Palworld studio Pocketpair says its new publishing division won't handle games that use generative AI: 'We don't believe in it'
-
“We might deal in derivative IP, but it’s our derivative IP!”
Derivative over generative any day if you ask me.
-
Nonsense. Procedural generation is a rule-based deterministic system while generative AI is probabilistic and data driven. It’s fundamentally different.
Markov chains are both probabilistic and data-driven. For example. LLMs are not that far removed from markov chains. Should game developers be allowed to use latent spaces or is that too sloppy AI?
-
It’s less of a functional different and more of a moral one.
Content theft is a separate issue. We can agree to ban the fruits of content theft without drawing arbitrary technical taboos.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Palworld studio Pocketpair says its new publishing division won't handle games that use generative AI: 'We don't believe in it'
Pocketpair Publishing boss John Buckley says we're already starting to see a flood of 'really low-quality, AI-made games' on Steam and other storefronts.
PC Gamer (www.pcgamer.com)
We don’t believe in AI, says the developer of AI Art Impostor
-
We don’t believe in AI, says the developer of AI Art Impostor
With how badly that game was received, maybe they understood the point. Maybe
-
The difference between “generative AI” and “procedural generation” cannot be meaningfully nailed down.
You don’t need any preexisting training data for procedural generation
-
This post did not contain any content.
Palworld studio Pocketpair says its new publishing division won't handle games that use generative AI: 'We don't believe in it'
Pocketpair Publishing boss John Buckley says we're already starting to see a flood of 'really low-quality, AI-made games' on Steam and other storefronts.
PC Gamer (www.pcgamer.com)
Pocketpair Publishing boss John Buckley
Any relation to loss guy?
-
Pocketpair Publishing boss John Buckley
Any relation to loss guy?
Isn’t that Garfield’s owner
-
You’d think that that’s the one thing LLMs should be good at – have characters respond to arbitrary input in-character according to the game state. Unfortunately, restricting output to match the game state is mathematically impossible with LLMs; hallucinations are inevitable and can cause characters to randomly start lying or talking about things thy can’t know about. Plus, LLMs are very heavy on resources.
There are non-generative AI techniques that could be interesting for games, of course; especially ones that can afford to run at a slower pace like seconds or tens of seconds. For example, something that makes characters dynamically adapt their medium-term action plan to the situation every once in a while could work well. But I don’t think we’re going to see useful AI-driven dialogue anytime soon.
You seem to imply we can only use the raw output of the LLm but that’s not true. We can add some deterministic safeguards afterwards to reduce hallucinations and increase relevancy. For example if you use an LLM to generate SQL, you can verify that the answer respects the data schemas and the relationship graph. That’s a pretty hot subject right now, I don’t see why it couldn’t be done for video game dialogues.
Indeed, I also agree that the consumption of resources it requires may not be worth the output. -
You seem to imply we can only use the raw output of the LLm but that’s not true. We can add some deterministic safeguards afterwards to reduce hallucinations and increase relevancy. For example if you use an LLM to generate SQL, you can verify that the answer respects the data schemas and the relationship graph. That’s a pretty hot subject right now, I don’t see why it couldn’t be done for video game dialogues.
Indeed, I also agree that the consumption of resources it requires may not be worth the output.If you could define a formal schema for what appropriate dialogue options would be you could just pick from it randomly, no need for the AI
-
Isn’t that Garfield’s owner
That’s Jon Arbuckle
-
Pocketpair Publishing boss John Buckley
Any relation to loss guy?
We’re all cousins, so probably?
-
“We might deal in derivative IP, but it’s our derivative IP!”
To be fair Nintendo was heavily inspired by other artists work when designing Pokemon.
-
To be fair Nintendo was heavily inspired by other artists work when designing Pokemon.
Nintendo wasn’t “inspired” by shit. They made an ice cream cone a Pokémon. Keys on a ring? Pokémon. 8 varieties of elemental flavored dog? Check. Oh hey cool look a 2d image on a computer oh wait it’s actually a Pokémon. Dog? Cat? Snake? Bird? Horse? All Pokémon. IMO nothing in Pokémon is actually “inspired”, only ripped off.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Palworld studio Pocketpair says its new publishing division won't handle games that use generative AI: 'We don't believe in it'
Pocketpair Publishing boss John Buckley says we're already starting to see a flood of 'really low-quality, AI-made games' on Steam and other storefronts.
PC Gamer (www.pcgamer.com)
But… The developers of Palworld made a game featuring AI generated images.
-
Nintendo wasn’t “inspired” by shit. They made an ice cream cone a Pokémon. Keys on a ring? Pokémon. 8 varieties of elemental flavored dog? Check. Oh hey cool look a 2d image on a computer oh wait it’s actually a Pokémon. Dog? Cat? Snake? Bird? Horse? All Pokémon. IMO nothing in Pokémon is actually “inspired”, only ripped off.
They made Goth Mommy GF into a pokemon with “Gothita”
How many sentient clouds are also pokemon? Or that one that’s literally just a balloon?
I swear pokemon ran out of creativity by gen 3 - and I’m not even a pokemon fan.
-
Nintendo wasn’t “inspired” by shit. They made an ice cream cone a Pokémon. Keys on a ring? Pokémon. 8 varieties of elemental flavored dog? Check. Oh hey cool look a 2d image on a computer oh wait it’s actually a Pokémon. Dog? Cat? Snake? Bird? Horse? All Pokémon. IMO nothing in Pokémon is actually “inspired”, only ripped off.
Im casually suggesting they were “inspired” by other artists work. Many of the Red/Blue era were rip offs.
-
But… The developers of Palworld made a game featuring AI generated images.
Companies can change their mind about stuff like this.
-
If you could define a formal schema for what appropriate dialogue options would be you could just pick from it randomly, no need for the AI
It would not be a fully determining schema that could apply to random outputs, I would guess this is impossible for natural language, and if it is possible, then it may as well be used for procedural generation. It would be just enough to make an LLM output be good enough. It doesn’t need to be perfect because human output is not perfect either.
-
It’s been really nice to be able to type a plain question (in any language) into Google and receive a concise answer before scrolling down to confirm with more trustworthy sources. In particular it’s been very good for solving annoyances with UI options by directing me to exactly what I’m looking for. A traditional search will often conflate my search with synonyms (even when using quotations, which is some bullshit), and even ignore what language my search was in.
e: Also you should be careful when clicking on any links provided by an LLM because they can accidentally send you phishing links.
SEO destroyed google’s usefulness. AI is a cope for that but AI kills the incentives for very thing it depends on for it’s usefulness, user generated content.
