[Off Topic] - Why Is A.I. Generated Content Like Music & Images Looked Down Upon In Video Games?

General
23

We’re talking past each other a little, and my response was also kind of a mess of a lot of stuff. So I’ll explain the philosophical / moral argument in clear terms first.

My fundamental qualm is with the algorithmic generation of human communication. Art is something people engage with as a form of communication. One human makes something, another receives it and is changed by it. That, to me, is pretty much as sacred of a thing as sacred gets. So I am categorically against any technology that lessens the amount of agency humans have in their communications. So yes, my problem is with the tool itself, and I dont believe it can be used in a way that isnt harmful, even if a miniscule amount. And thats without even beginning to talk about the fact that all of these tools are created and controlled by the most evil corporations in the world.

So the whole “you only know that because I told you that”. Yes I know, that was my point. If I read a poem and it moves me, changes my thinking, and unbeknownst to me it was made by AI, thats a bad thing that just happened. Yeah, if you deride people who make stuff with LLM’s theyll hide it, but you still have to deride them.

Yes.

Yup. Learning from a human is better. Even if you think you used AI in such a small way that its effectively the same as just copying some guy, just copy the guy. It’s not black and white in the sense that theres worse and less bad versions of it, but no, there is never a situation where it wouldnt just be better not to.

This is you missing my point entirely. The limitations and strengths of your medium are a part of creating art. The random output of an algorithm isnt a limitation of a medium, its, as i said before, going up to a guy and asking them to make something, except there is no guy. There is no other comparison to be made, this technology is unique.

If only there was a way he could use that experience and knowledge to create art that wasnt algorithmically diluted but, i guess we just dont have the technology for it yet. Sorry if im coming across hostile here, its not so much directed at you as it is at the larger picture, but it does kind of anger me. People who using ai to make stuff they couldnt make themselves is the bigger problem here, but artists who are capable of creating real art using ai is just mystifying to me.

I do not know, but also the fundamental critique remains as long as the tool is a neural network that trains on data, its the same shit. Im sure in the future well get more and more detailed versions of these things, which give you more and more control over the output. Maybe it’ll go so far that one day they invent a guitar. You see my point.

First, i was not referring to your songs with that, but all of ai creation in general. And I did listen to this one, dunno why its not showing for you. Its what I was referring to with “I can try to appreciate the part thats you”.

And I would describe it as fairly generic yeah. I don’t hate it, and I’m sure I would like it less without your input, as I said, it can be a mix. But, as I also said, it is impossible to know which parts of it are the ones where i am listening to a human express themselves, when its buried in slop. Thats not an insult to your songwriting ability, i couldnt even comment on that, because I havent heard anything youve written. I get the impression I would probably like it.

I just reject this conflation of AI’s or LLM’s with real artistic mediums. Im not arguing about the merits of the art, im arguing it isnt art. The problem isnt that its easy, the problem is that theres basically no relationship between the input and the end product. And no, there isnt. Painting a picture, whether its shit or a masterpiece, takes a million times more artistic intention than writing a prompt. If you write a prompt and get a painting, well, youve just asked someone else to do it. Im waiting for you to address that point.
This is not a good faith argument and you know that.

I know the difference between LLM’s and AI, I’ll keep saying AI because thats what people say.

True, though it doesnt help that my projections are repeatedly strengthened by the fact that every time you see someone defending AI art, its the worst guy you’ve ever seen. Not you, I’m sure youre aware of the type. One of them left a comment not worth replying to in the thread above. Yeah, I havent really talked with anyone who uses AI in the last couple years cause none of my friends do it anymore.

I recognize that somewhere in there, there does exist a philosophical grey area. Like what the person above was saying about training your own llm on your own art. I dont know where that line is, and I doubt we’ll ever find out, because every example of existing llm’s is firmly on one side of that line, and moving away from it.
Yes, its trained on real art. I think that when you pour a billion paintings into a blender and make it churn out average approximations based on that data, its not art anymore. I cant prove that, and I’m not too interested in the conversation to be honest. This is a case where im more than comfortable just going with my gut, and seeing that the majority of guts agree with me, im cool making the stand here and leaving the philosophy for later.

I dont really see artists saying that though. I’ll be blunt here, and I’m hoping that you dont think im directing this at you because you seem like a genuinely bright and creative guy: 99% of people I see defending prompt creation as artistic expression are untalented, undriven and generally anti-social. Nothing makes me more certain I’m right than seeing who disagrees with me. This is the first conversation in a long time ive had about ai with someone smart.

I’ll read those articles.

4 Likes
24

I am a guy that does all my art from scratch, whether music, pixel art, or game art,
AI code is logic, even though i prefer not to use it, so if it is testable then it works, no one really cares about that anyways,
on the contrary, AI artwork of any kind can only be made within the specific guidelines of its training.
I can easily tell whether AI art is or is not, and now, using AI for music CAN be fine if you provide your own pieces, but it generally does take a lot of value away from it.

I can justify AI music logically more than AI textures, which honestly i find to be complete trash,
i was kinda bummed out when i saw games on Nintendo’s Eshop with italian brainrot AI photos.
AI’s “path” is inevitable, but really it mainly applies to those who depend on it.

(this comment can be completely ignored)

2 Likes
25

None of those things are comparable to ai. You know that. We’re describing what we want to a smart rock which does it for us. It’s not bad because its new or easy, its bad because its not you making it.

Very bad faith, or poor reading comprehension. i highlighted the words you didnt read this time.

If you want to make games by yourself, you should learn how to make games. If you want to make full games but only want to code, do it with other people or get free assets online. If you dont want to make games, i dunno, dont?

1 Like
26

Well i don’t know if we will get any further. Thanks for sharing your point of view.

1 Like
27

I’m not ignoring the things you said before I started quoting. I agree mostly, and they make sense from where you are coming from.

Here’s where the reality of life gets in the way. A few examples.

Professional Photography

I have a friend who is a professional photographer. A year or so before ChatGPT came out, Adobe Photoshop came out with an LLM-powered plugin. It studied the way the individual edited photographs, and then could batch edit phots for you, saving bunches of time. You could then go in and tweak things. But it could apply color grading, fix blemishes and redeye, etc.

If my friend had not adopted using this tool, they would not be able to keep up with other professional photographers who can now do more sessions. The economy since the pandemic has been brutal for photographers, because they can’t raise prices, and less people are spending money on professional photos.

The money to survive has to come from somewhere, and TBH they’ve been living at a pretty low income level anyway. A common problem for artists who make a living with their art.

Programming

You may not think of programming as art, but I do. It’s a very artistic expression of pure logic and clean code at high levels.

Developers are being put out of work in record numbers. Failing to adapt and use AI is a sure way to fall behind. The only way to resist using AI professionally is to already be in the top1% of the profession. Long term there are going to be problems with this, but the reality is programmers need jobs.

I have worked for companies I didn’t love because I had a family to support and needed to put food on the table. There are lots of programmers now fixing AI outputs because it keeps them employed - not because it’s what they want to do. But there are also people who are fine doing that job. Those people are a detriment. People who settle and accept. But what choice do they have financially?

Music Production / VFX / Film Editing

Not everyone uses autotune, but it’s out there. CGI is something an LLM can do pretty well - it’s already fake. Music production and film editing benefit not from the LLM taking over, but things like cutting a sound or visual thing out. LLMs are pretty good at that.

Our post-capitalist society requires people to continue to make more, faster to keep up with inflation and the ever growing economy. People who don’t use these tools will fall behind. And yes, you can create bespoke stuff, but most people cannot be bespoke artists.

Ideal World vs. Reality

This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

The Hollow Men
- T.S. Elliot

The problem is that rich people want to get richer, and corporations are legally rich people. People will be forced to use LLM tools to provide for themselves. Like the Luddites, we can rail against it, but in the end it is futile because we do not hold the power.

Not everyone can afford to be a purist (or puritan as @baba put it).

I don’t see my point. Not trying to be obtuse.

I have seen the rise of Tata Taktumi, a performance piece created by legendary music producer Timbaland, using a real model for the face, and AI-generated music by Suno but run through professional music production by a very successful music producer. He’s not doing what you think he’s doing. And people only know his song is LLM-generated because he wants them to. It’s a performance piece. It’s art that’s meant to prod people to anger and get a reaction. The art isn’t the music - it’s the entire package and the delivery to an audience that is not sure if it wants it, but is divided between the vehemently opposed and the uncaring. You could not do this performance piece without the outrage.

Well cool. I’m not sure why it’s not showing either.

I get what you’re going for. I guess I might relate our discussion to a wine taster. I get that it’s not for you, but lots of people buy cheap wine.

Honestly, one of my biggest fears was just my doing that experiment, people would somehow assume in the future that all the music I use is LLM-generated. Which it is not. In fact, I’ve spent a lot of money supporting video game music composers.

I appreciate the thoughtful response.

That’s a fair point. My response to that is how is that different from the job of a video game producer or designer in a large company who comes up with ideas, but doesn’t know how to code, make game art, music or SFX? They are literally writing prompts in the form of design documentation or use cases or tickets.

Perhaps you don’t see it that way, but as someone who has worked in the games industry, there’s a comparison. No it’s not 1-to-1, but I also don’t think it’s apples and oranges.

I was being facetious. My point was that as technology changes, people adapt. I think @baba made this point better than I.

You do you. But I find it interesting that your argument here is basically what I’m saying about art. You’re saying because the masses have accepted the shorthand, you’re ok with it. I’m saying that the masses have also accepted that art can come from LLMs, and you do not like their judgement on that subject.

No offense taken. I debate them fairly regularly when it comes to AI generated code. There’s a whole thread about it here that I started: Thoughts on answering/fixing AI LLM-created garbage code?

You are privileged then. As a software developer, I cannot get away from it. I’m currently doing work for a guy on a game, and he’s started using an LLM to code things I haven’t gotten to yet. I can either fix his output, or code it from scratch. I don’t get paid by the minute. Fixing his LLM slop code is faster than doing it myself and honestly, one more thing off my plate. I don’t love it, but I have to make a living.

Also, because I’ve spent time using and studying LLMs, and have kept abreast of them, I can direct him to the tools that cause me the least headaches.

Not having to to interact with LLMs for one’s job is a privilege that I do not have.

I don’t have data on the average gut, but when they do start doing studies, I believe apathy is going to win out - if not in the short term, the long term.

I appreciate the compliments.

You bring up good points. and I think it ties into the male loneliness epidemic, Gen Z and Alpha growing up on their phones and social media, and the general apathy of those generations about the state of the world.

My thought is that 100% human-generated art will become rarer. It will become bespoke. Like sitting for an oil painting as opposed to family pictures. So you’re probably right that artists won’t say that. But I think there will also be delineation of 100% human art. It’s already happening in the ad world.

I also see things like Suno, and the picture and video equivalents providing a service. That service is expression for people who do not have the means to express themselves any other way. Much as social media was for previous generations. Maybe not artistic expression (I agree that just using a prompt isn’t artistic expression, I’m just not sure where the line is), but it is the tools they have easy access to.

6 Likes
28

It seems we dont disagree on much, im just angrier- and perhaps more naive- when it comes to this stuff.
Of course my anger isn’t directed at people who have to use LLM’s as necessity for survival, because their field demands it. I am indeed fortunate to not have to. Here I’m in particular railing against the use of these tools for people’s own art, whether its to cut corners or just because someone doesnt comprehend the value of expression (which i consider to be a deep personal failure).

As said it may be naive of me, but I will continue to rail against it. This isn’t something that just affects certain professions, the art to slop movement is an erosion of everyone’s happiness. And it’s not true that we have no power, big video game companies for example are constantly trying to integrate LLM’s into their creation process, and are being continuously scared into backing down by outrage. People do care, a lot.

I do not agree that the masses have accepted it. It’s an ongoing battleground, and the only reason it seems there’s even a conversation is because of the billions, soon to be trillions of dollars behind it. Dollars that come from speculative investment and have nothing to do with real economics, or real people’s opinions.

It’s not. The point being, as far as personal agency over the outcome goes, its the same as that. But without the person who then creates art based on those prompts.

I don’t think the point he made was sound. Yes in the grand scheme, technology changes, some people dont like it, the rest adapt. But those people were arguing for tradition mostly. This is categorically different, I’m not arguing for tradition, I’m arguing that we’re moving to a post-human world where thinking is outsourced to robots. I think my argument will be more persuasive.

Maybe. Rather than predict that I’ll lose, I’ll just keep railing though.

100%

I hate it but I think you’re probably right. I do still have hope though, that AI will be kept out of art that people consume for their own pleasure. Ads are a slightly different story, since they were basically algorithmic slop even before LLM’s were introduced, so I’m not expecting anyone to get off their couch for that one. The use of AI-generated content is still very much not kosher in visual arts, music, video games, movies, literature etc. I mean companies still get in trouble for that. As long as thats the trend, not of the companies but of people’s responses, I don’t see any reason to lay down and take it.

This is where I’ll still have to disagree. I see those things as toys, and the service they provide is letting people have fun and pretend theyre creating stuff while rotting their perception of reality. It’s a service in the way cigarettes are a service; sure there’s demand for it, but not to anyone’s benefit but the shareholders. Which is why I will continue to lampoon people who use this stuff for fun, I think it’s bad for society and bad for them personally. Ridicule is a strong force in shaping a society, and you don’t need any money to use it.

1 Like
29

Here is some food for thought. How many people here have subscriptions to Amazon, Netflix, Disney+, Paramount+, Hulu, etc.? How many are running Windows? How many use Google search, YouTube, or Spotify daily?

If your opposition to AI is genuinely about data center power consumption, water usage, and the scale of the infrastructure, why are you still financially supporting the companies that built and operate the infrastructure at scale? What these companies spend and consume makes a solo dev’s Midjourney subscription look like a rounding error. I mean, Amazon Web Services alone powers a massive portion of the internet, and Amazon is one of the largest AI investors in the world. Netflix uses ML models extensively in production and recommendation. Microsoft has invested over $13 billion into OpenAI. Every Disney+ stream, every Google search, every YouTube video… you are funding the machine that you claim to oppose.

As a solo dev who attempted to release an AI product (without looking into the community on here or reddit) I got absolutely burned to the ground for having an AI product (especially on Reddit, it was rough). The outrage of the Godot community tends to land on the solo dev using AI to generate a little background music or something, but not on the billion-dollar corporations that build the data centers this technology actually runs on.

It seems like it is not a principled stance against AI. It looks more like people taking advantage of the easiest available target, who are just regular people who can’t afford to hire artists and audio engineers. Why still give your money to the corporations if you are so principled on the matter? It doesn’t read as a line being drawn for ethics as much as it is aesthetic. It’s a big difference. If the line you’re drawing is principled, it shouldn’t only apply to the people with the least power in the room, right?

One more thing worth noting: this forum runs on Discourse. They have a first-party AI product. Discourse sells AI features. Their officially supported AI providers include OpenAI, Anthropic, and Amazon AWS Bedrock. We are literally having this conversation on a platform that is actively monetizing the thing you’re upset about.

2 Likes
31

What I tried to release is something called Godot Pilot. It’s specifically for Godot devs, so I do care about their opinions. Or at least I did before I got burned. I didn’t come here to write a retribution post, even if it looks that way.

I was actually advised by @dragonforge-dev to spend some time reading the forums to understand why I was getting torched over AI. When I came here, all I was reading was frustration being directed everywhere except at the corporations that the data centers are actually built for. I realized there are devs in here who almost certainly watch Star Wars and Marvel on Disney+, use Windows, and listen to Spotify. I wanted to continue the conversation to figure out why that disconnect exists.

And to your point about attribution and composers, you’re right, and I think that’s actually a fair and separate conversation. Passing off AI-generated work as entirely your own without disclosure is a real problem, and I don’t want to dismiss the impact that has on composers and artists who are just starting out. That’s a legitimate concern that deserves its own discussion.

What I’m pushing back on is the idea that a solo dev using AI tools to ship something they couldn’t otherwise afford to ship deserves the same outrage as the companies actually building this infrastructure. Those aren’t the same thing.

Ultimately, I’m trying to learn how to sell a genuinely helpful AI product in a world where I get demolished for it, while the people doing the demolishing are consuming AI products all day on a platform that is itself powered by AI. It just seemed too hypocritical to not say something.

I genuinely want to engage with this community and figure out if I have a place in it, and if so, where that is.

1 Like
32

A.I is not the thing for this forum. There have been at least 6 cold wars about AI here…please don’t start a 7th one xD

2 Likes
34

Why do you believe this about yourself? I’ve seen similar statements from others who use generative AI in their work, stating they use AI because they’re simply not good enough to produce art without it. What do you mean by “I have reached the limit of my potential”?

If you mean that you have reached the limits of your capacity to learn new skills, then I think you’re just wrong. You have potential, you can grow and learn; don’t put yourself down like that. If you feel like your skills aren’t good enough for professional work so you rely on AI as a crutch, maybe take some time to learn your craft, or perhaps simplify the artstyle and music in your projects to something that matches your skill level.

At the lowest end for art, there have been many successful games that use geometric shapes instead of full sprites. As for music; a simple percussive beat can be enough to drive action, meanwhile a lot of games just use silence with occasional ambient noise instead of soundtracks. You don’t need a ton of skill to make things look and sound good.

Push comes to shove, Kenney assets and Freesound.org exist, as well as countless other royalty-free resources. If you really can’t make the art and music yourself, there’s an endless supply of free stuff you’re allowed to use; some of it is even professionally-made, like the royalty-free Sonniss sound libraries: https://sonniss.com/gameaudiogdc/

To reiterate my point; you have potential. You don’t need to use a crutch, and even if you want to use one because it’s easier, there are better, cheaper crutches than AI.

3 Likes
35

@Frozen_Fried Fair point, and I get it. Nobody wants a 7th cold war. That’s genuinely not what I’m after.

But I’d ask this: if the concern is AI, why does the frustration consistently land on solo devs while the corporations actually building this infrastructure get a pass? It’s a bit like a vegetarian wearing leather boots. The line being drawn doesn’t quite match the principles behind it.

I’m not asking anyone to love AI. I’m just asking for a little consistency and humility. That seems like a reasonable conversation to have without it becoming a cold war.

1 Like
36

Those major corporations aren’t here, and they wouldn’t have any market if people don’t provide demand

To compare with your vegetarian with leather boots analogy: it’s like asking why farmers raise cows instead of asking people why they eat meat

Edit: Obviously they have a huge responsibility for how they handle their product, and how they do so ethically, but ultimately without consumers their product doesn’t exist. This community, and this forum, also includes a lot of people who are affected by this, artists, programmers, designers, etc., who depend on the community for their income with their artistic work etc.

5 Likes
37

The corporations don’t get a free pass. They’re getting plenty of criticism for it.

6 Likes
38

Individuals have almost no power over corporations. For things like that to change, it needs to come from organized collective political movements. Same as with environmental issues and many other issues.
Thing is, corporations are so powerful nowadays that even that seems pretty much impossible

2 Likes
39

Why do governments arrest drug addicts instead of just the people providing the drugs?

Why do companies get a pass on recycling when they convinced people for decades that it was the individual’s responsibility and fault?

That’s the way the world is. Life isn’t fair.

But to your point, making money as an individual using AI has the same ethical dilemma you are asking about? If you care about things like the environment or corporations making a buck at everyone else’s expense, how come you’ve decided to support them?

And if you don’t care, how come you are questioning how others live out their beliefs and exercising the power they do have - which is at an individual level.

9 Likes
40

I think it’s also important to be mindful of that people talking about the various issues of AI, their own refusal to use AI, and their refusal to consume AI produced content, is not an attack on, or even a criticism of, those who do, or those who enjoy those things, as easy as it can be to feel that way, and I feel that a lot of very polite, very constructive conversations that aren’t blaming or guilting anyone are misconstrued as “why do you hate us who use AI so much”

Edit: The very way this post is framed in the title is non-constructive by the use of “looked down upon” which is very charged and presents critics in a critical light, implying an attitude of superiority or entitlement etc., and I think that’s true for a lot of the conversations on here on the topic, a lot of people presenting the critical voices as bigoted or unreasonable or ignorant

2 Likes
41

This is a little bit of a “you criticize society, yet you live in society” type argument. As you are clearly very aware, just about every marot tech company in the world uses AI in one form or another. We are mad at them, it’s just, we don’t have the billions of dollars it would take to do anything about them.

But at the same time, outrage directed at solo devs, small creators and the like who use AI products is the one thing we can actually do to affect some change (obviously not talking about people who are forced to use those tools to make a living, but people like OP up top). We can’t stop Google, but we can at the very least reject the use of AI in our own circles, and that is still worth something. It’s the only power we have.

I reject entirely the notion that by using YouTube or Godot Forums, we are somehow meaningfully supporting these platforms. If you want to change people’s minds, you have to talk to them, and to do that you have to go where they are. It’s about cultural movements, not how many cents you’ve personally added to Meta’s dragon hoard. The worth of those companies is tied up in speculative investment anyway, if our “support” mattered to them they would lose money when the economy loses money, not multiply their worth.

I think youre basically just trying to get a pass to cross the picket line.

4 Likes
42

I think this is a very important point: the big industry isn’t us, and we’re not them, they are able to do things we can’t, and vice versa, just because they do things doesn’t mean we have to, and us using certain things, AI or otherwise, can have an impact on our fellow devs that the big companies doing so just doesn’t

The big studios don’t tell a lot of stories we can for example, games that represent groups that would never get a AAA game because there’s no profit for them in it (or so they tell themselves)

Does that mean we should give up on telling those stories? Or using those odd new ideas that the big studios would never do because it’s too risky?

We have a responsibility to one another, or we’ll find ourselves with no one else around because everyone had to stop doing indie dev because they couldn’t pay the bills, even if you’d never pay an artist for art you’d still be affected by a big part of the artists in the open source and indie world becoming homeless or having to get a 9-5 job instead of doing what they love

(Also, there’s no guarantee that the big studios using AI won’t hurt them massively, the technology is nowhere near replacing humans and them replacing artists and programmers and designers can easily crash their whole situation, especially if they alienate their workers)

4 Likes
43

Honestly the AI problems are far more bad than just “the environment”, jobs, etc..
Either way, as long as some company wants to make advanced tech,
a “Midgar” scenario is already inevitable.

As for the whole AI being unethical, it literally sounds to me like buying a tool or using a free tool makes people lose their jobs. I am not saying i dont care, i am saying that looking at the full chessboard, i can see no good moves to be made, the small amount we can contribute to is not enough, eventually i feel like AI will replace almost all indie dev (and i am not exited about)

This AI thing is a lost cause, only reason i would say not to use AI is the backlash you see before you. I would more so be worried about Gen Alpha being raised with AI, the more they get used to it, the worse the future becomes.

2 Likes
44

Ultimately we also have to recognize that there are levels of impact, and scope

For example, does it really change anything measurably about climate change if you drive your car to work instead of taking public transport when you are able? Not really. But does it affect other things tangibly? Yes! Does you not driving a car today mean less local pollution, less air particulates from your tires, less noise pollution, less congestion? Yes!

Does your choice to use or not use AI affect the industry at large? Not necessarily, not without organized action. But does you choosing to make a game with AI art instead of paying a real artist real money have a real impact on real people and their lives (or for that matter free art, which when presented voluntarily has real value for visibility for artists)? Yes! AI won’t solve a world where all indie artists have stopped making art because they can’t live off it any longer

Just like you choosing to not bother to drop the trash in the bin doesn’t really put a dent in ocean pollution etc., it does have the potential for real, tangible impact in the world around you. If you chose not to throw that gum on the pavement and instead put it in the bin or in the wrapping a bird might not get injured today (and perhaps that gum ends up on the street anyway because someone searches through the bin, but you did your part to try to prevent that)

3 Likes