• Soup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Except that deliberately written voice lines for the randos are still appreciated. When I see a big, well-designed world that clearly took effort it’s a nice feeling to know that it was made with care. Someone saying “this isn’t important” just tells me that it’s not worth looking at it and it sours the experience.

    Ai has no place in art. It’s very existence is antithesis to art.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I’d disagree that it’s antithesis to art, it just has to be used artistically. Our current AI systems intrinsically don’t possess the pieces needed to make Art independently, so it’s ultimately all derived from human intention.
      It’s similar to how random chance can be used for artistic ends: the specific outcomes are outside of human control, but the context, parameters, and nature of the random are deliberate choices.
      The way AI is invariably used right now is cost saving, not intentional.

      Any tool can be used for art, but it has to be used for art, not as a way to skimp on voice actors or whatever. Pollocks random painting was guided by intention: it was intentional, not coincidental. The sink he washed his brushes in, while also caked in chaotic paint, was coincidental.

      Most people are producing, at best, low effort slop. Businesses are looking to cut costs. Somewhere out there someone is hooking an LLM to a text to speech engine, mangling its training set until it emits a constant stream of wookie noises, beat boxing, and hallucinations of IP law out of a speaker installed in a toilet.
      I would immediately accept one of these as art.

    • Nouvellalia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      So, for a generic character that is supposed to fade into the background, a necessity in sandbox games that are set in any semi-populated area, you’d rather hear the same 5 voice lines repeatedly for 200 hours?

      Don’t get me wrong I love the creativity poured into those repeated lines when they are done well, but no matter how much they are lovingly crafted, after an hour or two they break the immersion. I don’t think any game company that is able to survive capitalism could be trusted to keep AI to only situations like these though.

      Just like every other AI “problem” it has its place, it can benefit us all, the problem is really a structure of perverse incentives that doesn’t serve humanity at all, not that AI is useless or bad.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Yea, that’s fine with me. It hasn’t bothered me before and it doesn’t bother me now. Besides, AI voice lines would bother me so much more. Bad art is still art, but nothing AI makes is even good enough to wipe your ass with.

        Make it four lines. Make it THREE. Make it the same fucking line every time I walk by the character; if it’s real I won’t give a shit. That happens all the time in The Ascent and I do not care. And if you told me that actually they used AI to build the world I would a) look up those claims and, if true, b) uninstall it and never touch it again because I’m not fucking bitch-ass coward who would sell out other people just so he could have a videogame.