undefined

points

[-]

There are millions of games. When choosing which one to play, you've normally chosen one that looks polished over one that does not, because of what it signals. Now that signal is gone, can't easily discern what's a sloppy crappy game vs one that's actually fun to play.

by 2001zhaozhao8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

To me what matters is being able to verify human authorship at a glance. It used to be that when you saw a work of visual art you were automatically 100% sure that someone had to have spent a great deal of effort producing that, but image models took it away. This is the same situation but with game environments.

by SpaceCoreDev40 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

[flagged]

by Jtarii3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Because people don't want to be tricked by AI slop.

by Forgeties7911 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

A good painting is never “just a good painting.” The context, the artist, etc. are part of the art. To remove that is to make it no longer art because it’s no longer an actual expression of anything personal. Pretty words with no intent behind them don’t mean anything.

Plenty of Holiday Inn’s have lovely painted landscapes on the walls. People aren’t paying for them to be in their homes.

by mparramon9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

With tools like this, the artist is not removed from the art. He just has more leverage.

I would argue the opposite even: this is more personal, as a singular artist can now do more by himself, without relying on others to do the parts that he couldn't do before.

by AuthAuth8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

AI strips a lot of the intention from the work. The artist might want a wooden house with a straw roof and while they design the house they might add framing and other small touches to the house and to the viewer the small decisions could be as important as the choice for a straw roof.

When the artist AI generates it they get a house with wooden house with a straw roof and nothing else has any thought or intention. Its less personal, the viewer previously did not have to question what the artists intention was now they do because its likely the artist had no intention or thought towards a particular part of the art.

by stubish2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

There are a lot of assumptions here about how an artist uses the AI tools. Suddenly artists stop fussing and planning and sketching and mocking and drafting and redrafting and polishing until the work is perfect and communicates their intent in the way they need, and turn into completely different people. When a person just tosses a prompt at an LLM and accepts the result, you would be hard pressed to call them an artist.

by mparramon8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

So the artist simply accepts the AI generated wooden house. Might it be possible that he does not?

Furthermore, before AI, artists also used assets that came from other creators, accepting them wholesale. No intention, then?

The issue I see here is that we're judging the tool, not the artist.

It reminds me so much of the digital photography backlash. But here we are.

by BizarroLand12 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Some people still care about it, or want a possibly shared experience over one that can only be experienced once by one person

by 11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

deleted