AI In Games, I Can Only Imagine

[Huntn]

I was about to have this discussion in The Outer Worlds thread about romance mechanisms and suddenly realized how huge AI will become not only in all things computers, but in how Human interactions could unfold in games…

Ref: Romancing a character In a video game-

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-outer-worlds-pc-console.2237914/page-3?post=32348695#post-32348695

You have companion quests, and essentially Pavarti and Junlie is just another multi-stage companion quest.

Whereas I always think about romance in RPGs are more of a math problem - get enough '+' and about too many '-' and you win the prize - Jaheira! Unless it is Alpha Protocol, in which case where you have one 'real' romance and a couple of 'chance encounters' ... which is also cool. (especially since one of the chance encounters can cost you the real romance if you didn't do everything else right!)

The first time I ran into it, romancing a companion* was in Fallout 4 and there there was not much to it, but I enjoyed companions who without any real effort on your part besides helping them with a personal issue, grew to like you and approved or disapporved of your actions, with no real consequence. The perfect relationship, lol.

* I remember getting married in Skyrim, another Bethesda game but don’t remember much of a romance requirement in that game, and there your spouse stayed home, while you were out dealing with weighty issues.

As I liked my female companions (F4), but I was initially worried if I told one to go home, they would dump me, but this was not the case. The most nifty was getting a buff for sleeping with them along with the occasional saucy comment (especially from Cait) about only what you could imagine. I enjoyed it when a companion would ask for help and confide in me and I could help them, as it made me feel good at least within the confines of the game setting. Now In Outer Worlds, Parvati is asking me to help her romance someone else which I’m happy to do, but it does not have the same luster.

With AI, these relationships could easily become more complex.

Cyberpunk’s romance options mostly consist of supporting a character‘s position during disagreements with a third party, and helping them with conflict in their lives. These quests IMO were really well constructed, some of the best social time I’ve spent with a scripted character, but only as realistic feeling as scripted can be. The best aspect of romance in Cyberpunk, was how you could briefly go and actually spend time with a person just to be with them as I think of the Exploring The Old Neighborhood Quest with Judy Alvarez or go have dinner with River Ward’s family and play a laser tag game of sorts with his nephews.This was innovative and a first.

Now just imagine when AI is inserted into the gaming frame work, what possibility there will be for branches in the story line. Ok maybe they will be the same branches but the interactions will be much more fluid, I imagine that characters will be much more life like, more responsive and reactive. I can easily imagine AI in the middle of animation, doing away with the need for movement capture, and you might even be expected to speak though you mic to characters. 🤔

 

[txa1265]

The first time I ran into it, romancing a companion* was in Fallout 4 and there there was not much to it, but I enjoyed companions who without any real effort on your part besides helping them with a personal issue, grew to like you and approved or disapporved of your actions, with no real consequence. The perfect relationship, lol.

As I mentioned, the Baldur's Gate games offered fairly complex dialogue systems that could result in anything from becoming enemies all the way to lovers, and pretty much everything in between. Unlike some games (FO4 is one) it was next to impossible to simultaneously romance Jaheira, Aerie and Viconia (BG2) without focusing on 'gaming the system'. Same with Bastilla (KotOR) and Aribeth (NWN) ... and really 'modern classic Bioware' (Dragon Age, Mass Effect) has done a good job managing these things work even as they have become much less complex.

I love the concept of utilizing AI in dialogue systems (so long as it doesn't turn into stealing actor's voices to generate dialog scripts). The idea that a potential interest would be affected by everything - dialog choices, who is in the party, war/peace/negotiation/etc. options taken - all makes a lot of sense.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

I was about to have this discussion in The Outer Worlds thread about romance mechanisms and suddenly realized how huge AI will become not only in all things computers, but in how Human interactions could unfold in games…

Yeah I'm gonna have to stop you there broski. Nvidia already tried to make that case...and they failed horribly

The voice...the speech...the face. So soulless.

 

[txa1265]

Yeah I'm gonna have to stop you there broski. Nvidia already tried to make that case...and they failed horribly

So that means never trying again? Have you even heard of this 'technology' thing? It has a tendency to get better over time ... faster steps, more simultaneous processes, better algorithms, etc. There is a reason ChatGPT is better than Eliza (from 1966).

In terms of games, 'Soldier of Fortune 2' had 'unlimited procgen maps' back in 2002 ... but they were pretty limited. It would be much easier now to generate a complex variety of maps to keep a game going with small missions for a long time.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

So that means never trying again?

Yes it does. Never try it again.

Generative AI is full of works stolen from other writers and artists used in it's "learning model," which in turn if used for games not only would result in iffy moments like this, but deeper issues of copyright. Hollywood studios are already threatening to replace the striking writers with generative AI, and yet people are talking about using generative AI for games?!

Just stick with actual human writers. AI ain't replacing us. The only use AI could have in games is being used as bot players for multiplayer games, but being generative in a single player narrative experience, yeah no get real.

 

[txa1265]

Generative AI is full of works stolen from other writers and artists used in it's "learning model," which in turn if used for games not only would result in iffy moments like this, but deeper issues of copyright.

Actually ... I totally agree with you.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

All this computer stuff doesn't work. I hear they're using computer generated images in movies now... that's never going to take off, it looks absolutely horrible.

In terms of copyright and ideas...
How many games/movies have we seen in the past (few) decade(s) actually giving us something new? No matter where we go, it's been done before. The copyright/legal issue has been brought up as a strawman argument by writers on strike. It's not an issue at all, because even if AI would be used, they claim they're doing better jobs and if they don't, then maybe they should improve their own work. And thank god we've never seen lawsuits due to stolen ideas in movies/games before... oh.

In the meantime we enjoy stories with elements we've never seen before, such as terrorists taking hostages and the "hero" saving the day. Ghosts in a mansion, time travel, space travel, good guy vs bad guy, musical episodes in TV series, possession by demons, huge monsters, the love interest falling for another person but ultimately recognising it for a happy ending and so on and so forth. In other words, stuff that writers have seen somewhere else a million times before only to create a variation of it to sell it again... a human LLM. 🤷‍♂️

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

In terms of copyright and ideas...
How many games/movies have we seen in the past (few) decade(s) actually giving us something new?

Quite a lot actually. When you expand your horizons to more than just the same AAA games or Hollywood movies you see constantly, you're exposed to so many new wonderful ideas.

Case in point: Splatoon. Nintendo made a multiplayer shooter but instead of making it like the standard Call of Duty like affair, they instead make the game about squids and octopi shooting ink and the goal being shooting the ink on the floor and having more turf than the other team.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Case in point: Splatoon.

Mix of Painterboy, Bristles (both from early 1980s) combined with CTF and shooter elements. Elements seen long before Nintendo took those ideas, shuffled them up and combined them to what became Splatoon. Exactly what a LLM can do.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Mix of Painterboy, Bristles (both from early 1980s) combined with CTF and shooter elements. Elements seen long before Nintendo took those ideas, shuffled them up and combined them to what became Splatoon. Exactly what a LLM can do.

Tell me you never played Splatoon without telling me you never played Splatoon. Splatoon doesn't play like a single shooter you ever played. It doesn't even have a CTF like gamemode.

In Splatoon you have a humanoid form for shooting, as well as a squid/octopus form for swimming in the ink. You can hide in the ink, move fast in the ink, move up walls in the ink, and superjump to your teammates anywhere on the map. Movement is heavily prioritized with how you utilize your two forms with the ink, since you can't walk in enemy ink as you get stuck in it, so your ink also serves as area control.

Splatoon's gamemodes even reflect this. Turf War: Ink more of the floor than the enemy team when time runs out. Splat Zones: Control the marked zone/s by filling it with your team's ink. The team that controls the zone the longest (or until the knockout point) wins. Tower Control: Ink a tower in the center of the map and ride it to the goal. Clam Blitz: Collect clams scattered throughout the map until you get 10 to make a giant football, then throw the ball at the enemy's goal. Once the goal's barrier is broken by your ball, throw clams into it to score more points.

And this isn't even factoring in the single player story mode, the PvE mode Salmon Run, the ingame trading card game Tableturf Battle, and the countless ingame events hosted, most notably the Splatfests in which you pick a team from a theme and then you fight the other teams to see which choice is the best.

You don't get any of that in any other multiplayer shooter. Splatoon 3 won Best Multiplayer Game of 2022 because of all this, shocking the entire gaming landscape when everyone expected that year's Call of Duty to win over Splatoon.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Tell me you never played Splatoon without telling me you never played Splatoon.

I've played Splatoon, but that is really not the point.

You claimed:

Generative AI is full of works stolen from other writers and artists used in it's "learning model," which in turn if used for games not only would result in iffy moments like this, but deeper issues of copyright.

What you say is that AI is doing 1:1 copies and that's clearly not true (for the better models), considering we have AI these days that can pass the Turing test.
All the elements in Splatoon have been there before. Running around, jumping, using ink/paint to shoot, cleaning up that paint (hello Mario Sunshine), hiding, more area covered, taking control, running on walls, paint bombs, different forms for the players including impact on movement/travel and so on. We've seen these elements in countless games before over decades. Not exactly like that, but variations.

And that's exactly what a AI can do. Similar to a human being who is influenced by experience in life and creates something from it, a AI is "trained" on such data/experiences and in a similar way to a human using those past experiences to create something by using elements seen before, applying semantic analysis and combining them into something "new".

So if AI is stealing work from other writers, then writers do the same thing. Haunted mansions have been abused, "killer stories" (some guy hunting down others), living in virtual worlds, the famous "ice bullet" used to kill someone without evidence, etc. We've all seen those elements before and yet they're reused again and again without making exact copies. Even remakes usually don't do it 1:1.

The trend will continue and results will get better. When I first started with AI it was a "copy" of ELIZA I did in university. We've come a long way largely due to much better training data and much more processing power with some innovation here and there but largely variations along the way. And in a similar way we will see some humans replaced in the next few decades by work that can easily be done by AI. We've used AI in games for a long time and now it finds it's way into the work that's been done by "creatives". Will it fully replace humans? I doubt it. Will it replace some creative jobs in the gaming and movie/TV industry? Absolutely.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

You claimed:

What you say is that AI is doing 1:1 copies and that's clearly not true (for the better models), considering we have AI these days that can pass the Turing test.
All the elements in Splatoon have been there before. Running around, jumping, using ink/paint to shoot, cleaning up that paint (hello Mario Sunshine), hiding, more area covered, taking control, running on walls, paint bombs, different forms for the players including impact on movement/travel and so on. We've seen these elements in countless games before over decades. Not exactly like that, but variations.

And that's exactly what a AI can do. Similar to a human being who is influenced by experience in life and creates something from it, a AI is "trained" on such data/experiences and in a similar way to a human using those past experiences to create something by using elements seen before, applying semantic analysis and combining them into something "new".

So if AI is stealing work from other writers, then writers do the same thing. Haunted mansions have been abused, "killer stories" (some guy hunting down others), living in virtual worlds, the famous "ice bullet" used to kill someone without evidence, etc. We've all seen those elements before and yet they're reused again and again without making exact copies. Even remakes usually don't do it 1:1.

The trend will continue and results will get better. When I first started with AI it was a "copy" of ELIZA I did in university. We've come a long way largely due to much better training data and much more processing power with some innovation here and there but largely variations along the way. And in a similar way we will see some humans replaced in the next few decades by work that can easily be done by AI. We've used AI in games for a long time and now it finds it's way into the work that's been done by "creatives". Will it fully replace humans? I doubt it. Will it replace some creative jobs in the gaming and movie/TV industry? Absolutely.

Okay I'm gonna condense my response to be a short paragraph, because everything you mention holds little to no water. You can copy ideas, but generative AI does not copy ideas, it straight up copies works. AI learns from importing works made by humans, most of which said artists did not give permission for the AIs developers to use, and said works in the learning models are being flipped for profit by apps like NovelAI. Deviantart and Pixiv were forced to implement an opt out of AI learning models toggle when submitting works, and Valve outright banned any game from using assets generated from AI from being published on Steam.

Valve quietly banning games that use AI generated art - Dexerto

With the AI art boom ongoing, it has begun to bleed into game development. Valve, owners of Steam, have been quietly banning AI art games in response.

www.dexerto.com

 

[GrumpyCoder]

You can copy ideas, but generative AI does not copy ideas, it straight up copies works.

Simple ones, yes. More advanced ones, no.

AI learns from importing works made by humans, most of which said artists did not give permission for the AIs developers to use, and said works in the learning models are being flipped for profit by apps like NovelAI.

Again, you’re using very simple examples here. Let’s go a little deeper. How do you think semantics are extracted in neural networks and what layers are responsible for it? In your opinion, what influence does an attention mechanism and auto encoders have on the outcome and pre-processing of training data?

Also, maybe use peer-reviewed papers as sources and not press releases to generate clicks?
Franceschelli et al. published a paper on GDL under US and EU law for example, saying something very different to what you say. Smits et al. have published similar work dissecting IPR into authorship and work related parts. Countless other papers exist, also analyzing the differences between different countries.

We‘ve been using generative AI long before the ChatGPT boom. For games, for animations, to generate training including semantic content in simulations and we’ve published our work in peer reviewed papers at conferences in journals as well. But we use our own models for it. The technology is here now and will only spread further. Smaller implementations get better and that’s what’s needed for it to become more mainstream. A colleague just started to use NanoGPT. Our first models for autonomous driving simulations ran on a $50M cluster, which obviously isn’t available for everyone. We can get similar results at a fraction of the cost now and it will only get better from here. Google and IBM have done interesting work on results with low precision training compared to FP16 with much better performance. Just wait until we get dedicated FP4 hardware for that purpose. And then there’s so much being done with feature vector databases for storing training data, which will make things much easier and say goodbye to any type of copyright issue. I’d like to see a lawyer argue about “a human in an image” that was created via some feature vectors only, without an actual training image. The problem we have now is creative people or those who have never worked with the technology worried about their jobs and trying to find arguments against it. As I said, writers are trying to bad AI now, because it does such a bad job (then they should do a better one) or create lawsuits for copyright infringement (which also already exist). Translation “uh, oh, my job is in danger”. We‘ve heard the same arguments when assembly lines were introduced and later on automated assembly. BMW now has a digital twin of their production lines using generative AI in the process, which will cost some jobs but in turn make production cheaper and probably increase quality. Generative AI will explode in the future and it’s very exciting to see it happen. Might be the last true innovation I/we see. What’s after that? Maybe colonization of the Moon or Mars?

 

[Huntn]

As I mentioned, the Baldur's Gate games offered fairly complex dialogue systems that could result in anything from becoming enemies all the way to lovers, and pretty much everything in between. Unlike some games (FO4 is one) it was next to impossible to simultaneously romance Jaheira, Aerie and Viconia (BG2) without focusing on 'gaming the system'. Same with Bastilla (KotOR) and Aribeth (NWN) ... and really 'modern classic Bioware' (Dragon Age, Mass Effect) has done a good job managing these things work even as they have become much less complex.

I love the concept of utilizing AI in dialogue systems (so long as it doesn't turn into stealing actor's voices to generate dialog scripts). The idea that a potential interest would be affected by everything - dialog choices, who is in the party, war/peace/negotiation/etc. options taken - all makes a lot of sense.

That sounds great! Which of the titles have you mentioned that you would recommend to play?

Yeah I'm gonna have to stop you there broski. Nvidia already tried to make that case...and they failed horribly

The voice...the speech...the face. So soulless.

What? Is this your pronouncement that AI is and forever will be trash? 🤔 If so, I think you've drawn a premature conclusion.

 

[Huntn]

Yes it does. Never try it again.

Generative AI is full of works stolen from other writers and artists used in it's "learning model," which in turn if used for games not only would result in iffy moments like this, but deeper issues of copyright. Hollywood studios are already threatening to replace the striking writers with generative AI, and yet people are talking about using generative AI for games?!

Just stick with actual human writers. AI ain't replacing us. The only use AI could have in games is being used as bot players for multiplayer games, but being generative in a single player narrative experience, yeah no get real.

There are certainly issues with AI that need to be ironed out. That's why there is a strike. Stealing people's voices is certainly one of them. They will have to come up with their own voice instead of stealing other people's voices. However I could see an open ended licensing of someone's voice if they are in agreement. This is why a studio would IMO focus on creating their own voices which could be difficult to create a sound truly unique that does not sound like someone...it sounds messy, but rest assure, if it can be done, it will be done. That's how humans operate.

As far as technology ref: "souless" you cited an example from what year?

Actually ... I totally agree with you.

I agree about the negative aspects of AI, they will have to be ironed out, but I don't think AI will go away. I started this AI in Games thread on a positive note, what the positives are, but to everyone I'll clarify there are serious issues that will have to be ironed out. I would go a lot farther except the prohibition of sensitive subjects at MRs stops me. I'll just say that AI is powerful, I believe AI is inevitable. They are going to have to fix AI so it is not stealing from other people's works, I can see an entire new chapter of laws to address AI utilization and it will be a challenge to a Capitalist economic system for many reasons.

 

[Huntn]

All this computer stuff doesn't work. I hear they're using computer generated images in movies now... that's never going to take off, it looks absolutely horrible.

In terms of copyright and ideas...
How many games/movies have we seen in the past (few) decade(s) actually giving us something new? No matter where we go, it's been done before. The copyright/legal issue has been brought up as a strawman argument by writers on strike. It's not an issue at all, because even if AI would be used, they claim they're doing better jobs and if they don't, then maybe they should improve their own work. And thank god we've never seen lawsuits due to stolen ideas in movies/games before... oh.

In the meantime we enjoy stories with elements we've never seen before, such as terrorists taking hostages and the "hero" saving the day. Ghosts in a mansion, time travel, space travel, good guy vs bad guy, musical episodes in TV series, possession by demons, huge monsters, the love interest falling for another person but ultimately recognising it for a happy ending and so on and so forth. In other words, stuff that writers have seen somewhere else a million times before only to create a variation of it to sell it again... a human LLM. 🤷‍♂️

I'll focus on one statement:
All this computer stuff doesn't work. I hear they're using computer generated images in movies now... that's never going to take off, it looks absolutely horrible.

I do agree that Hollywood is very repetitive and it is very difficult to find something new, with mostly repeats, money grab exploitation.

But is the statement above by any means serious?
If somehow it is, I'm not sure what you are focused on but CGI is The Standard. Watch the first Avatar and you'll see a photorealistic world, that the only reason you know it's not real is because of the subject matter on an alien planet. Animal animation is just about if not perfected. They have a ways to go with human faces, but that is just a matter of time.

As with the many areas of where it can be applied, AI is huge, it can be very good or very bad depending on how it is implemented. A friend used an AI version of Photoshop, and he said he could do with a couple lines of text, what it used to take him over an hour to accomplish, manually using tools.

 

[star-affinity]

My friend from childhood is one of the founders of this AI company which focus on gaming:

modl:play

Hybrid player stand-in bots using a combination of Neural Network and finite state machine to have more human like bots.

modl.ai

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

As far as technology ref: "souless" you cited an example from what year?

That example was from this year's Computex expo. It's literally from two months ago

 

[Huntn]

That example was from this year's Computex expo. It's literally from two months ago

Early CGI, I absolutely hated it‘s early implementation. Now I still believe that a real physical location has an unbeatable appeal, say James Bond in Sienna, CGI fills a nitch that has no physical alternatives and has progressed to a point where my brain starts to dismiss it has animation when people are seamlessly interwoven. Such as Morag, a dead civilization, or Xandar (Guardians of the Galaxy) state of the art CGI. I usually find myself asking, how much of this is CGI, where dies the practical end and CGI start?

​

A parallel argument can be made about AI. But first, I’ll repeat my concern that AI as a tool is powerfully and scary on multiple levels. There is without doubt a huge threat to jobs:

Spoiler: AI Impact on jobs

The interesting thing is that job loss/export has been going on for 50 years, by the hand of the Corporatocracy, but now that basically most jobs might be threatened, the alarm is being raised. Yes, it is a threat and an opportunity, but it’s just another iteration of technological progress where what used to be represented my human skill is replaced by technology. Society will have to find a new equilibrium, and that will have to include finding a way of supporting the masses that make up our civilization. It’s very possible it’s time to consider the Socialist Utopia.

That said…

I’ve not yet seen a character powered by AI, at least one that I am aware of. If it is “soulless”, I predict it will be just a matter of time befire it finds its soul, as the programing is greatly expanded to incorporate personality and emotions. If it can be done it will be.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

There are certainly issues with AI that need to be ironed out. That's why there is a strike.

That's not why there is a strike. People want better payment. The AI argument was brought up for several reasons, foremost to get sympathy from the masses. They wanted to bring damage to the studios so they called out to everyone else to not go and see movies, not to buy physical media and cancel streaming services. When that didn't have the impact they expected, they tried to convince people "AI will replace us creatives and you're next, so join us now in the fight so you don't have to fight it one day".

But partially there's some truth for AI to replace jobs. Studios did experiments and used LLMs to create small scripts for potential short movies or series pilots and gave the same info to human writers. The result wasn't as clear as some people make it out to be. The AI found many supporters among readers (who didn't know which version they were reading). I'd say this is more an issue of "do a better job". Let's go extreme, if I'd need a surgery and an AI would do a better job than a human surgeon, I'd say goodbye to the human right away as I'm only interested in the best possible result, no matter who or what is getting me there.

But yes, there are "dangers" with AI, particularly for people who might not be as smart as they think.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/new-y...ng-fake-chatgpt-cases-legal-brief-2023-06-22/
These two "geniuses" used ChatGPT to do research for them and didn't even check if it's valid. And ChatGPT did exactly what I described above with the Splatoon example. It used real and fictional data from the past and modified it to created fictional cases that the lawyers used in a real case. That is a problem with many people these days. They don't know how to use technology properly and they believe in everything they read somewhere without questioning it. That is ok to a certain degree ("my grandmas dog jumped off the top of the Eiffel Tower and survived"), but not when there's potential harm (as in a court ruling).

Look at the "Valve is banning games with AI generated art" link above. That's click-bait. It's not what's happening at all. Valve isn't banning all games with AI generated content. They're banning games for which the developer/distributor doesn't have a copyright for. In this case GDL was used. They do the same thing for assets created by humans if the developer/distributor doesn't have the copyright. There are still games on steam with GDL created artwork. Reading (sometimes further) and understanding is still a critical task we humans have to perform. So one needs to take a step back and look at the original problem, which is how were the assets created. In the case of GDL and if those assets come from some public website, that's probably a copyright issue. Rolling your own GDL model and create assets with it on-premise is likely not an issue at all.

But is the statement above by any means serious?

Of course not. It was sarcasm. People (mostly SFX guys) said the same thing when the industry moved to CGI, because they were afraid for various reasons. Go back to the industrial revolution and you'll find similar arguments. History is full of it. Truth is, AI is here and it works better than ever. It will replace some jobs now, such as an extra/background actor, some writers, some artist painting pictures, some musicians and so on. It won't replace a lawyer (yet). Eventually it will become better and more jobs will be replaced. Then other job opportunities open up. It's called change and we've seen it everywhere throughout history. It's rarely the case that it affects so many people at the same time though, but that's because a major breakthrough was achieved.

If it is “soulless”, I predict it will be just a matter of time befire it finds its soul, as the programing is greatly expanded to incorporate personality and emotions. If it can be done it will be.

But isn't that the beauty of AI, it doesn't need to be programmed.
The machine can learn as machine learning is a "field of study that gives computers the ability to learn without being explicitly programmed". Arthur L. Samuel said that all the way back in 1959 when he was a researcher at IBM and before he became a Stanford professor in 1966 where he worked with Donald Knuth.

 

[Huntn]

That's not why there is a strike. People want better payment. The AI argument was brought up for several reasons, foremost to get sympathy from the masses. They wanted to bring damage to the studios so they called out to everyone else to not go and see movies, not to buy physical media and cancel streaming services. When that didn't have the impact they expected, they tried to convince people "AI will replace us creatives and you're next, so join us now in the fight so you don't have to fight it one day".

But partially there's some truth for AI to replace jobs. Studios did experiments and used LLMs to create small scripts for potential short movies or series pilots and gave the same info to human writers. The result wasn't as clear as some people make it out to be. The AI found many supporters among readers (who didn't know which version they were reading). I'd say this is more an issue of "do a better job". Let's go extreme, if I'd need a surgery and an AI would do a better job than a human surgeon, I'd say goodbye to the human right away as I'm only interested in the best possible result, no matter who or what is getting me there.

But yes, there are "dangers" with AI, particularly for people who might not be as smart as they think.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/new-y...ng-fake-chatgpt-cases-legal-brief-2023-06-22/
These two "geniuses" used ChatGPT to do research for them and didn't even check if it's valid. And ChatGPT did exactly what I described above with the Splatoon example. It used real and fictional data from the past and modified it to created fictional cases that the lawyers used in a real case. That is a problem with many people these days. They don't know how to use technology properly and they believe in everything they read somewhere without questioning it. That is ok to a certain degree ("my grandmas dog jumped off the top of the Eiffel Tower and survived"), but not when there's potential harm (as in a court ruling).

Look at the "Valve is banning games with AI generated art" link above. That's click-bait. It's not what's happening at all. Valve isn't banning all games with AI generated content. They're banning games for which the developer/distributor doesn't have a copyright for. In this case GDL was used. They do the same thing for assets created by humans if the developer/distributor doesn't have the copyright. There are still games on steam with GDL created artwork. Reading (sometimes further) and understanding is still a critical task we humans have to perform. So one needs to take a step back and look at the original problem, which is how were the assets created. In the case of GDL and if those assets come from some public website, that's probably a copyright issue. Rolling your own GDL model and create assets with it on-premise is likely not an issue at all.

Of course not. It was sarcasm. People (mostly SFX guys) said the same thing when the industry moved to CGI, because they were afraid for various reasons. Go back to the industrial revolution and you'll find similar arguments. History is full of it. Truth is, AI is here and it works better than ever. It will replace some jobs now, such as an extra/background actor, some writers, some artist painting pictures, some musicians and so on. It won't replace a lawyer (yet). Eventually it will become better and more jobs will be replaced. Then other job opportunities open up. It's called change and we've seen it everywhere throughout history. It's rarely the case that it affects so many people at the same time though, but that's because a major breakthrough was achieved.

But isn't that the beauty of AI, it doesn't need to be programmed.
The machine can learn as machine learning is a "field of study that gives computers the ability to learn without being explicitly programmed". Arthur L. Samuel said that all the way back in 1959 when he was a researcher at IBM and before he became a Stanford professor in 1966 where he worked with Donald Knuth.

AI is one of the issues in the writer’s strike and by reckoning, rightfully so. It appears to be a direct threat to jobs over a wide spectrum. I listened yesterday to an essay played on NPR that written by ChatCPT that compared Dante’s Inferno to Homer’s Odyssey and it was jaw dropping.

Glad to hear you were using sarcasm.

Unless I don’t understand AI, it is programming, that the complexity and base algorithms and that parameters within it can be changed. You could add a morality subroutine and alter it’s preferences.

This NPR program I mentioned, talked about how teaching was in the process of drastically changing, methods that would be used to identify homework written by AI (an uncharacteristic regularity) versus human writing which varies n tempo, and I immediately said to myself, they’ll add variable parameters to the AI to make it more lifelike. Another teacher suggested that AI be used as a tool, but that it will require that more work be done in the class room, to verify that the students are making the required strides are actually the ones doing the learning and thinking within the subject parameters.

If you look at calculators, it’s one thing to be able to add and multiply, but now calculators are allowed by students (I think) to do all of their work? I just wonder if AI represents a threshold where humanity turns to machines to do their thinking for them? We have entered an age speculated about for 70 years that we used to call science fiction. 🤔

 

[MRMSFC]

where humanity turns to machines to do their thinking for them? We have entered an age speculated about for 70 years that we used to call science fiction. 🤔

my cynical side wants to say that we’ve done that already: it’s called television.

Personally, I think AI is transformative, but the idea that it will put people out of work is overblown in the same way the Industrial Revolution promised the same things.

 

[Huntn]

my cynical side wants to say that we’ve done that already: it’s called television.

Personally, I think AI is transformative, but the idea that it will put people out of work is overblown in the same way the Industrial Revolution promised the same things.

I don’t share your optimism. The Industrial Age did not have artificial brains. 🤔

 

[MRMSFC]

I don’t share your optimism. The Industrial Age did not have artificial brains. 🤔

I think my scenario is less optimistic than one in which “work will be obsolete”.

And while the technology is interesting, we can’t forget that the AI we see is just models on top of databases. There’s a man behind the curtain, no Oz great and powerful.

 

[Huntn]

Me, Starfield, and Sarah Morgan, see this post:
Post in thread 'StarField (Bethesda 2023)'
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/starfield-bethesda-2023.2326892/post-32573178

​

A.I.- Regarding my post about Sara Morgan (linked above), a current companion, questing, and NPC awareness, this is what I think is a good example of where AI could make a huge difference in story telling, where NPCs will have awareness about things outside of their direct orbit.

They, in this case Sarah is standing with me as discussions take place about a separate issue, separate quest, involving monumental ramifications for human settlements. She is able to ask me “You’re not going to help the Trade Authority are you??“ because she does not like them, while seemingly is oblivious about the serious **** going down on Tau Ceti.

If she is unaware, I can’t turn to her and get her up to speed about current events, or ask her what she thinks about them or anything. If I try to talk to her, the topics are very limited and repeat. I’d like to be able to reason with her, about why “helping the Trade Authority” might be a necessary evil, or saying, “what do you think about that ass”, and getting her perspective.

Of note, in the end I did not help the Trade Authority, but I found a way to resolve a roadblock to finding the important person in hiding, and Sarah just wants to know when we are going to go find that artifact…