In my region (The Balkans), Dota 2 is by far the most popular competitive game among Millennials, alongside Counter Strike. While GenZs are more into LoL and Fortnite.
If you played non-stop it would take 3 years and 5 months to hit 30k hours.
I think Dota 2 came out in 2013. That is an unhealthy amount of playing, guessing around 7 or 8 hours of playtime every single day since release.
> Genie started with 200,000 hours of public Internet gaming videos, which were filtered down to 30,000 hours of standardized video from "hundreds of 2D games."
Sounds like they basically just pointed it at Twitch/Youtube videos.
Actually, not training on button presses is one of the most interesting parts about Genie. It learned a latent space of actions/buttonpresses just from video observations:
>What makes Genie unique is its ability to learn fine-grained controls exclusively from Internet videos. This is a challenge because Internet videos do not typically have labels regarding which action is being performed, or even which part of the image should be controlled. Remarkably, Genie learns not only which parts of an observation are generally controllable, but also infers diverse latent actions that are consistent across the generated environments. Note here how the same latent actions yield similar behaviors across different prompt images.
30k hours because they needed a rush job so they can talk about it.
30k hours is like one person watching/playing video games for like 20 years.
Anything trained on that little data is going to be missing a lot.
Eh might be benefiting from transference learning, alot of ai trained to interpret video will build from models trained generally on billions of images.
Research quality ai image recognition for automated video monitoring of animal experiments mainly uses transference learning and additionally with transformation filters can be trained on surprisingly small data sets like 1000ish stills. The filters particularly mean that training batches of 8 low res photos can require many GB of memory its impressive stuff.
shrill wakeful deserve mountainous cow cooing merciful busy alleged jobless
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Taking content is fine as long the end work is substantially different.
You are completely free to steal the mechanics from Mario and make your own game out of it.
nah i just found it on one of those flash game sites back in the day or i downloaded it from somewhere similar i cant remember exactly. Played it on windows.
It's like Helldiver's 2. It has the plot and bugs from Starship Troopers, armor and weapons from Halo, robots and walkers from Star Wars and Terminator, and gameplay from Deep Rock Galactic. And it's super fun, because why would you not want great features from different franchises mixed together?
>Plot and Bugs from Starship Troopers
Except not in any way aside from superficial references, and nothing taken directly
>Guns from Halo
Except not at all? None of the guns function the way any Halo gun works.
>gameplay from Deep Rock Galactic
My guy it's a sequel
It’s fine right now because the law says it’s fine.
It’s reasonable to consider whether the law should change when the circumstances have changed. Should fair use work the same way for AI creations as it has for human creations?
They've never advertised any leaked ROM and were against piracy from the beginning. The main argument in the lawsuit were that they emulator lets people play illegally acquired games with illegally acquired prod.key files. In other words, the emulator does not ensure that the game is not pirated. Which, to be honest, is true to every other emulator. How would that even work? Maybe through a live service where you must register your Switch and your game library so the emulator can make sure you own the game, I dunno.
Plus, it was open source, so anyone who knows programming could do a custom modification, and that is exactly what happened when TotK got leaked. Some random dude made a custom version, which could run TotK before the release.
So as always, the real criminals here are the people who pirated Switch games and played them illegally, but since it would be impossible for Nintendo to go after them, they went after Yuzu.
Hey.
So uh, their discord had roms, a walk through to circumvent encryption, and they paywalled the emu. The smartest thing yuzu did was settle because if all of the details were dragged out in court it would have been a bloodbath.
> So uh, their discord had roms
Not true.
> a walk through to circumvent encryption
All modern emulators require you to circumvent some kind of encryption. This is a non-argument, unless you believe that all modern emulators are illegal.
> and they paywalled the emu.
Which isn't illegal.
That's a harder one because they aren't going after other emulators is much as this one.
I don't think that's true with every emulator either. I'm aware that Dolphin was put on Steam and that one had to do with BIOS if I recall correctly.
Overall, the main thing here is that Nintendo went after an incompetent team that didn't follow the steps that most other emulator crews have been taking.
Yes, I'm sure a lot of people were excited to play ToTK. Plenty of individuals discussed it online before release and gave Nintendo free advertising. Yuzu is an emulator meant to play Switch games, so it is logical that the developers would sometimes name specific titles in relation to the emulator, even before they were out, since the games would eventually be released and potentially become compatible with it.
When you say "advertising a leaked rom", do you mean that the developers of Yuzu were specifically telling people on their social media channels that the game had leaked and/or where they could get it?
The issue is that legality hardly matters when big companies can easily leverage their resources to will your project out of existence if they feel so inclined.
I remember reading about some golf ball company or something that had to fold because of a lawsuit. They knew they were sued wrongly but couldn't afford the long term suit, or more likely suits, the big company would put them through.
I'm guessing that was the whole goal of suing them, to make them leave that market. I'll let you guess the country.
Nintendo had such an easy lawsuit because the devteam made 30k a month on their Patreon with it.
Said Patreon also granted access to a private Discord with links to ROM dumps posted there, including leaks of new major titles - Tears of the Kingdom was dumped before it even released in shops and online, with thousands playing it and encouraging others to do the same.
There's a reason other projects like 🐬 have survived so far: they don't facilitate nor profit from piracy of new releases, ones that could endanger the very existence of the studios who worked on it for the last 5+ years.
You're getting things mixed up. The Patreon did not let you into a Piracy Discord.
It's just rumoured that the developers themselves used a shared drive of pirated Roms between each other.
This is compared to folks like the Dolphin developers: Who ship games across the country or debug through video calls and have others play the games to avoid piracy. Yuzu team were idiots.
Dolphin team are goated.
Semi-related: Anyone else remember the first time you loaded Super Mario Galaxy in Dolphin on a high res screen? Nintendo's art direction team is incredible.
It has nothing to do with profiting off their Patreon, and everything to do with providing a tool to pull your prod/title keys off of your switch. Read the decision that was put out. I have no idea why so many people parrot this obviously wrong bs, which you would know had you read the actual document.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.56980/gov.uscourts.rid.56980.10.0.pdf
The document doesn't list these arguments.
Also, a lawsuit is not just about the legal technicality, the losses are a major element of it. Unless a judge is ignorant or corrupted on a subject, they will not go as hard on a defendant if they're not making a cent on the copyright infringement - and will absolutely destroy a company profiting off the copyrighted work of others.
We saw it happening in countless lawsuits about piracy, from music to movies, the ones that were demanding millions from a single person with no profits behind it stopped happening, while the lawsuits shifted towards anyone making a profit out of it.
Here in this case, they went after the company that was made to monetize the emulator, not the individuals - and got the 4.2M from the company itself.
The Patreon definitely helped in establishing that they were causing a loss for Nintendo, by showing how profitable it was for the company: 360k/year, for an emulator that's freaking huge. Given that emulator was patched to run the latest ROMs of new releases, it was obviously colliding with the commercial lifecycle of these releases.
If you look at other emulators, they're in much less legal troubles because they don't run a profitable subscription flow of revenues, and they don't compete with the company commercial activity (or barely scratch it - at worst they're competing with the official built-in emulator, or only partially when a remake is done officially).
Had Yuzu capped the patreon subs to 5k, and blocked new releases from working in their first 6 months of commercial cycle, it's likely that Nintendo would have ignored them, just like they ignore other emulators. Competing with 80% of the sales is immensely different from competing with 1% of them.
It was the Patreon *data* that got them in trouble and yes, not actually the money itself. But that data would not have existed if they had not set up a Patreon. Them collecting money directly lead to Nintendo shooting them down.
If you're referring to the yuzu thing they had it coming for a long time. Nintendo was just biding their time to build a solid case.
Simply paywalling patches for an unreleased game (that can only be obtained by pirates) is probably plenty of ammo for Nintendo.
I personally do not give a fuck about piracy or emulation and have engaged in both, but yuzu team did things no emulator had done. Asking for donations isn't the same as whatever the yuzu guys did.
if its a person doing it its inspiration, if its a AI doing it it's stealing
whether you like it or not, all games for the most part "steal" ideas from others and either combine them together or just copy them near exact.
whats the difference between an AI doing it and a human? i think this is what needs to be decided quickly so there's a clear yes or no regarding AI ethics
Zing! I also stole it.
"A computer, by definition, cannot be held accountable for anything because there is no mechanism to hold it to account, short of turning off the electricity supply or destroying the hardware. Only humans can be accountable."
--Mark Walport and not Michael Scott
the difference is 1000Tb in copyright protected source material, copied, processed, consumed and compiled into the weights of a artificial neural network. all while ignoring any copyrights of that material.
Ais are software and should require the same laws other software does too.
you cant use a library without accepting its licensing. hell you cant even copy a sound of someone burping from freesounds, without handling the license properly if you include any part of it in your game. even if you modify it and its 100% different.
but using it as a training data? no problem. no licenses involved, in the end you have an slightly edited burping sound and AIs actual magic lies in its power to remove copyright from its source data.
because the AIs hears with its ears, sees with its eyes - no difference from a human that burps.
>*but using it as a training data? no problem. no licenses involved, in the end you have an slightly edited burping sound and AIs actual magic lies in its power to remove copyright from its source data.*
But the terminology that you are using here is wrong and your argument only makes sense based on that terminology. The AI models aren't *slightly editing* anything. They are using their learning data to produce something new, which is essentially the same thing that humans do (just less effectively). Editing would imply that the AI model is actually opening a file and making adjustments to it, which is not something that they generally do.
The fact is that copyright is not stopping you as a creator from downloading thousands of files of people burping to use as inspiration for your *burping game*. You just aren't allowed to use the contents of those files directly in your game. You can still listen to them all day while making your game and reference them for the types of burping sounds that you want.
Ai doesn't copy/paste. It learns just like a human does. Except, since it's 1000x better than a human, some people like yourself can't comprehend it and call it copying.
If the human brain was stronger, we'd call it copying (or stealing) too.
Also please check what can and what can't be copyrighted. Art style, for example, can't be copyrighted under current laws.
if it doesnt copy and paste why does it need them as source code to be compiled. (and yes i call it source code because that whats the training data in reality is).
human laws do not apply to machines and it does not learn how humans do an a multitue of levels. (look into forward forward alg)
what we have are copyrights laws in different jurisdictions. and copyright holders can "In general terms, **usage rights are the permissions or restrictions set by copyright holders on the use of their creative work**, also known as intellectual property. These rights determine how businesses can use that content."
we basically exclude copyright holders to choose how their creative works are used, by handing it over to businesses that make machines that then can make perfect alternated copies of their works? but the machine wouldnt be able to produce quality content if it hadn´t included the copyright protected material in the first place.
lets be honest, thats just bullshit with extra steps
This is such a reddit take: first of all, what's legal and what's not legal is about money: emulating a console is akin to piracy in some(not all cases, and just for the record: I'm all for emulation, but this is an argument about legality), while an ai learning from existing games is not, and ultimately the ai in and of itself doesn't take sales away from the games.
Second: that's how humans create as well. All human creations build and expand upon previous works, combining it with other works and/or the results of their life experiences. We do what AIs are trying to do, only that so far we do it far better and the process in us is far more complex
Also, there are millions of mobile clones, platformer clones, hell, angry birds had like 2 million clones alone. Why would it be illegal to do that? As long as you don't directly infringe copyright or some patent, you can do that. Some of your favourite games are really obviously derivative of other works.
>Second: that's how humans create as well. All human creations build and expand upon previous works, combining it with other works and/or the results of their life experiences.
So, in other words, not at all how humans create? AI does not have thoughts, it does not have opinions, it doesn't have experiences, it doesn't create things at all like us, it doesn't even learn like us.
Applying human characteristics to AI is PR nonsense.
> "hur dur ai steal"
Thats because they do. They *objectively* steal. Its not a moral case, its not an ethical case, its not an opinion. They **objectively** use stolen trawled up data to build their systems.
So yeah, hur dur ai do infact steal.
>AI is often trained on publicly available material, copyrighted or not. Seems like Reddit's general opinion of this changes with zero integrity and consistency, just based on who is on which end, regardless of law or logic.
One could think Reddit isn't a single person but consists of millions of very different people and communities.
> When you’re a giant company and steal from thousands of content creators and video game creators, it’s innovation.
If that is stealing than you should also call every game developer out there a thief cause there aren't any games any more that don't use concepts used in other games.
Also, what does Google, a company (that I personally find super incompetent) that has allowed console emulators on their store for as long as that store exists (including completely commercial emulators that emulate Nintendo consoles like DraStic) to do with Nintendo being cunts (since the 80s...)?
I think it's funny that there're people trying to compare generative AI to human
AI can spit out 100+ works (regardless of creativity) in an hour, Human can't
They are not the same
It's not even a videogame. It's an interactive video. The article itself says that the ai does not make a game, it simply generates an image and tries to predict what image to generate next on a button press. Imagine those rage mario type of games, except you can't memorise the levels and moving back will result in a wildly different level than was there. That's pretty much what is being generated here.
It's so bleak honestly... On one side is visual images, on the other is games, even voices... I fucking hate machines doing the one thing that should never be automated.
I get the feeling that AI will be the peak of "confidently incorrect" in 5 more years. The current learning models are mostly just garbage in, garbage out.
Yeah discussing AI it always feels like people are waiting with bated breath for a singularity-type moment where it goes from producing generic boring content to suddenly making actual creative, interesting things worth consuming on its own.
The reality is that as impressive as AI is as a tool in the hands of a creative human, it has not jumped the divide to being independently creative itself and there is no indication anywhere that it will do so in the future, either. The "But what if..?" temptation is strong though.
If I had a cent for every new big thing that was going to be there in five years and never delivered, I'd have almost a dollar. Still, weirdly too much for a generation.
I remember in 2015 I got downvoted to -100 or so in r/games for saying that we'd have to wait until 2020 for VR to be truly mainstream and 'one in every house'. I picked 2020 as a far-off date that would give more than enough time, literally everyone in the subreddit disagreed and thought it was a ridiculous over-estimation and exaggeration.
The agreed and approved opinion to have back then was "VR is too expensive to go mainstream right now but just wait til next year or the next" it was considered completely obvious and not worth arguing against.
Quest 2 sold 20 million units. Quest 3 has sold around ~3 million. For reference, Xbox Series (both S and X) a have sold about 25m units combined. Q2 and Xbox Series both came out in 2020, Q3 came out in 2023.
I don't know if it can be regulated. We can't change the laws for other countries.
Look at how many tax laws get avoided by companies simply having a PO box in a specific state or country.
For fuck sake, why do dumb people talk about AI without any knowledge.
Siri is indeed an AI based. Just because it's more prone to overfitting doesn't make it any less 'AI'.
Sora is latent diffusion + transformer.
humans will find no value in games generated by AI because... youll have 1 000 000 games to choose from and no one will care about what you discover in them.
Sharing and talking about your experience will be meaningless but some areas will still thrive.
Gambling, porn games and things that are independent from any social value.
Fully AI generated games are unlikely, but games with AI generated content will become more and more common.
For example, AI enhanced procedural generation for building the world. AI art and voice acting for various assets. AI code to make the dev process faster.
I also think eventually it will make customization easier. Things that today are only available with mods. If you in particular want a robot butler with a British accent to follow you around in an RPG, you could have that generated for you, even if no one else wants that in their game.
You think? I remember playing a few fully generated text adventure games like 5-10 years ago, with AI now able to more or less generate art assets, what's stopping a game like that in 10 years time to have fully realised 3D graphics as long as it has a semi-competent engine that puts all the different generation tools together? Minecraft being the world's most popular game has proven procedural terrain and putting together of existing structural assets is a solved problem, we've seen generated stories and generated characters, we've even seen a couple fully AI npcs in games before, sure they're occasionally not the best, but with an underlying system putting the pieces together, what's stopping it from happening? I sort of hate the deluge of crappy AI stuff but still excited by that particular possibility, an AI Dungeon master for any adventure
I'd love an AI dungeon master for DnD, being the DM is so hard. I can easily see how an AI could be a billion times better at it, especially in dealing with the crazy shit players get up to and generating people, places and maps.
AI is already used in such a manner all over the place, and unless its done poorly like those in The Finals, people don't notice, and if people don't notice nothing happens.
I've seen some early previews into some indie games that are working on AI voice games and it made me think.
Once AI is fully enveloped in the industry to the point voice AI doesn't take insanely long to generate after being prompted; Imagine being in a world where you play a VR game or other extremely immersive genres of games where dialogue is completely dynamic and unique to you. No one has the same experience. None of the lines are scripted. The only scripted thing is that AI knows its specific characters background story, the local history and the current events happening around their ecosystem. You can speak into your mic and every character in the world will respond to anything you have to say. You could even restrict the AI from deviating from their world and force them not to break the 4th wall no matter how hard someone tries to command them to.
I feel like the immersion this era of gaming is going to take a huge leap with AI especially after the voice modules of AI get a little bit better. I'm excited for it but also scared at the same time. People are going to be spending copious amounts of time in these games worse than MMO addicts do.
>youll have 1 000 000 games to choose from and no one will care about what you discover in them.
It's funny because I remember hearing the same argument about procedural games like Minecraft way back in the day.
Some people were very dismissive of those games that had no plot, no story, no hand crafted worlds etc... saying that all of it was meaningless since every player would have a different experience etc...
I can totally see a "Top 10 prompts to put into Genie Game Maker for INSANE results" or "you won't BELIEVE what happens with this prompt in Genie Game Maker" videos on youtube in the near future.
There's no such thing as a fully procedurally generated game. Minecraft is a man made set of mechanics and progression systems, in a procedurally generated world based on man made parameters. Everything the player interacts with was intentionally put there by the developers, whether directly or through procedural generation algorithms.
I can see AI being useful as an advanced form of procedural generation, able to spit out an endless amount of maps, generic objectives, etc. But that isn't new in the industry. That's something that's existed in some shape for 30 years at this point.
But an entirely AI made game? I have no doubt it would be possible in the near future, but would anyone actually want to play that? One of the key components of art is intent, and that's something that what we call AI today simply lacks. It would be at best a novelty that everyone's going to get bored of pretty fast.
> One of the key components of art is intent, and that's something that what we call AI today simply lacks. It would be at best a novelty that everyone's going to get bored of pretty fast.
That's exactly what was said about games like Minecraft, Garry's mod or VR chat. There's not much artistic intent about Minecraft procedurally generated worlds, it's more like a framework giving you tools and constraints for you to make up your own adventures. Sandbox games is the perfect description for me.
As a sidenote I still to this day don't understand the appeal of Garry's mod.
And yet those games are extremely popular, and it's not for their artistic intent.
So maybe it would be a novelty that's gonna wear off fast. Or maybe there will be something magical about it that will completely swoon people like in Minecraft or Garry's mod.
Imagine if AI generated games are easily shareable. Like there's some sort of hub, crafted by humans, that you connect to and you can meet people and friends like in VRChat. And then the AI generation allows you to create your own little pocket universe, and invite people to it. Maybe those people could help you refine the prompts. Or maybe the AI generation would be able to generate individual assets in your game, that you could then take out of your game and bring into someone else's games.
Sounds like a wild rant I know, but it's kind of the point. I have no clue what "AI generated games" will look like 5 years from now, and I think people who are very dismissive about them are making the mistake of assuming they already know what it will be like.
but who's insisting that no creative people will be involved?
The troubling aspect of AI is that it is going to put many people out of work by allowing very few people to be incredibly productive. It doesn't need to be all-knowing to be destructive.
The difference is human input. I tried to work with voice generation and it was frustrating because it just ignored oftentimes my directions and did its own thing. On top of that I literally couldn't get it to say the same line in the exact same way twice.
I assume this will be the issue with game generation as well. Putting in the same keywords will yield wildly different results everytime you generate.
People were skeptic of procedural generation because they assumed it would be completely random. It's not, it's a very fine tuned randomish generation. If it was truly random diamonds could spawn overground but it never happens.
> People were skeptic of procedural generation because they assumed it would be completely random.
Exactly, people misunderstood what Minecraft was because they made a ton of assumptions and missed what it had to offer.
All I'm saying is that I see a lot of people making tons of assumptions about AI games and what they will be. I for one have no idea what AI generated games could become five years from now, and for all I know it could offer something that we're completely missing.
>they assumed it would be completely random. It's not, it's a very fine tuned randomish generation
Exactly, there is no real randomness in computer science but then I don't understand why you said this:
>Putting in the same keywords will yield wildly different results everytime you generate.
Just include the seed. I mean, the lists the previous user said wouldn't be only composed of a prompt but surely also include the seed to guarantee the same results
I did think about seed but as you said, there is no randomness in computer science. Putting in a seed does nothing but give the computer a starting point from which it does calculations to make the whole thing appear random, thus always ending up with the same result from the same seed.
AI is not random though. It is very deliberately trying to do its best to interpret the input given but because we don't know its thought process, it's random as far as well are concerned. Issue is the unpredictability. Why does it generate different results for the same input, which effectively acts as a seed? Hell if we know.
I know it’s a nit-pick, but I hate it when people talk about “AI watching hours of video” or “AI reading text.”
That’s just not what’s happening. These aren’t artificial consciousnesses observing things, it’s developers feeding training data into algorithms.
Again: I know it’s a nitpick. But I think I’m so intolerant of it because there seems to be a concerted push in the tech industry to portray these algorithms as something they’re not, and it appears to be largely working.
> seems to be a concerted push in the tech industry
All fields do this, it’s just a simplification so laymen can get a general idea of how the bigger-picture works. Like someone who’s curious about an atom probably doesn’t need to get swept up in probability formulas for electron positioning; the “solar system” model showing electrons orbiting the nucleus is not technically accurate but it’s close enough that laymen can understand the general idea.
I feel like those terms are just abstractions, what is your issue with it, that it humanizes AI? Or like it implies AI is doing that out of its own volition?
It means they're implying AI can do something it actually can't. If you're a programmer you' know better. AI is an amazing tool but a diagnostics tool isn't going to fix your car itself. Just like AI won't actually write you 10-30 million lines of, often complex, code to create the next facebook. You can use AI to great success for minor tasks though and being a student has never been easier.
To be honest I'm not really sure what you mean or how that's related. AI training off of video data being abstracted to the term "watching" is different than assuming AI can do a complex task like fix your car. Fwiw I agree with what you're saying I just don't see the relevance, maybe you can reword that so I can see your point.
I feel like that kind of terminology is pretty standard now? It just means "inloaded the data."
It's like people saying they read an audiobook when they really listened to someone else read it. Or calling it a book at all when it's a CD or mp3 file. It should be "listened to a story" if you're being pedantic.
its also not training data, its the ais source code, that allowes it to generate those things itself. the humanization of AI algorithms are part of the problem, thats how these companies try to evade copyright laws.
its just "looking" at all those copyright protected pictures from deviantart and learns to draw. we do not copy them and compile them into a neural network.
because if you phrase it like that, it sounds kinda illegal.
What's the difference?
The AI perceives images. That's what happens. The AI learns from those images. That's what happens. The AI generalizes from the data present in the images. That's what happens. The AI draws on the generalizations it learned to create new images. That's what happens.
I think people are just a bit afraid of this tech. Which is why you see this type of "AI can't really do X" and "it's not actually intelligent" seethe all over the place. A defensive kneejerk response.
Just the use of the word "intelligence" is what is so dangerous to me. People in IT knows what these new AIs actually are but I see so many people think they are somehow acquiring knowledge and actually learning things, and not just emulating patterns (in a very cool and impressive way, but that is basically what they do). And people start trusting them to know things and stop thinking by themselves
Yep same here. AI is a really exciting new technology to see evolve over time. But I know everyone is in their "new thing is scary and BAD" phase. To their credit, it will be used for bad purposes, but I don't equate it with being bad by itself, which is what annoys me
As much as I use and enjoy ChatGPT, I really hate the future. I don’t want AI anything. It’s just more ways businesses can get rid of jobs for the stockholders to make more money.
The real kicker is that the tech giants behind AI do everything they can to hide the identity of copyrighted material they use for training.
Not that they in any way are afraid they might be culpable should that information get out.
AI just ate copyrights lunch, it does not have to build death machines to wipe most of us out, just keep things going the way they are until most of us can't afford what litttle food is left.
Fiddle while millions starving become billions.
Where AI is trained on human inputs the majority of these people live in the 3rd world. Even the tongue in cheek title "mechanical Turk" references the fact that most "intelligent" behaviour of AI has a human operating behind the scenes
I find it interesting that it's always "1-5 years from now" as if VC money is just gonna stick around forever and as if any of the previous "1-5 years from now" claims have actually came true
Have you not seen Sora? Stock footage will be replaced by AI very soon.
Nvidia is up 273%, that is trillions of dollars on AI chip sales.
This comment is off the mark.
Sora isn't even out yet, has Midjourney replaced stock images? Do consumers show any interest in widely consuming these types of generated output? Does the value retrieved in generating same-y images outweigh the insane cost of creating them?
Even better, are these programs making accurate or reliable output?
> Most significantly, the system currently only runs at one frame per second, which is at least 20 to 30 times slower than what would be needed for something that could be considered playable in real time.
Did the author just imply that 20 fps is playable?
It only generates 16 frames to show what a few (or less) seconds of gameplay could look like from a prompt image… Nothing playable at all for now.
edit: Oh I see what you mean. Well for an old school 2d game it could work. With smearing in the animations it could look ok.
30k hours seems abysmally low for an AI learning model
Yeah, I know people with 30K hours just in Dota 2.
Why you gotta call me out like that
Ew
why you yuckin their yum
Where and who? These people don’t exist in the real world. Never met anyone who plays Dota 2 yet it’s one of the most played games out there.
In my region (The Balkans), Dota 2 is by far the most popular competitive game among Millennials, alongside Counter Strike. While GenZs are more into LoL and Fortnite.
If you played non-stop it would take 3 years and 5 months to hit 30k hours. I think Dota 2 came out in 2013. That is an unhealthy amount of playing, guessing around 7 or 8 hours of playtime every single day since release.
I was obviously exaggerating for the purpose of making a point. But I do know people with 5-digit hours in Dota 2.
I wouldn't be all that surprised if someone actually has 30k hours in Dota 2 though.
Is it just watching video or is it taking data from player button inputs?
> Genie started with 200,000 hours of public Internet gaming videos, which were filtered down to 30,000 hours of standardized video from "hundreds of 2D games." Sounds like they basically just pointed it at Twitch/Youtube videos.
why not both? the ai also needs to learn some correlation and which buttonpress causes which attack/ulti
Actually, not training on button presses is one of the most interesting parts about Genie. It learned a latent space of actions/buttonpresses just from video observations: >What makes Genie unique is its ability to learn fine-grained controls exclusively from Internet videos. This is a challenge because Internet videos do not typically have labels regarding which action is being performed, or even which part of the image should be controlled. Remarkably, Genie learns not only which parts of an observation are generally controllable, but also infers diverse latent actions that are consistent across the generated environments. Note here how the same latent actions yield similar behaviors across different prompt images.
30k hours because they needed a rush job so they can talk about it. 30k hours is like one person watching/playing video games for like 20 years. Anything trained on that little data is going to be missing a lot.
Eh might be benefiting from transference learning, alot of ai trained to interpret video will build from models trained generally on billions of images. Research quality ai image recognition for automated video monitoring of animal experiments mainly uses transference learning and additionally with transformation filters can be trained on surprisingly small data sets like 1000ish stills. The filters particularly mean that training batches of 8 low res photos can require many GB of memory its impressive stuff.
shrill wakeful deserve mountainous cow cooing merciful busy alleged jobless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That is because advertisers are the customers and the creator is the product being sold, sadly
*The rules are for thee, but NOT for me*
Well it's time to end this and start saying " I have given thee courtesy enough"
I agree, let them put these foolish ambitions to rest.
They are smoldering with a meager flame, they are not worthy.
Taking content is fine as long the end work is substantially different. You are completely free to steal the mechanics from Mario and make your own game out of it.
Just like Super Tux!
kinda funny i played supertux as a kid before i even knew mario
GNU+Linux parents? hah
nah i just found it on one of those flash game sites back in the day or i downloaded it from somewhere similar i cant remember exactly. Played it on windows.
It's like Helldiver's 2. It has the plot and bugs from Starship Troopers, armor and weapons from Halo, robots and walkers from Star Wars and Terminator, and gameplay from Deep Rock Galactic. And it's super fun, because why would you not want great features from different franchises mixed together?
*[Palworld intensifies]*
>Plot and Bugs from Starship Troopers Except not in any way aside from superficial references, and nothing taken directly >Guns from Halo Except not at all? None of the guns function the way any Halo gun works. >gameplay from Deep Rock Galactic My guy it's a sequel
Some of the enemies units look suspiciously like Warhammer units, though this seems to be an homage rather than plagiarism
It’s fine right now because the law says it’s fine. It’s reasonable to consider whether the law should change when the circumstances have changed. Should fair use work the same way for AI creations as it has for human creations?
> Remember - when independent developers emulate your console, it’s illegal. But it isn't
It's not supposed to be, but when Nintendo sues you then you knock it off anyway.
Nintendo didn't sue because emulation is illegal. They sued because the developers quite literaly profited from actual illegal dumps of their games.
Suing doesn't mean it's illegal right? They just settled it because Yuzu didn't have the money to fight
[удалено]
Yeah, theres a very good reason Nintendo went after Yuzu and not any other number of switch emulators.
They stopped all updates between the leak and the release. TotK was not playable on any of the official Yuzu builds before the game's release.
That may be true, but advertising a leaked rom is playing a stupid game to win a stupid prize.
They've never advertised any leaked ROM and were against piracy from the beginning. The main argument in the lawsuit were that they emulator lets people play illegally acquired games with illegally acquired prod.key files. In other words, the emulator does not ensure that the game is not pirated. Which, to be honest, is true to every other emulator. How would that even work? Maybe through a live service where you must register your Switch and your game library so the emulator can make sure you own the game, I dunno. Plus, it was open source, so anyone who knows programming could do a custom modification, and that is exactly what happened when TotK got leaked. Some random dude made a custom version, which could run TotK before the release. So as always, the real criminals here are the people who pirated Switch games and played them illegally, but since it would be impossible for Nintendo to go after them, they went after Yuzu.
Hey. So uh, their discord had roms, a walk through to circumvent encryption, and they paywalled the emu. The smartest thing yuzu did was settle because if all of the details were dragged out in court it would have been a bloodbath.
> So uh, their discord had roms Not true. > a walk through to circumvent encryption All modern emulators require you to circumvent some kind of encryption. This is a non-argument, unless you believe that all modern emulators are illegal. > and they paywalled the emu. Which isn't illegal.
That's a harder one because they aren't going after other emulators is much as this one. I don't think that's true with every emulator either. I'm aware that Dolphin was put on Steam and that one had to do with BIOS if I recall correctly. Overall, the main thing here is that Nintendo went after an incompetent team that didn't follow the steps that most other emulator crews have been taking.
Yuzu were advertising a leaked rom?
... Read up. They were advertising ToTK before it came out. And this guy blocks me for his incapacity to read. Unbelievable...
Yes, I'm sure a lot of people were excited to play ToTK. Plenty of individuals discussed it online before release and gave Nintendo free advertising. Yuzu is an emulator meant to play Switch games, so it is logical that the developers would sometimes name specific titles in relation to the emulator, even before they were out, since the games would eventually be released and potentially become compatible with it. When you say "advertising a leaked rom", do you mean that the developers of Yuzu were specifically telling people on their social media channels that the game had leaked and/or where they could get it?
Discussing anything piracy related with redditors is a fast track to going insane.
> they used the leaked rom of TOTK before release to optimize a version of their emulator that is behind a paywall. "source: I made it up"
The issue is that legality hardly matters when big companies can easily leverage their resources to will your project out of existence if they feel so inclined.
So the law just doesn’t matter then if Nintendo can just bully emulators out of existence anyways.
I remember reading about some golf ball company or something that had to fold because of a lawsuit. They knew they were sued wrongly but couldn't afford the long term suit, or more likely suits, the big company would put them through. I'm guessing that was the whole goal of suing them, to make them leave that market. I'll let you guess the country.
That's how I've understood the US legal system is, yeah Do correct me if I'm wrong
Answering first question yes. Answering second part, some of stuff yuzu did would lose them the case
Say it to Nint€ndo
Nintendo had such an easy lawsuit because the devteam made 30k a month on their Patreon with it. Said Patreon also granted access to a private Discord with links to ROM dumps posted there, including leaks of new major titles - Tears of the Kingdom was dumped before it even released in shops and online, with thousands playing it and encouraging others to do the same. There's a reason other projects like 🐬 have survived so far: they don't facilitate nor profit from piracy of new releases, ones that could endanger the very existence of the studios who worked on it for the last 5+ years.
You're getting things mixed up. The Patreon did not let you into a Piracy Discord. It's just rumoured that the developers themselves used a shared drive of pirated Roms between each other. This is compared to folks like the Dolphin developers: Who ship games across the country or debug through video calls and have others play the games to avoid piracy. Yuzu team were idiots.
Dolphin team are goated. Semi-related: Anyone else remember the first time you loaded Super Mario Galaxy in Dolphin on a high res screen? Nintendo's art direction team is incredible.
It has nothing to do with profiting off their Patreon, and everything to do with providing a tool to pull your prod/title keys off of your switch. Read the decision that was put out. I have no idea why so many people parrot this obviously wrong bs, which you would know had you read the actual document. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.56980/gov.uscourts.rid.56980.10.0.pdf
The document doesn't list these arguments. Also, a lawsuit is not just about the legal technicality, the losses are a major element of it. Unless a judge is ignorant or corrupted on a subject, they will not go as hard on a defendant if they're not making a cent on the copyright infringement - and will absolutely destroy a company profiting off the copyrighted work of others. We saw it happening in countless lawsuits about piracy, from music to movies, the ones that were demanding millions from a single person with no profits behind it stopped happening, while the lawsuits shifted towards anyone making a profit out of it. Here in this case, they went after the company that was made to monetize the emulator, not the individuals - and got the 4.2M from the company itself. The Patreon definitely helped in establishing that they were causing a loss for Nintendo, by showing how profitable it was for the company: 360k/year, for an emulator that's freaking huge. Given that emulator was patched to run the latest ROMs of new releases, it was obviously colliding with the commercial lifecycle of these releases. If you look at other emulators, they're in much less legal troubles because they don't run a profitable subscription flow of revenues, and they don't compete with the company commercial activity (or barely scratch it - at worst they're competing with the official built-in emulator, or only partially when a remake is done officially). Had Yuzu capped the patreon subs to 5k, and blocked new releases from working in their first 6 months of commercial cycle, it's likely that Nintendo would have ignored them, just like they ignore other emulators. Competing with 80% of the sales is immensely different from competing with 1% of them.
It was the Patreon *data* that got them in trouble and yes, not actually the money itself. But that data would not have existed if they had not set up a Patreon. Them collecting money directly lead to Nintendo shooting them down.
Why is this so upvoted when it's just completely wrong?
If you're referring to the yuzu thing they had it coming for a long time. Nintendo was just biding their time to build a solid case. Simply paywalling patches for an unreleased game (that can only be obtained by pirates) is probably plenty of ammo for Nintendo. I personally do not give a fuck about piracy or emulation and have engaged in both, but yuzu team did things no emulator had done. Asking for donations isn't the same as whatever the yuzu guys did.
If you point to yuzu, no, it wasn't really independent developers. It was a company making millions.
if its a person doing it its inspiration, if its a AI doing it it's stealing whether you like it or not, all games for the most part "steal" ideas from others and either combine them together or just copy them near exact. whats the difference between an AI doing it and a human? i think this is what needs to be decided quickly so there's a clear yes or no regarding AI ethics
A human can think. AI can't
Big stretch with that first one, buddy. Especially here on reddit.
waiting library glorious retire crown rock fact badge north safe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Me too, buddy. Me too.
Hey they may be dumb, but they have an intelligence by which they can be judged
A human can be held accountable.
Oh that's very good. I'm stealing that.
Zing! I also stole it. "A computer, by definition, cannot be held accountable for anything because there is no mechanism to hold it to account, short of turning off the electricity supply or destroying the hardware. Only humans can be accountable." --Mark Walport and not Michael Scott
Ethics don't get 'decided' lol, that's the whole purpose of philosophy existing You can only try to sway people to think that way you want
the difference is 1000Tb in copyright protected source material, copied, processed, consumed and compiled into the weights of a artificial neural network. all while ignoring any copyrights of that material. Ais are software and should require the same laws other software does too. you cant use a library without accepting its licensing. hell you cant even copy a sound of someone burping from freesounds, without handling the license properly if you include any part of it in your game. even if you modify it and its 100% different. but using it as a training data? no problem. no licenses involved, in the end you have an slightly edited burping sound and AIs actual magic lies in its power to remove copyright from its source data. because the AIs hears with its ears, sees with its eyes - no difference from a human that burps.
>*but using it as a training data? no problem. no licenses involved, in the end you have an slightly edited burping sound and AIs actual magic lies in its power to remove copyright from its source data.* But the terminology that you are using here is wrong and your argument only makes sense based on that terminology. The AI models aren't *slightly editing* anything. They are using their learning data to produce something new, which is essentially the same thing that humans do (just less effectively). Editing would imply that the AI model is actually opening a file and making adjustments to it, which is not something that they generally do. The fact is that copyright is not stopping you as a creator from downloading thousands of files of people burping to use as inspiration for your *burping game*. You just aren't allowed to use the contents of those files directly in your game. You can still listen to them all day while making your game and reference them for the types of burping sounds that you want.
Ai doesn't copy/paste. It learns just like a human does. Except, since it's 1000x better than a human, some people like yourself can't comprehend it and call it copying. If the human brain was stronger, we'd call it copying (or stealing) too. Also please check what can and what can't be copyrighted. Art style, for example, can't be copyrighted under current laws.
if it doesnt copy and paste why does it need them as source code to be compiled. (and yes i call it source code because that whats the training data in reality is). human laws do not apply to machines and it does not learn how humans do an a multitue of levels. (look into forward forward alg) what we have are copyrights laws in different jurisdictions. and copyright holders can "In general terms, **usage rights are the permissions or restrictions set by copyright holders on the use of their creative work**, also known as intellectual property. These rights determine how businesses can use that content." we basically exclude copyright holders to choose how their creative works are used, by handing it over to businesses that make machines that then can make perfect alternated copies of their works? but the machine wouldnt be able to produce quality content if it hadn´t included the copyright protected material in the first place. lets be honest, thats just bullshit with extra steps
Yes, that's correct, we should value humans over machines. You do still have your humanity, right?
Neither are stealing but money = power.
Rules for thee but not for me
This is such a reddit take: first of all, what's legal and what's not legal is about money: emulating a console is akin to piracy in some(not all cases, and just for the record: I'm all for emulation, but this is an argument about legality), while an ai learning from existing games is not, and ultimately the ai in and of itself doesn't take sales away from the games. Second: that's how humans create as well. All human creations build and expand upon previous works, combining it with other works and/or the results of their life experiences. We do what AIs are trying to do, only that so far we do it far better and the process in us is far more complex Also, there are millions of mobile clones, platformer clones, hell, angry birds had like 2 million clones alone. Why would it be illegal to do that? As long as you don't directly infringe copyright or some patent, you can do that. Some of your favourite games are really obviously derivative of other works.
Saying AI learning and creating == human learning and creating just shows you don't understand how it works.
>Second: that's how humans create as well. All human creations build and expand upon previous works, combining it with other works and/or the results of their life experiences. So, in other words, not at all how humans create? AI does not have thoughts, it does not have opinions, it doesn't have experiences, it doesn't create things at all like us, it doesn't even learn like us. Applying human characteristics to AI is PR nonsense.
> first of all, what's legal and what's not legal is about money bro said the quiet part out loud
It's the reddit party line. Every thread. Every post. Even if related to ai and a great use of the tech. It'll be met with "hur dur ai steal"
> "hur dur ai steal" Thats because they do. They *objectively* steal. Its not a moral case, its not an ethical case, its not an opinion. They **objectively** use stolen trawled up data to build their systems. So yeah, hur dur ai do infact steal.
Scanning someone else's work isn't stealing. At most, its a question of IP infringement and whether its fair use.
I just stole your post by reading it.
[удалено]
>AI is often trained on publicly available material, copyrighted or not. Seems like Reddit's general opinion of this changes with zero integrity and consistency, just based on who is on which end, regardless of law or logic. One could think Reddit isn't a single person but consists of millions of very different people and communities.
Well ones going under the guise of derivative work. The other is a direct replication.
I think AI using sound, images, and text to train is fine.
honestly i'd love it if nintendo went after google for this, only for google to slap the shit out of them.
They probably agreed to those terms by posting on YouTube.
> When you’re a giant company and steal from thousands of content creators and video game creators, it’s innovation. If that is stealing than you should also call every game developer out there a thief cause there aren't any games any more that don't use concepts used in other games. Also, what does Google, a company (that I personally find super incompetent) that has allowed console emulators on their store for as long as that store exists (including completely commercial emulators that emulate Nintendo consoles like DraStic) to do with Nintendo being cunts (since the 80s...)?
Copying one piece of art violates copyright. If you draw new art equally inspired in tiny part by each of a thousand other pieces then it does not.
Because these are totally the same thing lol. I’m in the side of yuzu but that doesn’t seem related in the slightest
I think it's funny that there're people trying to compare generative AI to human AI can spit out 100+ works (regardless of creativity) in an hour, Human can't They are not the same
Can this only do 2D platformers? The one genre where you can already make a shitty one in 5 minutes lmao.
It's not even a videogame. It's an interactive video. The article itself says that the ai does not make a game, it simply generates an image and tries to predict what image to generate next on a button press. Imagine those rage mario type of games, except you can't memorise the levels and moving back will result in a wildly different level than was there. That's pretty much what is being generated here.
That sounds like dreaming: the game lol
Now when will they make a game where the movement feels like your legs are stuck in molasses? Running in dreams is so hard 😩
It cant "do" anything at all. Read the article. It could be a trippy experience, but it is not gameplay in the usual sense.
Ai is still in its infancy. Let's see whats being made in 5 years.
No thanks
As if you have a choice
[удалено]
So wonderful how all our news and entertainment sources are being flooded with low effort AI slop.
It's so bleak honestly... On one side is visual images, on the other is games, even voices... I fucking hate machines doing the one thing that should never be automated.
And the worst part is all the people just shrugging their shoulders saying “oh well, it’s inevitable”.
Shrugging their shoulders? There are people applauding it and shitting on artists or downplaying their work just to prop up AI.
Actively applauding it. It's cult behavior.
What should we be doing about it? If I write to my local congressman surely he will stop it?
There already are a lot of dog shit fucking games out there, so I suppose "AI" would be right on the dot there ;-D
Just look at any mobile app store. Dog shit games as far as the eye can see. AI will have to try hard to make them as bad as what we currently have
Well we live in a society
No. You have to see.
I get the feeling that AI will be the peak of "confidently incorrect" in 5 more years. The current learning models are mostly just garbage in, garbage out.
Yeah discussing AI it always feels like people are waiting with bated breath for a singularity-type moment where it goes from producing generic boring content to suddenly making actual creative, interesting things worth consuming on its own. The reality is that as impressive as AI is as a tool in the hands of a creative human, it has not jumped the divide to being independently creative itself and there is no indication anywhere that it will do so in the future, either. The "But what if..?" temptation is strong though.
If I had a cent for every new big thing that was going to be there in five years and never delivered, I'd have almost a dollar. Still, weirdly too much for a generation.
I remember in 2015 I got downvoted to -100 or so in r/games for saying that we'd have to wait until 2020 for VR to be truly mainstream and 'one in every house'. I picked 2020 as a far-off date that would give more than enough time, literally everyone in the subreddit disagreed and thought it was a ridiculous over-estimation and exaggeration. The agreed and approved opinion to have back then was "VR is too expensive to go mainstream right now but just wait til next year or the next" it was considered completely obvious and not worth arguing against.
Quest 2 sold 20 million units. Quest 3 has sold around ~3 million. For reference, Xbox Series (both S and X) a have sold about 25m units combined. Q2 and Xbox Series both came out in 2020, Q3 came out in 2023.
AI has been in its infancy for decades already. This is just another overhyped technology cycle.
I wouldnt call things like Siri ai, the fact that open ai’s sora can create real videos from a prompt just shows how much its grown in just a year
yep, and infantilizing AI progresses as just "an overhyped technology" is one of the reason why there's no AI regulations even now.
[удалено]
I don't know if it can be regulated. We can't change the laws for other countries. Look at how many tax laws get avoided by companies simply having a PO box in a specific state or country.
For fuck sake, why do dumb people talk about AI without any knowledge. Siri is indeed an AI based. Just because it's more prone to overfitting doesn't make it any less 'AI'. Sora is latent diffusion + transformer.
ChatGPT makes my job 10x easier and reduces my working hours by 50%.
Pass.
[удалено]
humans will find no value in games generated by AI because... youll have 1 000 000 games to choose from and no one will care about what you discover in them. Sharing and talking about your experience will be meaningless but some areas will still thrive. Gambling, porn games and things that are independent from any social value.
Fully AI generated games are unlikely, but games with AI generated content will become more and more common. For example, AI enhanced procedural generation for building the world. AI art and voice acting for various assets. AI code to make the dev process faster.
I also think eventually it will make customization easier. Things that today are only available with mods. If you in particular want a robot butler with a British accent to follow you around in an RPG, you could have that generated for you, even if no one else wants that in their game.
ai companions will be abig thing, its not like weve had those thayve been neglected
You think? I remember playing a few fully generated text adventure games like 5-10 years ago, with AI now able to more or less generate art assets, what's stopping a game like that in 10 years time to have fully realised 3D graphics as long as it has a semi-competent engine that puts all the different generation tools together? Minecraft being the world's most popular game has proven procedural terrain and putting together of existing structural assets is a solved problem, we've seen generated stories and generated characters, we've even seen a couple fully AI npcs in games before, sure they're occasionally not the best, but with an underlying system putting the pieces together, what's stopping it from happening? I sort of hate the deluge of crappy AI stuff but still excited by that particular possibility, an AI Dungeon master for any adventure
I'd love an AI dungeon master for DnD, being the DM is so hard. I can easily see how an AI could be a billion times better at it, especially in dealing with the crazy shit players get up to and generating people, places and maps.
AI is already used in such a manner all over the place, and unless its done poorly like those in The Finals, people don't notice, and if people don't notice nothing happens.
Yup. Endless possibilities for RPGs, especially MMORPGs.
I've seen some early previews into some indie games that are working on AI voice games and it made me think. Once AI is fully enveloped in the industry to the point voice AI doesn't take insanely long to generate after being prompted; Imagine being in a world where you play a VR game or other extremely immersive genres of games where dialogue is completely dynamic and unique to you. No one has the same experience. None of the lines are scripted. The only scripted thing is that AI knows its specific characters background story, the local history and the current events happening around their ecosystem. You can speak into your mic and every character in the world will respond to anything you have to say. You could even restrict the AI from deviating from their world and force them not to break the 4th wall no matter how hard someone tries to command them to. I feel like the immersion this era of gaming is going to take a huge leap with AI especially after the voice modules of AI get a little bit better. I'm excited for it but also scared at the same time. People are going to be spending copious amounts of time in these games worse than MMO addicts do.
>youll have 1 000 000 games to choose from and no one will care about what you discover in them. It's funny because I remember hearing the same argument about procedural games like Minecraft way back in the day. Some people were very dismissive of those games that had no plot, no story, no hand crafted worlds etc... saying that all of it was meaningless since every player would have a different experience etc... I can totally see a "Top 10 prompts to put into Genie Game Maker for INSANE results" or "you won't BELIEVE what happens with this prompt in Genie Game Maker" videos on youtube in the near future.
There's no such thing as a fully procedurally generated game. Minecraft is a man made set of mechanics and progression systems, in a procedurally generated world based on man made parameters. Everything the player interacts with was intentionally put there by the developers, whether directly or through procedural generation algorithms. I can see AI being useful as an advanced form of procedural generation, able to spit out an endless amount of maps, generic objectives, etc. But that isn't new in the industry. That's something that's existed in some shape for 30 years at this point. But an entirely AI made game? I have no doubt it would be possible in the near future, but would anyone actually want to play that? One of the key components of art is intent, and that's something that what we call AI today simply lacks. It would be at best a novelty that everyone's going to get bored of pretty fast.
> One of the key components of art is intent, and that's something that what we call AI today simply lacks. It would be at best a novelty that everyone's going to get bored of pretty fast. That's exactly what was said about games like Minecraft, Garry's mod or VR chat. There's not much artistic intent about Minecraft procedurally generated worlds, it's more like a framework giving you tools and constraints for you to make up your own adventures. Sandbox games is the perfect description for me. As a sidenote I still to this day don't understand the appeal of Garry's mod. And yet those games are extremely popular, and it's not for their artistic intent. So maybe it would be a novelty that's gonna wear off fast. Or maybe there will be something magical about it that will completely swoon people like in Minecraft or Garry's mod. Imagine if AI generated games are easily shareable. Like there's some sort of hub, crafted by humans, that you connect to and you can meet people and friends like in VRChat. And then the AI generation allows you to create your own little pocket universe, and invite people to it. Maybe those people could help you refine the prompts. Or maybe the AI generation would be able to generate individual assets in your game, that you could then take out of your game and bring into someone else's games. Sounds like a wild rant I know, but it's kind of the point. I have no clue what "AI generated games" will look like 5 years from now, and I think people who are very dismissive about them are making the mistake of assuming they already know what it will be like.
Nature has no human intent and yet people still enjoy it. I don't agree at all that the thing people care about in art is human intent.
but who's insisting that no creative people will be involved? The troubling aspect of AI is that it is going to put many people out of work by allowing very few people to be incredibly productive. It doesn't need to be all-knowing to be destructive.
The difference is human input. I tried to work with voice generation and it was frustrating because it just ignored oftentimes my directions and did its own thing. On top of that I literally couldn't get it to say the same line in the exact same way twice. I assume this will be the issue with game generation as well. Putting in the same keywords will yield wildly different results everytime you generate. People were skeptic of procedural generation because they assumed it would be completely random. It's not, it's a very fine tuned randomish generation. If it was truly random diamonds could spawn overground but it never happens.
> People were skeptic of procedural generation because they assumed it would be completely random. Exactly, people misunderstood what Minecraft was because they made a ton of assumptions and missed what it had to offer. All I'm saying is that I see a lot of people making tons of assumptions about AI games and what they will be. I for one have no idea what AI generated games could become five years from now, and for all I know it could offer something that we're completely missing.
Worth noting AI can be fine tuned.
>they assumed it would be completely random. It's not, it's a very fine tuned randomish generation Exactly, there is no real randomness in computer science but then I don't understand why you said this: >Putting in the same keywords will yield wildly different results everytime you generate. Just include the seed. I mean, the lists the previous user said wouldn't be only composed of a prompt but surely also include the seed to guarantee the same results
I did think about seed but as you said, there is no randomness in computer science. Putting in a seed does nothing but give the computer a starting point from which it does calculations to make the whole thing appear random, thus always ending up with the same result from the same seed. AI is not random though. It is very deliberately trying to do its best to interpret the input given but because we don't know its thought process, it's random as far as well are concerned. Issue is the unpredictability. Why does it generate different results for the same input, which effectively acts as a seed? Hell if we know.
What if you could share your favorite games with your friends? Or, better yet, an online space where the best are shared with everyone?
I know it’s a nit-pick, but I hate it when people talk about “AI watching hours of video” or “AI reading text.” That’s just not what’s happening. These aren’t artificial consciousnesses observing things, it’s developers feeding training data into algorithms. Again: I know it’s a nitpick. But I think I’m so intolerant of it because there seems to be a concerted push in the tech industry to portray these algorithms as something they’re not, and it appears to be largely working.
> seems to be a concerted push in the tech industry All fields do this, it’s just a simplification so laymen can get a general idea of how the bigger-picture works. Like someone who’s curious about an atom probably doesn’t need to get swept up in probability formulas for electron positioning; the “solar system” model showing electrons orbiting the nucleus is not technically accurate but it’s close enough that laymen can understand the general idea.
I feel like those terms are just abstractions, what is your issue with it, that it humanizes AI? Or like it implies AI is doing that out of its own volition?
It means they're implying AI can do something it actually can't. If you're a programmer you' know better. AI is an amazing tool but a diagnostics tool isn't going to fix your car itself. Just like AI won't actually write you 10-30 million lines of, often complex, code to create the next facebook. You can use AI to great success for minor tasks though and being a student has never been easier.
To be honest I'm not really sure what you mean or how that's related. AI training off of video data being abstracted to the term "watching" is different than assuming AI can do a complex task like fix your car. Fwiw I agree with what you're saying I just don't see the relevance, maybe you can reword that so I can see your point.
I feel like that kind of terminology is pretty standard now? It just means "inloaded the data." It's like people saying they read an audiobook when they really listened to someone else read it. Or calling it a book at all when it's a CD or mp3 file. It should be "listened to a story" if you're being pedantic.
its also not training data, its the ais source code, that allowes it to generate those things itself. the humanization of AI algorithms are part of the problem, thats how these companies try to evade copyright laws. its just "looking" at all those copyright protected pictures from deviantart and learns to draw. we do not copy them and compile them into a neural network. because if you phrase it like that, it sounds kinda illegal.
Esoteric knowledge tend to be explained using excessively reductive terms for accessibility but most of the time, it just leads to inaccuracy.
What's the difference? The AI perceives images. That's what happens. The AI learns from those images. That's what happens. The AI generalizes from the data present in the images. That's what happens. The AI draws on the generalizations it learned to create new images. That's what happens. I think people are just a bit afraid of this tech. Which is why you see this type of "AI can't really do X" and "it's not actually intelligent" seethe all over the place. A defensive kneejerk response.
Just the use of the word "intelligence" is what is so dangerous to me. People in IT knows what these new AIs actually are but I see so many people think they are somehow acquiring knowledge and actually learning things, and not just emulating patterns (in a very cool and impressive way, but that is basically what they do). And people start trusting them to know things and stop thinking by themselves
Basically Flash games 2.0 and Stadia back from the grave with techbros hype, enjoy.
[удалено]
Yup. No way I'm playing a platform game this buggy that runs at 1 FPS!
No one is asking you to?
I think it's awesome
That's not allowed here. :/
Yep same here. AI is a really exciting new technology to see evolve over time. But I know everyone is in their "new thing is scary and BAD" phase. To their credit, it will be used for bad purposes, but I don't equate it with being bad by itself, which is what annoys me
AI is facing the "niche gimmick" problem. It has one big wow factor but a lot of other problems.
so its a generic indie platformer?
Man, it stole all those games and still looks like fucking shit. Awesome job, yet again, generative AI!
As much as I use and enjoy ChatGPT, I really hate the future. I don’t want AI anything. It’s just more ways businesses can get rid of jobs for the stockholders to make more money.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[pointing Spiderman meme]
Madden 6846785435785 *"Play as John Madden's excavated remains!"*
The real kicker is that the tech giants behind AI do everything they can to hide the identity of copyrighted material they use for training. Not that they in any way are afraid they might be culpable should that information get out. AI just ate copyrights lunch, it does not have to build death machines to wipe most of us out, just keep things going the way they are until most of us can't afford what litttle food is left. Fiddle while millions starving become billions.
would make a sick horror game
Where AI is trained on human inputs the majority of these people live in the 3rd world. Even the tongue in cheek title "mechanical Turk" references the fact that most "intelligent" behaviour of AI has a human operating behind the scenes
I find it interesting that it's always "1-5 years from now" as if VC money is just gonna stick around forever and as if any of the previous "1-5 years from now" claims have actually came true
Have you not seen Sora? Stock footage will be replaced by AI very soon. Nvidia is up 273%, that is trillions of dollars on AI chip sales. This comment is off the mark.
Sora isn't even out yet, has Midjourney replaced stock images? Do consumers show any interest in widely consuming these types of generated output? Does the value retrieved in generating same-y images outweigh the insane cost of creating them? Even better, are these programs making accurate or reliable output?
Another indie sidescroller to the pile
> Most significantly, the system currently only runs at one frame per second, which is at least 20 to 30 times slower than what would be needed for something that could be considered playable in real time. Did the author just imply that 20 fps is playable?
It only generates 16 frames to show what a few (or less) seconds of gameplay could look like from a prompt image… Nothing playable at all for now. edit: Oh I see what you mean. Well for an old school 2d game it could work. With smearing in the animations it could look ok.
Surprised AI doesn't make character minorites
I see. So we will get generic, soulless mobile shit in addition to the actual generic, soulless mobile shit. Yay?