good enough” visuals.
Artists are always starving is because that’s how it’s always been. I don’t think it can be an argument for or against anything.
I’ve worked with ai image generation professionally and I can say that they are not missing new ideas if people using them aren’t. They are great for brainstorming new ideas. They can’t make a design, but are a great tool speeding up the process.
I love art. I go to galleries often. I don’t think ai can do that and will never be able to. Not true art like capturing a moment in time with the original style of the artist and their life experience. I don’t think ai is a threat to that.
I saw an article about an artist who used AI just for overall composition, and who said that he couldn’t compete if he didn’t do this, because everyone in his field was doing it and it was significantly faster than what he used to do.
I suspect that when people say things like “AI cannot possibly help field X be more efficient like it does in field Y,” what they often really mean is, “I work in field Y and not field X.”
He’s right. You have to use the tools at your disposal. It’s not only a matter of survival but also about streamlining your work process. Focusing on the main design decisions and letting the machine do at least some of the leg work when possible. It’s more pleasant like that.
I don’t mind people hating on ai. Everybody can not use it as much as they want.
Don’t. I think it honestly has a place. Now that place is vastly different from what business bros think it is, but it does have a place. I think writing tests is a great reason, and it’s a good double check. Writing documentation is good, and even writing some boilerplate code and models. The kicker is that you need to already be an engineer to use it, and to understand what it’s doing. I would not trust it blindly, and I feel confident enough to catch it.
It’s another tool in our belt, it’s fine to use it that way. Management is insane though if they think you’ll 10x. Maybe 2x.
Entire problem with AI is literally a legal one. The entire moral outrage that everyone has for it has only been able to be sourced back to legal arguments. Hell even every philosophical argument being made all over the place still stems down to the legalities of it.
If you can find a single moral or philosophical argument to be made that does not have a rooted bias in the law then you might have a reason to feel dirty. But realistically you only feel dirty because your being told to feel dirty by idiots all around you.
If you hold copyright to that high of an esteem that you feel disgraced and sullied for violating it even indirectly then yeah, feel dirty. But I really doubt you hold the draconian laws of copyright to such a high morale standing as to let your self worth be hurt from it.
But even still, beyond ai, every tool you use in your work flow is almost guaranteed to be built off the back of abuse, slave labor, theft, and exploitation at some level. If we threw away tools and progress just because they were built by assholes we would have no tools at all.
Fight for better regulation, and more care in the next step of advancement. But to throw away tools is just not realistic, we live in reality unfortunately.
If the tool is genuinely useless to you then don’t use it. If it is genuinely useful then use it. If you can find a better tool then use that instead.
The copyright thing doesn’t bother me much, but the absurdly inflated hype and pushiness from the companies does, and using it at this moment only feeds into it. Probably after the bubble bursts I won’t feel bad about using it.
If you acknowledge the problem with theft from artists, do you not acknowledge there’s a problem with theft from coders? Code intended to be fully open source with licenses requiring derivatives to be open source is now being served up for closed source uses at the press of a button with no acknowledgement.
For what it’s worth, I think AI would be much better in a post scarcity moneyless society, but so long as people need to be paid for their work I find it hard to use ethically. The time it might take individuals to do the things offloaded to AI might mean a company would need to hire an additional person if they were not using AI. If AI were not trained unethically then I’d view it as a productivity tool and so be it, but because it has stolen for its training data it’s hard for me to view it as a neutral tool.
If the models are in fact reading code that’s GPL licensed, I think that’s a fair concern. Lots of code on sites like Stack Overflow is shared with the default assumption that their rights are not protected (that varies for some coding sites). That’s helpful if the whole point is for people to copy paste those solutions into large enterprise apps, especially if there’s no feasible way to write it a different way.
The main reason I don’t pursue that issue is that with so much public documentation, it becomes very hard to prove what was generated from code theft. I’ve worked with AI models that were able to make very functioning apps just off a project’s documentation, without even seeing examples.
I don’t think training on all public information is super ethical regardless, but to the extent that others may support it, I understand that SO may be seen as fair game. To my knowledge though, all the big AIs I’m aware of have been trained on GitHub regardless of any individual projects license.
It’s not about proving individual code theft, it’s about recognizing the model itself is built from theft. Just because an AI image output might not resemble any preexisting piece of art doesn’t mean it isn’t based on theft. Can I ask what you used that was trained on just a projects documentation? Considering the amount of data usually needed for coherent output, I would be surprised if it did not need some additional data.
The example I gave was more around “context” than “model” - data related to the question, not their learning history. I would ask the AI to design a system that interacts with XYZ, and it would be thoroughly confused and have no idea what to do. Then I would ask again, linking it to the project’s documentation page, as well as granting it explicit access to fetch relevant webpages, and it would give a detailed response. That suggests to me it’s only working off of the documentation.
That said, AIs are not strictly honest, so I think you have a point that the original model training may have grabbed data like that at some point regardless. If most AI models don’t track/cite the details on each source used for generation, be it artwork on Deviantart or licensed Github repos, I think it’s fair to say any of those models should become legally liable; moreso if there’s ways of demonstrating “copying-like” actions from the original.
I fucking hate gen AI art and it has made my life more difficult in many ways… suddenly it infests shit in a way it shouldn’t
seeing as how using genAI even during development is still rare enough that it makes the news, I can’t imagine it’s been as big of a problem for them as they make it seem. this sounds more like a smaller publisher taking a popular public stance for the PR.
Multiple genres of games are about doing mass killings for fun.
You know that bit when you get bored playing some open world game, go around killing everyone, then reload? Postal is That: The Game. Just without the reloading.
the developers write that “our studio was mistakenly accused of using AI-generated art in our games, and every attempt to clarify our work only escalated the situation”. They say they’ve received a lot of insults and threats as a consequence.
It’s pretty much guaranteed that many AAA games out over the past 2 years had AI generated elements. Though finding these is not plausible. Telling about separate grass or tile textures if they are AI generated or taken from the asset store, or god forgive Ai generated assets taken from the asset store is basically impossible.
Alternatively imagine if an artist draws a concept art of an in game item & then uses image generation for creating the actual game assets. How will anyone find out?
I sincerely hope that Grand theft Auto 6 ships and people find generative AI elements in it. I hope it’s one of those games that’s so Blockbuster it tells you you’re going to either eat your morals or you’re not going to get that thing you want.
Just to clarify a little bit (I was a little confused myself):
Postal was developed by the studio Goonswarm. The publisher Running With Scissors cancelled their games release because of the AI claims, and in response the developers have closed their studio, probably due to the financial strain of having your game completely cancelled by your publisher.
“After revealing POSTAL: Bullet Paradise, a title Running With Scissors was planning on publishing but not developing, we’ve been overwhelmed with negative responses from our concerned POSTAL Community,” reads a statement from Running With Scissors founder Vince Desi, emailed to RPS this afternoon. "The strong feedback from them is that elements of the game are very likely AI-generated and thus has caused extreme damage to our brand and our company reputation.
“We’ve always been, and will always be, transparent with our community,” Desi continues. "Our trust in the development team is broken; therefore, we’ve killed the project. We have a lot of good things coming (some you know and some you don’t).
“Since forming Running With Scissors in 1996, we’ve always said that our fans are part of the team,” it concludes. “Our priority is to always do right by the millions who support the POSTAL franchise. We are grateful for the opportunity to make the games we want to play, and will continue to focus on our new projects and updates coming in 2026 and beyond. We can’t wait to share more!”
Postal: Bullet Paradise was once “a timeline-hopping, dystopian bullet heaven first-person shooter with POSTAL’s signature darkly humorous personality”. The project is “no longer available” on Steam, though it still has a page as of writing.
Desi’s statement doesn’t mention which elements of the game may have been AI-generated, or whether they’ve taken any steps to confirm this with Goonswarm.
It seems like the publisher hasn’t done much to work with the devs, finding the true story instead of reacting to knee-jerk public opinions, and has just pulled the rug out from under them to protect themselves instead.
The devs have adamantly insisted there is no AI in their work; and if true, this really really sucks.
This really comes off as a knee-jerk reaction by RWS. I get they’ve been burned in the past by shit like Postal 3, and Postal is about all they have, but this should have been handled much better.
Delay things, verify there is no generative AI used, at worst replace assets that are deemed questionable.
RWS saying they “don’t trust the developers” anymore is a bizarre thing to talk about in public so quickly.
If I were a part of the development team I’d be thinking “ok, don’t ever work with a company with a name like ‘running with scissors’ ever again,” they don’t make good decisions.
Even in that case, they were quick to cut ties and not mention it to the public in the announcement, which doesn’t make them look any better.
I say this as a long time Postal fan girl, I can ever get a slight kick out of 3 as terrible as it is. Either way, RWS doesn’t look good right now. They were either aware of generative AI being used and refused to declare it, or they decided a bit of public backlash was worth tanking a studio over without verification.
they could also have not liked the way that the project was going and just used this as an excuse to fire the developer. not defending RWS, as it looks pretty shitty with the little context that we have
I’m not defending Valve here they need to have more values, but realistically this game was never going to be available for sale in Russia. No matter what they did.
I strongly disagree, the Workers & Resource DLC link can provide some insights on this; russian language reviews talk about “getting salo for the Ukrainians” and whataboutism about Palestine (like they care about Palestine, if anything most russians tend to support Israel). There is lots of anti-Ukrainian, pro-invasion russian language commentary on Steam.
We’ve lived in russia as an expat family for many years, we left as soon as our finances allowed us to (this was was before the russians invaded Georgia in 2008).
Then there is broader research on russian support for the full scale invasion; even using demographic splits (e.g. people aged 18 to 24, highly educated russians, high income russians), all demographic segments show at least majority support for the full scale invasion (with almost all segment groups showing at strong majority support and very commonly overwhelming majority support).
With respect to arguments that “people are afraid to show their true views”; there are multiple research pieces that specifically account for preference falsification. Some russians do hide their preferences, but this group is so small that even with preference falsification adjustments you have a strong majority support (65%+) for the full scale invasion. That’s specifically the full scale invasion (i.e. 2022), with respect to the annexation of Crimea, preference falsification was found to be not statistically significant with the respect to the baseline ~85% support for the annexation of Crimea.
The level of support for the Russian armed forces has not changed significantly since the beginning of the conflict – the majority of respondents (76%) support the actions of Russian troops in Ukraine, including 48% “definitely support” and another 28% “rather support” the action of Russian army. 16% are against.
Research with preference falsification adjustments with respect to support for the full scale invasion:
The vast majority of Russians (86%) consistently support the accession of Crimea to Russia – this indicator has fluctuated slightly since 2014. 9% do not support the accession.
Research with preference falsification adjustments with respect to support for annexation of Crimea:
Using the list-experiment technique, Timothy Frye and others showed that Putin's approval rating after the annexation of Crimea was actually high, at around 80%. In their study, they made a list of famous Russian politicians and had respondents answer how many of these politicians they supported. They then estimated Putin's approval rating by adding the name "Putin" to the list for only one group[*]3 and thus concluded that the high approval ratings after the annexation of Crimea were not very different from the findings of opinion pollsters.
A high level overview of russian support for the invasion of Ukraine (a summary, but with links to relevant research, albeit some sources will be in russian):
Younger people still support the war in high numbers, though their support is lower than that of the older generation: 75–80 percent of people fifty-five and older support the Russian army’s actions in Ukraine, while 61 percent of young respondents in Levada polls share this sentiment.
I understand. This is a forum, so I am not going to add expansive footnotes to my posts, but I am happy to cite the research I have read if asked. FWIW, I have also read counter argument for approaches used by the research I have cited (which I don’t find convincing).
Just pointing out that I am not randomly making stuff up.
Steam always chose the path of least resistance when it comes to dealing with law maker demands even when there were more consumer friendly ways available. This is not surprising at all.
You ask an excellent question, one that I feel you already know the answer to. From my understanding, the term is unfortunately broadly overused for any procedurally generated game, to the point where the original meaning has been lost to time.
Man I wish we had better terminology for this type of game. Roguelike and roguelite give the same energy as “Doom-clone” for every fps in the 90s. Later we called them FPS games. That genre has since been refined into tactical shooters, arcade shooters, milsim, etc. Meanwhile, we’re still stuck calling all games that have randomized runs “rogue-likes”. Being pedantic about the definition doesn’t make this situation better.
Most modern roguelikes tend to only have the first two of these, tho. But those are the 4 main elements of the original game for which the genre derives its own, Rogue.
And Rogue-lites tend to make progression persist after death, at least partially. Such as with the unlockable weapons and things in Hades, while the boons and other abilities are pick ups you only have until death untill you pick them up again the next run.
rockpapershotgun.com
Aktywne