[palata]

> I genuinely can't imagine what will happen when Just Anybody could create a major motion picture or a AAA videogame, by themselves or with a few friends rather than a city-full of talent.

If I look at video games today, it seems like a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to be successful is to have a lot of money to make heavy marketing.

When consumers can't make a difference between the quality of a product (be it a piece of art or anything else, like a car or a browser), then what makes the difference is the brute force side of marketing: pay more to be more visible so you sell more.

I don't think it's a good thing. I prefer a world where those who have expertise in something are recognized as experts. What's the point of practicing 10h a day to be a musician if your neighbour can just pretend to be one with AI, and nobody will ever make a difference?

[jfengel]

The AAA games need enormous marketing because they need to sell a lot of copies. They are extremely expensive to make.

Conceivably, in the future, somebody could make a Zelda or Baldur level game in their spare time. It may not sell ten million copies, but it doesn't need to.

Is it worse than the current games, with vast amounts of craftsmen? Maybe. It might be a little sad. Or it might be great that all of those artists now have free time to do their own art.

Of course all of them have to eat. And so we'd better hope it also comes with even greater superabundance than we already have. We get lots of artists, who sell very little but produce great art, or we get something potentially very bad.

[palata]

> It may not sell ten million copies, but it doesn't need to.

Have you ever spoken to independent game developers? They don't want to sell millions, just enough to live from it. Well that's hard.

> Or it might be great that all of those artists now have free time to do their own art.

Some of them actually want to make a video game. But the risk is that non-artists will be able to make games with generative AIs (which trained on data that the authors - artists - did not agree on sharing this way).

You can say "yeah yeah, it's progress, some jobs disappear, etc". But I still have to note the irony: generative AI was trained from the work of artists to steal the job of those artists, and everybody seems to find that it was "fair use" of their intellectual property...