cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8882542
It’s a different story for the more established studios with an existing following and previous titles. Game Oracle found that the use of AI by these studios resulted in a significant 40% to 60% drop in sales.
That’s a huge difference. AI stigma seems to hit competent developers with a lot to lose the hardest, and I’m not sure that game studios are ready to accept it.
No, it’s completely different. Video games have always been driven by technical progress where some nerd invented a new rendering technique, implemented it and then convinced some artists and studio to use it and build a content pipeline. Or some new gameplay idea. There is always risk. It’s a highly technical “hit business” where 1 hit pays for the development of 10 misses. It’s technical nerds or artists driving the risk and businessmen managing it.
What we’re seeing with too early AI adoption is just nonsense rot economy. It’s business people driving the risk to reduce costs and get bonuses for short term profit. And they are following the business speak of the AI gurus because they invested billions into marketing for business dumbos. They are not testing if any of this works to in real business use, they are just firing people out of blind faith. They are not waiting and testing what comes around the corner like I’m suggesting, they are already firing people and investing without testing.
And you can test it to see if it works. See Skyrim NPCs with AI and Skyrim remastered by AI.
So no it’s not the same as what is driving the current bubble lol.
Anyway, that’s my opinion on the potential for AI in games. I don’t think there is any need to talk any further if you don’t believe that understanding and responding to complex text requires some basic level of reasoning and intelligence. If that were so there would be no problem with dead internet or AI bot comments. It’s doublethink.
The first video in the search results in the first link here has “it got weird fast” in the title and NPCs are breaking the third wall and responding strangely to things in general. (The lady at the orphanage mentioned the player “looking through a flickering screen.” I didn’t watch much further than that.)
The second is likely heavily curated and variables very strictly controlled. The characters are perfectly centered in frame and standing mostly still aside from idle animations. The landscapes are… well, they’re inherently still life. There’s no actual gameplay showcased, and there’s no indication from the video just how many of the video creator’s attempts had major issues like too many fingers or were scrapped in favor of the ones that turned out better. The art style switches strangely between characters, with, for instance, the first one looking much more photographic and the second mimicking more what you’d get from a better-quality 3D render. And many of the characters feel very uncanny valley. (The third one, for instance. I haven’t watched that video much further than that either.)
So, yeah, if those videos are “testing it to see if it works”, the answer is a resounding “no”. There’s nothing workable there, and no indication LLMs and Stable Diffusion are a step in the right direction, despite what Nvidia might tell you.
I mean, do you watch those videos and think to yourself “this is it – this is the destination – we’ve done it”?
I mean, there’s no there there, and no reason to think there ever will be beyond the fact that humans seem pretty intent on developing AGI. Clearly what AI can do now isn’t any kind of boon. So what’s keeping people high on hype if not empty hopes for a breakthrough in the near future?
That’s the opposite of what I said. The kind of real-time dynamic responding to things you’re talking about requires reasoning and intelligence, but LLMs possess neither.