494
Indie devs have begun adding a no generative AI stamp to their store pages
(www.gamingonlinux.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
494 points (99.6% liked)
Gaming
2824 readers
280 users here now
The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community
For news, discussions and memes!
Community Rules
This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:
- No NSFW content
You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.
What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:
- Respectful Communication: We strive for positive, constructive dialogue and encourage all members to engage with one another in a courteous and understanding manner.
- Inclusivity: Embracing diversity is at the core of our community. We welcome members from all walks of life and expect interactions to be conducted without discrimination.
- Privacy: Your privacy is paramount. Please respect the privacy of others just as you expect yours to be treated. Personal information should never be shared without consent.
- Integrity: We believe in the integrity of speech and action. As such, honesty is expected, and deceptive practices are strictly prohibited.
- Collaboration: Whether you're here to learn, teach, or simply engage in discussion, collaboration is key. Support your fellow members and contribute positively to shared learning and growth.
If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not sure how to interpret this. The use of any tool can be for good or bad.
If the quality of the game is increased by the use of AI, I'm all for it. If it's used to generate a generic mess, it's probably not going to be interesting enough for me to notice it's existence.
If they mean that they don't use AI to generate art and voice over, I guess it can be good for a medium to large game. But if using AI means it gets made at all, that's better no?
As a dev and foremost artist, I can see using AI to uprez images or to generate random slop you can use to find interesting shapes and as inspiration. As I learn programming, AI is very useful in finding mistakes. Instead of spending days and bothering people or engaging with the assholes at stackoverflow, you can just ask deepseek what is the issue and it will say you misspelled length.
People want pieces of art made by actual humans. Not garbage from the confident statistics black box.
What if they use it as part of the art tho?
Like a horror game that uses an AI to just slightly tweak an image of the paintings in a haunted building continuously everytime you look past them to look just 1% creepier?
Would the feature in that horror game Zort where you sometimes use the player respon item and it respons an NPC that will use clips of what a specific dead player has said while playing count as AI use? If so, that's a pretty good use of AI in horror games in my opinion.
That can be AI depending on how broad your definition is, but it's not GenAI, which is the main concern here.
That's not generative, since it's just copying player input. Feasible without AI, just storing strings for later recall.
AI SLOP! SAD!
That's an interesting enough idea in theory, so here's my take on it, in case you want one.
Yes, it sounds magical, but:
•Ok, I know the researching ability of people has decreased greatly over the years, but using "knowyourmeme" as a source? Really?
• You can now run optimized open source diffusion models on an iPhone, and it's been possible for years. I use that as an example because yes, there's models that can easily run on an Nvidia 1060 these days. Those models are more than enough to handle incremental changes to an image in-game
• Already has for awhile as demonstrated by it being able to run on an iPhone, but yes, it's probably the best way to get an uncanny valley effect in certain paintings in a horror game, as the alternatives would be:
• I'll call an open source model exploitation the day someone can accurately generate an exact work it was trained on not within 1, but at least within 10 generations. I have looked into this myself, unlike seemingly most people on the internet. Last I checked, the closest was a 90 something % similarity image after using an algorithm that modified the prompt over time after thousands of generations. I can find this research paper myself if you want, but there may be newer research out there.
Games aren't background processes. Even today, triple-A titles still sometimes come out as unoptimized hot garbage. Do you genuinely think it's easy to pile a diffusion model on top with negligible effect? Also, will you pack an entire model into your game just for one instance?
Look at the share of people using an 1050 or lower card. Or let's talk about the AMD and Intel issues. These people aren't an insignificant portion. Hell, nearly 15% don't even have 16GB of ram.
What are you talking about? You're satisfied with a diffusion model's output, but won't be with any other method except excruciating manual labor? Your standards are all over the place—or rather, you don't have any. And let's keep it real: most won't give a shit if your game can show them 10 or 100 slightly worse versions of the same image.
Procedural generation has been a thing for decades. Indie devs have been making do with nearly nonexistent art skills and less sophisticated tech for just as long. I feel like you don't actually care about the problem space, you just want to shove AI into the solution.
Are you referring to the OSAID? The infamously broken definition that exists to serve companies? You don't understand what exploitation here means. "Can it regurgitate exact training input" is not the only question to ask, and not the bar. Knowing your work was used without consent to train computers to replace people’s livelihoods is extremely violating. Talk to artists.
I tried to use an accessible and easily understandable example. Fuck off. Go do your own "research", open those beloved diffusion models, make your scary, then scarier images and try asking people what they think of the results. Do it a hundred times, since that's your only excuse as to why you need AI. No cherry-picking, you won't be able to choose what your rube goldberg painting will look like on other people's PCs.
Honest question: are things like trees, rocks, logs in a huge world like a modern RPG all placed by hand, or does it use AI to fill it out?
Not AI but certainly a semirandom function. Then they go through and manually clean it up by hand.
Ah, so this kind of tool is allowable, but not another? Pretty hypocritical thinking there.
A tools is a tool, any tool can be abused.
Most games (pre-ai at least) would use a brush for this and manually tweak the result if it ended up weird.
E.g. if you were building a desert landscape you might use a rock brush to randomly sprinkle the boulder assets around the area. Then the bush brush to sprinkle some dry bushes.
Very rare for someone to spend the time to individually place something like a rock or a tree, unless it is designed to be used in gameplay or a cutscene (e.g. a climable tree to get into a building through a window).
That's only for open world maps, many games where the placement of rocks and trees is something that's subject to miniscule changes for balance reasons.
It’s all virtue signaling. If it’s good, nobody will be able to notice anyway and they’ll want it regardless. The only reason people shit on AI currently is because expert humans are still far better than it.
We’re just at that awkward point in time where AI is better than the random joe but worse than experts.
Not it's not! There are a whole bunch of reasons why people dislike the current AI-wave, from artist exploitation, to energy consumption, to making horrible shitty people and companies richer while trying to obviate people's jobs!
You're so far off, it's insane. That's like saying people only hate slavery because the slaves can't match craftsmen yet. Just wait a bit until they finish training the slaves, just a few more whippings, then everyone will surely shut up.
I agree that those are reasons people give for their reasoning, but if history has shown anything, we know people change their minds when it becomes most convenient to use a technology.
Human ethics is highly dependent on convenience, unfortunately.
It sounds like you gave up and expect everyone else to do the same.
People are pissed that others still care that millions of peoples works were stolen to make gen ai possible. I won't get over it and it makes all AI currently made at least somewhat unethical.
I'd argue that even if gen-AI art is indistinguishable from human art, human art is better. E.g. when examining a painting you might be wondering what the artist was thinking of, what was going on in their life at the time, what they were trying to convey, what techniques they used and why. For AI art, the answer is simply it's statistically similar to art the model has been trained on.
But, yeah, stuff like game textures usually aren't that deep (and I don't think they're typically crafted by hand by artists passionate about the texture).
Are GEN_AI bookshelves a slippery slope or slopp that artists want to avoid?
generative ai is a terrible tool, full stop
I am for the most part angry that people are being put out of work by AI; I actually find AI-generated content interesting sometimes, for example AI Frank Sinatra singing W.A.P. is pretty funny. This label is helpful to me so that I know I'm supporting humans monetarily.
I actually am fascinated by neruo-sama because it really shows that if you assign a face to the ai it instantly becomes so "real" feeling.