• hlmw@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Procedural generation though. Infinite replay value with actual graphics or voiceover? Fuck yeah. Great roguelites will use genai and that’s awesome.

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Honestly, I’d love that as well, but the problem is that you cannot connect GenAI generations to mechanics because they’re too fuzzy. The best way to use them atm is to use them only for fluff. For example to automatically generate the art for encounters, or the flavor text for card games etc. But even then, they tend to converge into generic boring slop. Still I think there’s some potential there for some creative roguelike devs to do GenAI fluff kinda OK.

    • Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      17 hours ago

      We’d still like the option to opt out of that mess, though. I’m not sold on the quality nor the ethics yet.

      • dick_fineman@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        15 hours ago

        The ethics based on Intellectual Property? Quality, sure, but ethics?

        Full disclosure: I’m a geek from the days of newsgroups and Geocities. I watched the rise and fall of things like Napster. And I watched IP-law get more and more restrictive. But what is “intellectual property” really? You’re effectively taking an idea and saying “this is mine, I made this first, therefore I own it”.

        Around 1996, when I was 12, I thought it’d be really cool to have a small laptop that laid flat and you could hold in your hands. The designs I drew up VERY closely resembled a Blackberry. Blackberry came out a few years later. If I had filed the right paperwork, at 12, should I be able to stop them? I sincerely doubt they were spying on the drawings I made on the back of my homework. Should you get to stifle innovation just because you had the first brainfart? I don’t think so.

        But okay, let’s say you’re only thinking about artistic works. Again, you’re gonna have repetition. This came out in 1995. This came out in 2008.

        So what’s the issue with AI; it was trained on “copyrighted” material? K, well so were you. Are folks upset because creators didn’t get paid every time an AI reviewed their copyrighted works? Well, are they similarly upset about folks who check a book or movie out of the library? Not so much…because that’s normalized (though would NEVER go over in today’s hyper-corporate nonsense world). Okay, so are folks upset that generative works can resemble the style or “essence” of the original work? Lol, see the Jill Sobule/Katy Perry comparison above, also consider “Fair Use” and the likely transformative nature involved as well.

        This isn’t an “ethics” issue…it’s an issue of disrupting existing channels for corporate power within a world sliding more and more into a dystopia of corporate fascism.

    • DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      They’ll be great once the tech is better. Right now, genAI that appears in games is still pretty jank.