• SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I know you’re being sarcastic but if we actually look on the bright side, then tools like this could make indie games easier to produce. More and better indie games could in theory bring more competition to companies like EA and that could actually pressure them to make games cheaper.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        AI is pretty decent for general purpose mono-textures, grass, brick wall, concrete, that sort of thing. Its not very good if you want to texture something that isn’t mostly flat (though some manual post processing can mean its still a time saver) and its more or less useless for objects that aren’t all made out of one material.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      If that technology existed (it doesn’t, probably won’t for decades without noticeable drops in quality) then for the first several years it would be sold exclusively as a premium product subscription locking indie devs out the same way custom builds of Unity Engine or Cloud Computing Suites are.

    • skulbuny@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’m a socialist. I understand market forces and I wish more people did. Technology itself can help the lower class. Government protection of technology (patents, copyright) will always hinder them.

      lowering the barrier to entry without protecting the elite will bring about market forces necessary to defeat corporations—small sizes can move and adapt faster and try new things than those with institutional bureaucracy, who just follow the money and don’t innovate. Corporations learned this, and now use government protections (copyright, patents) to prevent these new, necessary, market forces. I don’t like the “economic” terms myself, but it’s not rocket science that corporations benefit from cops (aka law enforcement aka laws).

      We can remove the restrictions on new market forces by reducing IP protections, prevent corporations from mucking with newbies by preventing them from getting uncompetitive protections, or by stealing from corporations without regard for the law. I think we should steal more, honestly.

      Stopping technology has never worked, though. I understand the plight of artists, but I’m extremely excited for the new human artists that dream up art that AI can’t create because it hasn’t been fathomed before.

      • athairmor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Government protection of technology (patents, copyright) will always hinder them.

        Good luck inventing or creating something that a person or corporation with more money won’t immediately copy and then push you out of the market.

        Patents and copyright, as originally conceived, are the lower classes only chance to compete.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s how I look at AI. It will never (in it’s current forms) replace people, but it can turn a passionate creator into a one person army

      Using AI is a form of programming - you turn the right words into action. Programming is magic, an AI user is a warlock

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        As a programmer I can tell you that AI is nothing like programming because programming is deterministic and repeatable and AI is anything but.

        • Trantarius@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          AI is actually deterministic, a random input is usually included to let you get multiple outputs for generative tasks. And anyway, you could just save the “random” output when you get a good one.

          • taladar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Maybe deterministic wasn’t quite the correct word but basically it only gives you a result that resembles your previous result if you change absolutely nothing, not the training data for the model, not the model, not the random seed, not the prompt,… which makes it useless for iteratively approaching a usable result. I guess the output space is not contiguous might be a better way to describe it.