A year ago, I poked around Steam to see how many game developers were disclosing usage of Generative AI . It was around 1,000, which seemed like a lot to me at the time. If memory serves, that was about 1.1% of the entire Steam library, which has since seen 20,000+ more titles appear. I've been fol
So if that dev used AI to make various filler/background glyphs would it be okay? Because even scribbles take time to make, if an AI tool can do it quicker and its just background noise, is that okay?
Where is this imaginary line of acceptability? Its different for every person who enters these AI discussions. How about if the dev codes a tool that spits out procedural glyph assets, surely thats fine, but what is the real difference?
I think you’re getting caught up on the “thing.” My point wasn’t whether it should be glyphs or letters. Devs should be asking, at that point, why it’s necessary at all. Does it need to exist? If you’re considering AI just to generate “background noise,” is that noise really necessary in the first place? This step often happens naturally in human-derived work when we consider the work involved, but it must happen intentionally when you throw garbage-generators into the mix.
And no, I don’t think making glyphs via AI is okay, because now we’re in the realm of AI image generation, and that’s a giant unethical miasma. You ask what the difference is between a dev making their own script to general glyphs versus an AI, and that’s like asking what difference exists between a solar calculator and a data center run by Google. Both can tell you what 2+2 equals, but one is unnecessarily complex.
And then there’s the ethical considerations. Where did that AI model come from? How was it trained and developed? Whose work was used to derive that model? Who benefits from its public use?
AI simply does not belong in creative endeavors. People may have their own reasons for where they’ve drawn their lines, but that does not mean it is a mere matter of subjectivity, like choosing broccoli instead of carrots, or that they have a good basis for that decision.
So if that dev used AI to make various filler/background glyphs would it be okay? Because even scribbles take time to make, if an AI tool can do it quicker and its just background noise, is that okay?
Where is this imaginary line of acceptability? Its different for every person who enters these AI discussions. How about if the dev codes a tool that spits out procedural glyph assets, surely thats fine, but what is the real difference?
I think you’re getting caught up on the “thing.” My point wasn’t whether it should be glyphs or letters. Devs should be asking, at that point, why it’s necessary at all. Does it need to exist? If you’re considering AI just to generate “background noise,” is that noise really necessary in the first place? This step often happens naturally in human-derived work when we consider the work involved, but it must happen intentionally when you throw garbage-generators into the mix.
And no, I don’t think making glyphs via AI is okay, because now we’re in the realm of AI image generation, and that’s a giant unethical miasma. You ask what the difference is between a dev making their own script to general glyphs versus an AI, and that’s like asking what difference exists between a solar calculator and a data center run by Google. Both can tell you what 2+2 equals, but one is unnecessarily complex.
And then there’s the ethical considerations. Where did that AI model come from? How was it trained and developed? Whose work was used to derive that model? Who benefits from its public use?
AI simply does not belong in creative endeavors. People may have their own reasons for where they’ve drawn their lines, but that does not mean it is a mere matter of subjectivity, like choosing broccoli instead of carrots, or that they have a good basis for that decision.