Rogue Trader Warhammer 40K Rogue Trader Split off discussion

[Couchpotato]

Owlcat Games Receives Harsh Criticism Over Their Vacancy Featuring AI

"Really wanted to work for Owlcat Games back at the beginning of my career, I think I don't want anymore," shared one Concept Artist.

80.lv

What do you think about the whole situation? Do you think that it's a big problem to use AI during the initial stages of development? You can share your opinion in the comment section below.

 

[Redglyph]

Owlcat Games Receives Harsh Criticism Over Their Vacancy Featuring AI

"Really wanted to work for Owlcat Games back at the beginning of my career, I think I don't want anymore," shared one Concept Artist.

80.lv

Their meanness with money was already showing before, but I thought they were still a nice company with good ideas and good people. Today, I'm not sure any more.

 

[purpleblob]

Their meanness with money was already showing before, but I thought they were still a nice company with good ideas and good people. Today, I'm not sure any more.

What do you mean their meanness with money was showing before?

I also don't see what's such a big deal with them looking for someone who can generate AI art?

 

[Redglyph]

What do you mean their meanness with money was showing before?

I never liked how much they were making people pay for something that was actually working for them (the alpha and beta versions). I've often thought it was a way to filter people, but I've never been able to completely convince myself. I may be wrong, though.

I also don't see what's such a big deal with them looking for someone who can generate AI art?

I'd rather let actual, human artists do that. Using generative AI for the creation phase steals the part of the work they're good at and like most; it's also what defines them, their signature, what they're known for. Even if they're still involved in the process, like the job Owlcat was offering, they're consigned to a less interesting aspect of the process, something like a simple operator. Finally, if the idea is to make the process faster or cheaper, it also means fewer jobs.

Another aspect that is often overlooked is the long-term impact of generative AI. The result of the AI work is put back into the pool of data that's used for the next training. It means that, in the long run, you end up with a big feedback loop where less and less is original work and the resulting set is a bland regurgitation of what humans did in the past.

So, starting using AI for that is a slippery slope; I think it's irresponsible to encourage it in any way. Using tools is fine, this is something else entirely.

 

[purpleblob]

I never liked how much they were making people pay for something that was actually working for them (the alpha and beta versions). I've often thought it was a way to filter people, but I've never been able to completely convince myself. I may be wrong, though.

I don't know how this translate to meaness with money? For one, they aren't the only ones doing this and people can always make choice not to purchase higher tier which includes alpha/beta.

I'd rather let actual, human artists do that. Using generative AI for the creation phase steals the part of the work they're good at and like most; it's also what defines them, their signature, what they're known for. Even if they're still involved in the process, like the job Owlcat was offering, they're consigned to a less interesting aspect of the process, something like a simple operator. Finally, if the idea is to make the process faster or cheaper, it also means fewer jobs.

Another aspect that is often overlooked is the long-term impact of generative AI. The result of the AI work is put back into the pool of data that's used for the next training. It means that, in the long run, you end up with a big feedback loop where less and less is original work and the resulting set is a bland regurgitation of what humans did in the past.

So, starting using AI for that is a slippery slope; I think it's irresponsible to encourage it in any way. Using tools is fine, this is something else entirely.

I can see your point and I'd prefer human generated art than AI generated. I also wouldn't like ChatGPT(?) replacing dialogues written by humans etc. But at this point we don't know exactly what they plan on doing with AI art so a bit early for harsh criticism imo.

 

[SpoonFULL]

I guess its cheaper to hire an AI artist compared to a proper professional artist.

 

[Redglyph]

I don't know how this translate to meaness with money? For one, they aren't the only ones doing this and people can always make choice not to purchase higher tier which includes alpha/beta.

Maybe I'm not using the right words or seeing it from the wrong angle. For me, it's a way to get something without paying. Worse, they make people pay for it. But I agree with you: ultimately, it's consenting people making the final decision, and often for a good reason (they want to help, to have an early peek at the game, to support the devs, etc). If I didn't know better, I'd say it's shrewd.

I also remember something about quietly gathering people's data for who knows what. That didn't really help convince me they only cared about us.

If others are doing the same, well... it's just more of the same. It's not a good excuse.

I can see your point and I'd prefer human generated art than AI generated. I also wouldn't like ChatGPT(?) replacing dialogues written by humans etc. But at this point we don't know exactly what they plan on doing with AI art so a bit early for harsh criticism imo.

Perhaps saying it's irresponsible was harsh, and perhaps people's reactions were harsh - I didn't really look. Perhaps people at Owlcat just wanted to explore a new way to work without thinking about the consequences if that became generalized. Still, I think it's the responsibility of everyone hiring people to start thinking about it because nobody else will.

Also, the problem of artists vs AI isn't new, so I understand if people gave them flak over that ad. It's early, sure, but it's already possible to generate images that people used to pay for, for example. Let's just nudge them in the right direction by showing it's just wrong.

 

[purpleblob]

I also remember something about quietly gathering people's data for who knows what. That didn't really help convince me they only cared about us.

It wasn't done "quietly" - IIRC, Owlcats did notify players they will be including a spyware with one of WotR patch. I was one of many who was enraged with this decision and have complained to devs/CMs on discord. It is removed now but I do worry they will do something similar again in future or worse, add this to patch without notifying us.

Owlcats are corporates and they certainly care for their profit more than player base - like all companies out there.

I no longer have a mindset of supporting certain company/devs - I judge the merit of each individual game/product.

 

[Redglyph]

It wasn't done "quietly" - IIRC, Owlcats did notify players they will be including a spyware with one of WotR patch.

My mistake. I wasn't updating the game any more when it happened, and I misremembered it.

Owlcats are corporates and they certainly care for their profit more than player base - like all companies out there.

I no longer have a mindset of supporting certain company/devs - I judge the merit of each individual game/product.

I like the idea of supporting smaller companies when they seem worth it, but Owlcat is a big cat, now. I think they'll do just fine on their own.

 

[Morrandir]

Another aspect that is often overlooked is the long-term impact of generative AI. The result of the AI work is put back into the pool of data that's used for the next training. It means that, in the long run, you end up with a big feedback loop where less and less is original work and the resulting set is a bland regurgitation of what humans did in the past.

... which in turn will again increase the market for human artists to create novel art.

Generative AIs aren't going to disappear. It'll be interesting to see if their art (that is only a remix) is good enough for the mainstream to buy and enjoy the products, or if the people actually want art created by humans (which perhaps is also only a remix).

 

[Redglyph]

... which in turn will again increase the market for human artists to create novel art.

That's an interesting though. Yes, I suppose a comeback's likely, to a lesser extent. And I'm sure the jobs will only 'shift' as they did in the past in the textile industry, agriculture, information-based jobs, and so on. But those changes were never painless.

Besides, when it's about to impact art in general, I don't think industrialization is necessary nor beneficial.

Generative AIs aren't going to disappear. It'll be interesting to see if their art (that is only a remix) is good enough for the mainstream to buy and enjoy the products, or if the people actually want art created by humans (which perhaps is also only a remix).

I'm pretty sure the mainstream will happily gobble it if they can get more for the same price, as we're happy to find cheap chairs and tables at the IKEA store. I'd venture to predict there will always be connoisseurs who prefer authenticity, though they'll be a minority.

I'm afraid you're right about generative AIs not disappearing, but there's no good reason to make it easier for them. I'm just thinking that it will be a real struggle for the artists impacted, and that the sooner people push back, the better the outcome.

 

[wolfgrimdark]

I am not a fan of AI generated art, or text, and while mostly neutral in the past, disliking it more over time. I agree with Morrandir though, it's here to stay and won't be going away so best to try and adapt and manage it best as possible, although I suspect corporate greed will guide most of it ... hopefully that is me being too cynical though.

The whole "pool of art" thing is something I consider. Many artists use other works themselves when drawing - for inspiration but also to help with structure. Many non-professional artists who share work on social media show what they based an image on. Further humans are the combined experience of all of our past. Books, movies, art ... is built on the vast pool of the past mixed in with the imagination (which is, of course affected by the past as well). AI does something similar by collecting words and images, although I don't think AI has imagination - then again what is human imagination? Age old question of what is human personality, what is being human?

No point just sometimes I think about that "pool of knowledge" that both AI and humans pull on.

 

[Morrandir]

I am not a fan of AI generated art, or text, and while mostly neutral in the past, disliking it more over time. I agree with Morrandir though, it's here to stay and won't be going away so best to try and adapt and manage it best as possible, although I suspect corporate greed will guide most of it ... hopefully that is me being too cynical though.

Yeah, that's the thing. We need regulation for stuff like this. But lawmakers are years, if not decades behind the technological advancements since ~2000 when the internet became available to everyone. Currently I have little hope that society will catch up. And it's not by chance that I used the singular of "society". The world is interconnected and we would need to have global laws, which to implement is tremendeously difficult itself, even if the topic was simple and not as complex as AIs.

The whole "pool of art" thing is something I consider. Many artists use other works themselves when drawing - for inspiration but also to help with structure. Many non-professional artists who share work on social media show what they based an image on. Further humans are the combined experience of all of our past. Books, movies, art ... is built on the vast pool of the past mixed in with the imagination (which is, of course affected by the past as well). AI does something similar by collecting words and images, although I don't think AI has imagination - then again what is human imagination? Age old question of what is human personality, what is being human?

No point just sometimes I think about that "pool of knowledge" that both AI and humans pull on.

Yes, that's exactly one of the questions. That's also what I meant in my last post that also human art might only be a remix. Imho it's an open question if even humans are able to create new art at all, or if it's nothing more than a product of their inspirations.

 

[JFarrell71]

But at this point we don't know exactly what they plan on doing with AI art so a bit early for harsh criticism imo.

Yes, we do. Save as much money as possible.

 

[txa1265]

Yes, we do. Save as much money as possible.

Exactly - it is literally all about stealing art and repurposing it in order to not have to pay artists. Simple as that. Don't dress it up more complicated. AI art is entirely derivative. It was also a huge part of the writers/actors strikes this past year - studios wanted to 'own the images' of anyone they employed for any role, so they could use it as AI art for perpetuity. Basically pay an actor for a bit part and have them star in blockbusters as AI art and never pay them again.

 

[Morrandir]

Exactly - it is literally all about stealing art and repurposing it in order to not have to pay artists. Simple as that. Don't dress it up more complicated. AI art is entirely derivative.

Hm, as you seem to have a strong opinion on that, you may have more expertise in this field. So perhaps you can explain why human art is not also enirely derivated?

 

[booboo]

Sadly, I think the relentless march of AI asset generation is already here - big tech companies are pushing their generative systems hard, and they're not doing that to help mankind. All about $s. In the end, I suspect game companies that don't do this will simply not be able to compete - much higher overheads: they'll be paying N humans for art stuff, when others are paying 1 or 2 (<< N) humans to develops 'prompts' for a generative systems (assuming the generator license fee is very low - but they require a *lot* of (GPU) compute, so I don't think a close-to-free model for the AI generators is sustainable, just to lure people in...). I know some artists who are totally freaked out by all this, and I absolutely get that.

 

[bizorker]

The usual question re technological advances and productivity, which applies to AI, is whether or not the tech increases the overall pie the workers split (in this case artists). So even if large portions of the job are automated, if the industry grows faster, they still make out better (at least on a per capita basis). Proponents believe increased productivity creates more economic output, which raises $$ / person. Skeptics believe increased productivity lowers the number of jobs and either is a negative outright, or at least creates an unacceptable 'winners and losers' tradeoff. That is the economist's lens. Then there is the philosophical / ethics lens. Does the software 'steal' IP from creators? As Morrandir already asked: "explain, why human art is not enirely derivated?". I personally believe it is closer to stealing IP than work similar to what a human would do on their own.

However, I'm also personally in the camp of embracing the tech. Personal benefit is more products produced (RPG games) that I want to consume. Also If you lower the cost of artwork, you could apply that budget elsewhere. Make the story better, better QA so less bugs at launch, bigger main campaign, faster time to first DLC. Or maybe a really niche game that I would have loved now is possible to build even though target audience is small because cost is lower.

And for the game art developers...if you can leverage the tech, you can work on more games, make more stuff. Let's say I start with a white piece of paper and start drawing. Now I can ask the AI to give me 10 samples and iterate from there. Ultimately my creative eye comes up with the final output.

Now if I were an artist I'd be nervous as hell too. And creative works is inherently different from other types of work. There are many jobs where the worker would be happy to eliminate rote work so one could focus on the more value-added part of a job. But maybe the artist doodling around on a blank sheet turns out to be massively important and/or enjoyable. The impact of this tech no doubt be different across various jobs (some better/worse than others).

And of course when Skynet nukes the earth I will be bummed out.

 

[JFarrell71]

And creative works is inherently different from other types of work. There are many jobs where the worker would be happy to eliminate rote work so one could focus on the more value-added part of a job.

That's the rub, and that's why AI will ultimately be a terrible thing, for artists and for us as human beings. We, as a species (and as capitalist societies) don't value art. That's why accounts like "For Exposure" exist. In a world without AI tools, many people with money were already widely reluctant to spend that money on creative output. Having access to AI tools and being able to cut out those human artists entirely is a dream come true for them.

There are a lot of people in this world paid huge sums of money to do things that, imo, add no value to society whatsoever. People for whom their job is simply to turn money into more money; not create, build, teach, fix. And those are the people who will benefit from AI the most, as they tend to benefit from everything the most.

"Proponents believe increased productivity creates more economic output, which raises $$ / person."

Are we still talking about trickle down economics? You live on the same planet I do, you know how this goes. Surely you know how averages work. "Raising $ per person" means nothing when one person gets all those $'s and raises the average for the rest of the group, who get nothing. In fact, a sizeable number of people in that group will get less $'s.. the fact that the overall number might rise as that wealth is further concentrated in fewer hands is not cause for hope or celebration.

 

[Kos]

Lovely.

Most of the Big Game Companies already outsourced most of their artistic asset creation to Indian companies who mass produce them after having received some 'artistic guidelines' from the few 'Artists' who are named in the games.
Modern sweat shop, really

IA is just replacing a cheap resource by another one, cheaper and more flexible.

Doing games is not fun, it's complex, tedious, very time consuming and a hazardous business: It's always about money.