Yeah… Linear increases in performance appear to require exponentially more data, hardware, and energy.

Meanwhile, the big companies are passing around the same $100bn IOU, amortizing GPUs on 6-year schedules but burning them out in months, using those same GPUs as collateral on massive loans, and spending based on an ever-accelerating number of data centers which are not guaranteed to get built or receive sufficient power.

Great point. There’s no opportunity for “so bad it’s good”. The Room wouldn’t have been a thing if Tommy used AI.

The dialog pushing AI media seems to start from this assumption that I consume media just to have colors and words and sounds enter my face holes. In fact, I consume art and media because I like hearing, seeing, and reading about how other humans experience the same world I do. It’s a form of communication. I like the product but also the process of people trying to capture the bonkers, ineffable experience we all seem to be sharing in ways I would never think of, but can instantly verify.

What’s funny is, due to the nature of media, it’s kind of impossible to not communicate something, even if the artwork itself is empty. When I see AI media I see the communication of a mind that doesn’t know or give a shit about any of this. So in their attempt make filler they are in fact making art about how inarticulate they are. It’s unintentional, corporate dadaism.

I love how you idiots think this tech hasn’t already hit its ceiling. It’s been functionally stagnant for some time now.

Nah, can’t agree. I have postponed few ideas for years, was able to vibe them in a week during evenings, now i have something usable. 70% of it was vibed, just had to fix stupid stuff that was partially on my queries.

Your first draft isn’t an unoriginal idea expressed clearly; it’s an original idea expressed poorly

I like this a lot. I’m going to thieve it.

That’s the difference between an amateur writer and a professional writer.

Yes, this is it right here. The whole point of art is communication and connection with another human being.

They already said less shit.

I can see how it could be useful, or mandatory in future rpgs. It can generate a framework for a real writer, with extremely large amounts of logical branching, a billion times faster. Then you go over the top of it and use the framework as concepts to use or revise. This streamlines the process, unifies the creative vision, and allows for such a large game without procedural generation that would haven taken a team 10 years or not at all, done in 2.

Starfield is estimated to have sold 3 millions copies. Baldur’s gate 3, 15 million. Microsoft/Bethesda marketing budgets makes a difference, but not being garbage makes a much bigger difference.

This is based on the assumption that the AI output is any good, but the actual game devs and writers are saying otherwise.

If the game is too big for writers to finish on their own, they’re not going to have time to read and fix everything wrong with the AI output either. This is how you get an empty, soulless game, not Balders Gate 3.

Hey. I’m just one idiot. Who else are you talking about?

What improvements have there been in the previous 6 months? From what I’ve seen the AI is still spewing the same 3/10 slop it has since 2021, with maybe one or two improvements bringing it up from 2/10. I’ve heard several people say some newer/bigger models actually got worse at certain tasks, and clean training data is pretty much dried up to even train more models.

I just don’t see any world where scaling up the compute and power usage is going to suddenly improve the quality orders of magnitude. By design LLMs are programmed to output the most statistically likely response, but almost by definition is going to be the most average, bland response possible.

You’re not just one, you’re one of many. All saying the same shit.

Lots and lots of people have told me that.

That tracks.

It’s assuming the ai output isn’t very good. It assumes it can create a framework that necessarily still needs the actual writers, but now they don’t have to come up with 100% of the framework, but instead work on the actual content only. Storyboarding and frameworking is a hodgepodge of nonsense anyway with humans. The goal is to achieve non-linear scaling, not replace quality writers or have the final product Ai written.

This sounds like it takes away a huge amount of creative freedom from the writers if the AI is specifying the framework. It’d be like letting the AI write the plot, but then having real writers fill in details along the way, which sounds like a good way to have the story go nowhere interesting.

I’m not a writer, but if I was to apply this strategy to programming, which I am familiar with, it’d be like letting the AI decide what all the features are, and then I’d have to go and build them. Considering more than half my job is stuff other than actually writing code, this seems overly reductive, and underestimates how much human experience matters in deciding a framework and direction.

Well yeah, I’m not going to argue that a well made game that respects the player isn’t going to do well. But that doesn’t matter to the publishers and their shareholders when they can pump out AI slop garbage year after year and still have people that drink it up. Just look at the yearly shooters and sports games, they sell enough.

Besides, what happens when this sort of slop has been normalised? Look at the mobile market, no one bats an eye at the intensely predatory microtransactions, and you’ll even find people defending things like gacha games.

There was a time where people scoffed at the notion of paying $2~ for some shitty cosmetics, but now people don’t even blink at the idea. Hell, it’s downright cheap in some cases. The AAA industry just has to slop things up for long enough for people to stop caring, because they will stop caring and then continue to shell out for the dubious privilege of guzzling their mediocre, uninspiring garbage.