AI crap in compo entries?
category: general [glöplog]
Quote:
You seem to think that creative work is a chore to be disposed with. That people hate that work.
No. I think creative jobs are the best jobs.
You jump to conclusions in ways that are appalling to me. Furthermore, you seem to think that I believe things that simply contradict what I have explained above.
Quote:
Oh yeah? Where? :DSeveral people seemed to complain that this prod is being severely and unjustly underrated.
@wayfinder
Sorry, it's a bit late and I don't want to read again your previous posts. Perhaps tomorrow.
Sorry, it's a bit late and I don't want to read again your previous posts. Perhaps tomorrow.
@Krill
0-10
0-10
@4gentE: NaN. Where?!? :)
Quote:
What happened guys? Are you perhaps not so sure anymore that the product is good?
Actually it's much more fun watching you here patrolling the murals of your anti AI fortress :-)
I'm totally confident about my contribution to this work, which I would rate as mostly technical.
Quote:
This product is ART. Without a doubt. You know what makes it art? The length of this thread. That’s what elevates it to art status. The amount of words, thoughts, discussion. This is a classic piece of artistic performance/provocation.
As you can imagine, I disagree. Controversy is entirely orthogonal to art. Just because you are upset doesn't make something art. And certainly these different assessments flow from our different definitions.
Quote:
Art Should Comfort the Disturbed and Disturb the Comfortable
:-)
This is what Im afraid will happen.
1. Some years ago pixel work had to be done by a human GFX artist.
2. AI started to appear. Still pretty bad. Some used it.
3. Today AI is kind of good and more use it. So much that its evidently used in many demos and GFX compos
4. Tomorrow AI is even better and even more will use it. Because why not? One single coder can get graphics for free and don't have to wait and explain what he wants for his production.
5. This becomes the norm.
6. New artists can't compete with their early work, are demoralised by all the "amazing" AI art that "everyone" else does. Starts doing it to, because why go the hard way? No one wants to give a new lamer an opportunity when they can have amazingly cool underwater fishes floating in space with great lighting done by AI.
7. AI art can now do almost everything. Including movies.
8. The manual labour of art is lost because no one can be bothered learning it.
This could be true for every art scene and not only for our retro scene.
So this is why I'm afraid of AI in art. It's our thing. With AI art human contact is lost, no more interaction within a small group of people making stuff together. More loneliness and more hate. More lies and no real honest passion.
1. Some years ago pixel work had to be done by a human GFX artist.
2. AI started to appear. Still pretty bad. Some used it.
3. Today AI is kind of good and more use it. So much that its evidently used in many demos and GFX compos
4. Tomorrow AI is even better and even more will use it. Because why not? One single coder can get graphics for free and don't have to wait and explain what he wants for his production.
5. This becomes the norm.
6. New artists can't compete with their early work, are demoralised by all the "amazing" AI art that "everyone" else does. Starts doing it to, because why go the hard way? No one wants to give a new lamer an opportunity when they can have amazingly cool underwater fishes floating in space with great lighting done by AI.
7. AI art can now do almost everything. Including movies.
8. The manual labour of art is lost because no one can be bothered learning it.
This could be true for every art scene and not only for our retro scene.
So this is why I'm afraid of AI in art. It's our thing. With AI art human contact is lost, no more interaction within a small group of people making stuff together. More loneliness and more hate. More lies and no real honest passion.
@ham
I've decided to try and elaborate on my statement that I sometimes find it hard to talk to you. Of course, I fully expect the "open the popcorn" people to have a good laugh, because that's what they feed on, the signs that someone cares about something or someone and is willing to elaborate beyond one or two sentences. But that doesn't matter, I just personally like when a statement is followed by (any sort of) argumentation. So here goes:
In order for us to communicate satisfactory we have to have a baseline established. Every now and then I perceive you as disturbing the baseline.
The basis of making a mental model of anything and everything is one sentence long: You build a model using the available data. And that's it. A borderline example for illustration: if I knew only one man from Dagestan and he happened to be very tall, I'd have to create a mental model of Dagestan people as very tall. You build the model out of available data. This model wouldn't be of great quality, but you gotta stick with it for the time being. If the quality of that data is lacking (if the data is insufficient or seems to be polluted), you can't just dismiss it and go back to building your model out of thin air and prejudice. You build the model based on what data is available and go and acquire more data to up the model quality.
Example 1
I offer you my own life experience. A narrow slice of experience in the field I know well. I even don't go making too much conclusions, I give you the data. First hand data, lived in. You dismiss that with prophetic godly statement "If you have been around...you should know..." This disturbs the borderline.
Example 2
You claim that we should objectively rate a prod. Fizzer offers you the Pouet thumbups and thumbdowns as the only metric available to us. The only data upon which to build a model. You dismiss this, literally writing "Bullshit". This disturbs the borderline. Makes me wonder what do you think "objective" means if not a statistical average of many subjective inputs in this case? The only data we have.
I won't present more examples, this is too long as it is, but I hope you catch what I'm trying to say. Please don't get offended by this analysis which is perhaps out of line and certainly out of place. I just wanted to elaborate, describe what I meant. Thanks.
I've decided to try and elaborate on my statement that I sometimes find it hard to talk to you. Of course, I fully expect the "open the popcorn" people to have a good laugh, because that's what they feed on, the signs that someone cares about something or someone and is willing to elaborate beyond one or two sentences. But that doesn't matter, I just personally like when a statement is followed by (any sort of) argumentation. So here goes:
In order for us to communicate satisfactory we have to have a baseline established. Every now and then I perceive you as disturbing the baseline.
The basis of making a mental model of anything and everything is one sentence long: You build a model using the available data. And that's it. A borderline example for illustration: if I knew only one man from Dagestan and he happened to be very tall, I'd have to create a mental model of Dagestan people as very tall. You build the model out of available data. This model wouldn't be of great quality, but you gotta stick with it for the time being. If the quality of that data is lacking (if the data is insufficient or seems to be polluted), you can't just dismiss it and go back to building your model out of thin air and prejudice. You build the model based on what data is available and go and acquire more data to up the model quality.
Example 1
I offer you my own life experience. A narrow slice of experience in the field I know well. I even don't go making too much conclusions, I give you the data. First hand data, lived in. You dismiss that with prophetic godly statement "If you have been around...you should know..." This disturbs the borderline.
Example 2
You claim that we should objectively rate a prod. Fizzer offers you the Pouet thumbups and thumbdowns as the only metric available to us. The only data upon which to build a model. You dismiss this, literally writing "Bullshit". This disturbs the borderline. Makes me wonder what do you think "objective" means if not a statistical average of many subjective inputs in this case? The only data we have.
I won't present more examples, this is too long as it is, but I hope you catch what I'm trying to say. Please don't get offended by this analysis which is perhaps out of line and certainly out of place. I just wanted to elaborate, describe what I meant. Thanks.
Quote:
This is what Im afraid will happen.
1. Some years ago pixel work had to be done by a human GFX artist.
2. AI started to appear. Still pretty bad. Some used it.
3. Today AI is kind of good and more use it. So much that its evidently used in many demos and GFX compos
4. Tomorrow AI is even better and even more will use it. Because why not? One single coder can get graphics for free and don't have to wait and explain what he wants for his production.
5. This becomes the norm.
6. New artists can't compete with their early work, are demoralised by all the "amazing" AI art that "everyone" else does. Starts doing it to, because why go the hard way? No one wants to give a new lamer an opportunity when they can have amazingly cool underwater fishes floating in space with great lighting done by AI.
7. AI art can now do almost everything. Including movies.
8. The manual labour of art is lost because no one can be bothered learning it.
This could be true for every art scene and not only for our retro scene.
So this is why I'm afraid of AI in art. It's our thing. With AI art human contact is lost, no more interaction within a small group of people making stuff together. More loneliness and more hate. More lies and no real honest passion.
I second that.
Quote:
You lost me there. :)One single coder can get graphics for free and don't have to wait and explain what he wants for his production.
A worthwhile effect takes about as long to code and polish as good graphics to make for that effect (if not longer).
Usually the coder would put in some fugly placeholder graphics, notify the graphician, and go on coding, then finally put in finished proper gfx as soon as done.
Quote:
3. Today AI is kind of good and more use it. So much that its evidently used in many demos and GFX compos
4. Tomorrow AI is even better and even more will use it. Because why not? One single coder can get graphics for free and don't have to wait and explain what he wants for his production.
5. This becomes the norm.
6. New artists can't compete with their early work, are demoralised by all the "amazing" AI art that "everyone" else does. Starts doing it to, because why go the hard way? No one wants to give a new lamer an opportunity when they can have amazingly cool underwater fishes floating in space with great lighting done by AI.
I actually think that's the optimistic read.
What's more likely to happen - and you can see this already - is that we've already passed the peak, and the technology turned out to be impressive on its face but on closer scrutiny not particularly useful to the degree that it was sold. It is, however, being sold to solve every problem ever, to very gullible people in very high positions (of course some of them clearly know, but buy in to ride the wave nevertheless - sound familiar?) so the replacements will likely happen and it will probably cause a bunch of fallout, before it turns out to be garbage, and the services will be enshittified and never come back, because of the sunken cost fallacy and share price.
From the scene perspective, what this means is that if this stuff gets normalized, we will likely have a bunch of good artists disillusioned by the lack of community comity about the subject, who will then eventually stop caring and leave (without you knowing or noticing because most of them won't make a post about it), because the widespread use of AI directly communicates to them there's no need for them - as artists or as members of the community - but because the quality of the stuff is shit, we'll just lower our collective standards in search of, as I wrote before, the quick dopamine hit.
The core problem here is that it's really hard to get people to care about an issue that doesn't affect them, and the scene by its nature allows you to silo in to the degree that nothing really affects you. From that point on, it's impossible to have a conversation about the common good.
Quote:
Usually the coder would put in some fugly placeholder graphics, notify the graphician, and go on coding, then finally put in finished proper gfx as soon as done.
This is a possible scenario:
And now the prospect is that this "fugly placeholder graphics" will come from AI, be less "fugly", be decided as "good enough" and become the final graphics. The audience will gradually become willing to take this for granted. Bar lowers, everybody happy, right?
There are AI graphics in prods these days (don't make me go name names, conclude yourself) that are served as final graphics but which exactly fit the description of "fugly placeholder graphics".
Human art will be lost, like tears in rAIn.
Quote:
Then that decision to keep that placeholder graphics is the problem.And now the prospect is that this "fugly placeholder graphics" will come from AI, be less "fugly", be decided as "good enough" and become the final graphics.
Especially on the olden platforms, some conversion process is required to downsample generated/scanned/photographed graphics. This will always look worse than finely handcrafted pixel images.
If somebody deems that good enough while accepting it's worse than prior art made by others, their loss.
The clearly superior prior art will remain for others to pull out and point to.
Quote:
If somebody deems that good enough while accepting it's worse than prior art made by others, their loss.
Yeah but if some people can't notice the difference right now, there will be more people tomorrow. That's why artists panic. Not because AI is on par with their work. But because AI imagery is severely inferior but people don't seem to notice / care. Why would graphicians continue to shed blood and sweat and tears if it goes unawarded?
It's just SOME people. Not ALL. And as has been demonstrated, the people who don't notice the difference will downgrade their opinion as soon as they're made aware of AI usage.
Humans like to see human feats, as grip has pointed out.
Humans like to see human feats, as grip has pointed out.
Quote:
It's just SOME people. Not ALL. And as has been demonstrated, the people who don't notice the difference will downgrade their opinion as soon as they're made aware of AI usage.
That's one of the reasons I tried to get your rating of the prod.
Quote:
That's why artists panic. Not because AI is on par with their work. But because AI imagery is severely inferior but people don't seem to notice / care.
Same with the playlists you find on Spotify and other streaming platforms nowadays where basically all songs sound the same as if they have been made by AI algorithms already. Or with inferior pixel graphics used in a lot of Steam games. There might be still some gems left but they're now even harder to find.
It would be good to keep the demoscene as a place where the high production value is still appreciated and that we don't fall victim to this degradation.
Quote:
It's just SOME people. Not ALL. And as has been demonstrated, the people who don't notice the difference will downgrade their opinion as soon as they're made aware of AI usage.
I think when people got used to the inferior production quality they won't see or even might have forgotten how it could look like. So they won't downgrade their opinion - instead they accept how it became and "how it is nowadays".
Quote:
Why would i rate a production i was involved with?That's one of the reasons I tried to get your rating of the prod.
Quote:
And i bet that in those dystopian "they don't make demos like they used to any more" times, people'll cheer whenever somebody comes along and releases a demo that is clearly superior to the then-standard drivel. =)So they won't downgrade their opinion - instead they accept how it became and "how it is nowadays".
Because you used to deem it good to the point of disliking me criticize it.
You gotta have an opinion for that, a rating. You and ham and bifat.
You gotta have an opinion for that, a rating. You and ham and bifat.
Quote:
And i bet that in those dystopian "they don't make demos like they used to any more" times, people'll cheer whenever somebody comes along and releases a demo that is clearly superior to the then-standard drivel. =)
Who would release such a demo in that world? Where would he get the motivation? Where would he get the forgotten knowledge? Who would be the cheering people? This has more holes than than a swiss cheese.
Let's agree to disagree then.
Do you happen to have kids? Do they applaud expertly crafted automatic mechanical watch when they see it? Can they even recognize it? Do they cheer when they see it, as opposed to an AppleWatch?