No no, the extremes of liking AI-generated stuff and disliking AI-generated stuff. For example, I love the anime Plastic Memories and the game NieR:Automata. Both feature androids and both made me cry. In the future there will be very advanced androids, that is a fact. So I imagine an android drawing a picture. I like that idea; but I know that many people don't like it and those people surely hate or would hate androids since they would be able to draw.
Advances require sacrifices and this has always been seen. If we want technological advances, these things are going to happen. It took a lot of experiments and a lot of deaths to develop medications; today almost all of us use those medications. The same will happen (is already happening) with AI.
Ok. I gave in to doomscrolling and checked out this depressing thread.
Ya know, I was actually recently quoted in my local (Chinese) newspaper about my thoughts about GenAI (not linking it since it includes my IRL name but you can always try to google it). That article ended with me 'shrugging and admitting that artists gonna need to buck up or get fucked'. THAT interview was conducted many months ago and I think that if the journalist had interviewed me today, I would give an even harsher answer. At one point of that interview, I even quasi-quoted a similar sentiment to this.
The journalist gave a sympathetic laugh and said, 'Don't we all live in a capitalist society?'
It is a very complicated topic. Sure. Indie game devs will benefit from using GenAI since that meant not needing to pay art contractors (like my studio) to handle the design. Even if they do come to us, they come to us with GenAI reference materials to show us what they imagine in their heads. On my end, I'll frown upon seeing those GenAI artworks but... hey, we rather a client share those as reference materials than use those directly.
Then there's the triple A game studios. Nintendo. Sony. Xbox. The bigger indie devs (that have bigger budgets because they dabble in Web3). These are the studios that on paper should have more than enough budget to keep proper human creatives on their payroll to get the art side of games done. Human wages cost a lot, especially those for senior creatives with experience.
It's not there yet but I can imagine executives thinking that GenAI can easily replace SOME of the creatives within game development so that they can cut costs. Scratch that. I know that THAT scenario has already happened.
At the end of the day, there will be winners and there will be losers. If GenAI proliferate, then the winners will be those who controls capital and get to decide to spend capital on machines instead of humans. And the losers will be human creatives. As a producer for creatives, I don't have an ideal solution other than shrugging and hunkering down. I find GenAI fuckin' ugly but it is efficient. And more often than not, cheap and effective trumps GOOD in the eyes of executives and the masses. Do you rather a $40 game or one that cost $80 (because so much expenditure go into monthly wages for creatives)? Even I, with the benefit of insider financial thoughts, can't answer that truthfully.
As consumers, you can vote with your purchasing power. If you don't mind GenAI in games... then just continue doing what you want. If you DO MIND that GenAI is replacing human creatives in game development, then... you just have to show your support by putting money into your beliefs. Games will cost more and that will be a bitter pill to swallow. But in a capitalist society, the only way to sway the capitalist executives will be with your meagre capital. Show them that GenAI is so
TOXIC that the gamer backlash and more importantly, NOT SPENDING is not worth the 'cost savings' of utilizing the tech.