Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gareth_untether 639 days ago
It takes tremendous skill in a number of areas to produce a video game. I do wonder if with AI generated games we’ll see more of this type of work or less!
1 comments

I think responsibly developed AI (read: no copywrite infringement) for automation could help the industry tremendously. However, don't get me confused, generative AI imo has no place in games, furthermore in art as a whole.
I studied for a Fine Art BA, and I don't see an issue with generative AI in art per se. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that what matters is the outcome, not the process. If someone can produce something meaningful to other people - and it might well be something like a critique of AI using AI - then what's the issue? (That's a genuine question by the way, not rhetorical).

There's a huge amount of art I find vacuous, much of it tradtional media like painting, no need for it to be AI generated. Be open to learning about it, and if you still don't like it then that's fine. Theres's a bunch of stuff that's non-traditional like Alvin Lucier, Gustav Metzger, Hans Haacke, as well as generative sound installations by people like Brian Eno. I don't think gatekeeping art ever works - that's part of its fun! The only thing that does really get to me is the huge amount of dirty money sloshing around the art world, but that's more about ethics than aesthetics.

> I came to the conclusion a long time ago that what matters is the outcome, not the process.

I agree with you about half-way. The process of making the art isn't important. It's why songs that have amazed the world have taken anywhere between 7 hours and 7 years to produce. The outcome is informed by the life that produced it. To reiterate, the life that produced it is the most important. It's a connection to their humanity.

> I don't think gatekeeping art ever works - that's part of its fun!

You're also right, but this is primarily a dimension of taste. When I say AI has no place in art, what I am really getting at is it will have no place. I believe people will see it for what it is, and what it says about the people who use it.

Someone put it really succinctly recently: with generative AI, there is a net loss of intention in the world. That's shit.
How so? I'd imagine there's a net increase of intention, owing to the way AI closes skill gaps & lowers the barriers to entry for creation.
Andy Warhol's art is just copied cans of soup or famous people photos. Jazz music is a thing because of the Jazz standards. Copying and remixing is art.
It's copyright, as in the right to copy, not copywrite as in writing copies.
I don’t quite understand your last point. Why not use generative AI? I think it could really empower indie devs for instance.
> I think it could really empower indie devs for instance.

I think indie devs are already pretty empowered with the number of small game engines, etc., given the quantity - and quality - of stuff they're putting out (just look at itch.io).

How is that an argument against making things better?
It's an argument against genML being somehow required to empower indie devs (when it clearly isn't).
I’m not sure I understand. Its not required, as is evidenced by all the amazing indie games we have already pre AI. But if it helps, why not? Maybe this way there can be even more great games.