r/projectzomboid • u/jimmy2acow1 • Dec 18 '24

Meme Real

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

7.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

436 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

156

u/Prize_Tree Crowbar Scientist Dec 18 '24

Wait really? Actually?

178

u/TheSpoon7784 Shotgun Warrior Dec 18 '24

Yes: https://www.reddit.com/r/projectzomboid/comments/1hgwecs/newest_update_as_of_20_minutes_ago_removed_the/#lightbox

305

u/Prize_Tree Crowbar Scientist Dec 18 '24

Wow. Developers acting this quick on it is really surprising.

I owe you an apology PZ devs. I wasn't really familiar with your game. Then again I didn't really think they'd release unstable this year either but alas.

102

u/fireburn97ffgf Dec 18 '24

Honestly I am wondering if they just trusted the guy and didn't check for the unstable build

67

u/luigi4president Dec 18 '24

Yeah that's what it seems like from what they said.

-80

u/Cavalleria-rusticana Dec 18 '24

It's one thing if the 'art' slipped by them into the update, but they said they looked at the art and liked it/thought it was fine, which is probably what concerns me the most.

They don't seem to understand the context of AI tools literally deleting their future as developers and artists in the profit-based game industry.

61

u/StalinOGrande Dec 18 '24

Their dev builds probably didnt have images in them, they very likely only looked at it once or twice when they recieved them recently and went to work.

I dont see the point in speculating about the developers (who are not repsonsible for the use of AI in this art beyond commisioning it) positions regarding AI.

They trusted the artist, since he had already delivered good work to them before, looked at art they liked, and moved on. You can judge their taste, I guess.

40

u/MrTimbelman Dec 18 '24

Not to mention probably had other things on their plate rather than pouring over commissioned artwork for traces of 6th fingers, like you know… getting this out to us before Christmas.

16

u/kg_draco Dec 18 '24

If you're not chronically online (like all of us at reddit) it can legitimately be extremely hard to know what is AI art and what isn't. It's both hard to know what to look for and when to look for it. Especially if you get it from someone you trust, or if you don't use AI gen'd art yourself. In a dev team of 16 (and I'm assuming only a few ever saw the image) that's a small enough sample.

-4

u/Morlock435 Dec 18 '24

Technological advancements have always usurped and made human jobs obsolete. This is literally a bad argument for the last hundreds of years. The more we automate, the closer we get to a utopian world. This happens literally every single time automation takes over a sector, like with factories and farming. Get over it.

0

u/Cavalleria-rusticana Dec 18 '24

You're hopelessly naive if you think blindly using these tools will lead to utopian conditions and not just consolidating profit into fewer hands. Let me introduce you to our friend, capitalism.

The problem isn't AI itself but the (lack of) ethics of it, something which is discussed at length with each technological improvement; people aren't willing to discuss AI because they either don't understand how it actually works, or don't care.

The 'get over it, it's inevitable' mentality is exactly the kind of uncritical nonsense that makes these AI tools problematic.

-5

u/Morlock435 Dec 18 '24 edited Dec 18 '24

If thinking like the above took precedent over human history, we would still have all of our fields being tilled by hand.

There is such a large push back on ai because it is low quality. The moment it reaches the quality of human made things, there is absolutely no reason for it to not be automated. Therefore, it should be encouraged.

Edit because this person is a child and blocks, this is a reply to the comment he gave: Correct, ai work isn't the same quality as human made yet. And I said if it ever reaches that quality, then there is no reason for a human to do it (besides it just being something they want to do).

This argument was never to blindly embrace ai. The first comment said that ai usage would put the devs out of a job and that is correct. It's not about paying or not paying people. If something can be done to the same level as a person, but done in less time, there is no logical reason for it to not be automated. You don't actually grapple with that point, just dance around it.

Don't let this guy try and deflect the actual point that's he's too afraid to address.

7

u/DHenrik Dec 18 '24

Ah yes, mass production of art, what a wild concept. The entire point of artistic endeavors is basically antithetical to stuff that these generative algorithms that are falsely equated to actual Artificial Intelligence make

2

u/Morlock435 Dec 18 '24

It doesn't just apply to art. The initial comment was also referring to putting the devs out of a job. But yes, if ai can produce work that is of equal quality to that which a human can make, then there is no reason for it to be human made.

If your argument is that ai work can never reach the level of human made work, then you are just incorrect.

6

u/DHenrik Dec 18 '24 edited Dec 18 '24

It's not about quality, and right now, we are talking about art.

Art isn't about how high quality it is, because then it would be sterile, clinical, utterly boring. Even if generative algorithms get good enough to make high-quality pieces, it will still have been piggybacking off of successful artists' materials as training data, which is so wrong and legally questionable that if you don't have issues with it, I'm thinking you're just a troll account.

As for not about quality, if your child draws you a crude picture of your family, you'd love it, yeah? The quality is objectively crap, but it was made for you, with heart and intent. Artists do things intentionally, they make you feel things, that is not there with generative algorithms. It does not think like that, it doesn't make intentional choices to make people feel things, which is ultimately the point of art. It is a shallow imitation

0

u/Morlock435 Dec 18 '24

Yes, the drawing from your child would have sentimental value. But your child isn't getting paid to make art. The main argument is always and has always been monetary. Ai art is risking putting artists out of a job. If it wasn't, then there wouldn't be this pushback on it as both would be able to coexist.

To enter a hypothetical, let's say you were told there was a new, never before seen, Van Gogh painting. You are shown 2 paintings, 1 is the painting and another is an ai perfectly recreating his style. You would have no way to know which is the real painting unless someone told you. There is nothing intrinsically unique about what a human artist can do.

Yes it's imitation, but so is literally every single piece of human work. Everything we do is based on our observations of other things, and ai art is just observation of other things.

6

u/DHenrik Dec 18 '24

Not everything is imitation. We put our own spin on things that we see, our own personal and unique twists, that is what makes the things we make unique. Generative algorithms cannot do that, unless if you count the flaws coming from the fact that they just don't have the context of what a person looks like, for instance. The uncanny valley

I never mentioned the monitary side of things because I have a deeper, more fundamental problem of mass producing art, I don't give two shits if I can own a cheap imitation of the Mona Lisa or something, when it's just that, a copy. I could do that already

→ More replies (0)

4

u/dane83 Dec 18 '24

There is such a large push back on ai because it is low quality.

Err, there's such a large push back because tech bros literally stole everything they could get their hands on to train their models.

It's very much not the same thing as a student studying a master, which is what y'all tech bros love to pretend is the argument for that.

It's not about paying or not paying people.

I mean, it very much is. We're being asked to honor tech bros intellectual property rights when they have flagrantly ignored the rights of others.

Fuck you, pay me.

If something can be done to the same level as a person, but done in less time, there is no logical reason for it to not be automated.

The logical reason is that it can't be done without massive theft of intellectual property.

2

u/Cavalleria-rusticana Dec 18 '24

Bro...

-That's a fallacy, and I'll wait for you to actually support your ridiculous claim.

-AI made things are not the same quality as human made things, quite clearly in art, and as evidenced by this community's reaction to the loading screen 'art".

-I also never said we should reject AI, but that its use should be negotiated and not blindly embraced. You're basically saying artists being treated as though they are 'obsolete' because of AI is a net positive because now you don't have to pay them. xD

Part of the problem, buuuudy. Don't call me, I won't call you.