But… The developers of Palworld made a game featuring AI generated images.

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’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.

As an amateur game dev, I believe AI will crash out for the public before it becomes truly useful for programming. I’ve heard colleagues try to use AI , but it often just creates more work. When the AI doesn’t know the answer, which is often. it makes something up, leading to errors, crashes, or hidden issues like memory leaks. I’d rather write the code correctly from the start and understand how it works, than spend hours hunting down problems in AI-generated code, only to never find the issue. Full disclosure I use Chatgpt to edit my dialogue as my English is not great.

The difference between “generative AI” and “procedural generation” cannot be meaningfully nailed down.

Companies can change their mind about stuff like this.

Yes. Except they’re still selling that game.

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.

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.

Yeah that’s kind of my point. That’s a vastly more complicated thing than SQL.

Yeah because they spent money making it. If you spend millions of dollars making a video game, you can’t just shut it down and refund every order of it without putting your studio in serious jeopardy financially. That’s not an option for them, so the best they can do is just not rely on AI anymore. Clearly they tried it and learned that it actually sucks ass.

Procedural generation is theoretically deterministic, but it’s a fairly minor distinction.

you forgot rock.

It’s a small game. They have Palworld to rake in the big bucks, so if their stance on AI use has changed, they can just remove that game.

Generative AI is too. Maintain your seed and you should get the same result every time.

Most of the SaaS AI tools don’t expose control over their RNG, but some self-hosted ones do.

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’re currently being sued by Nintendo and palworld did not make anywhere near the kind of money that would let them survive a lawsuit AND a game cancellation.

You’re making assumptions about their financials that are only ever true for enormous studios like epic games, which pocketpair is not. The gaming industry does not operate as simply as you think it does and companies don’t have the freedom to throw money away on something as simple as virtue signaling.

It doesn’t matter if a company used AI back in 2022 when it was new and less understood; it matters what companies choose now. If you’re going to throw blind skepticism at them for not making arbitrary financial risks just to appease you, then you’re not worth appeasing anyway because you’re too cynical to be a potential customer.

What a silly thing to say.

Is Mickey Mouse uncreative because it’s just a mouse? Is Yogi Bear uncreative because it’s just a bear?

Is Sherlock Holmes uncreative because it’s just a British guy? Especially if giving things magical abilities doesn’t count, then vampires, zombies, magicians, pretty much the entirety of fantasy is just “ripping off” humans. You think Tolkien was a good writer? You fool- the Ents are just trees, how boring! Gandald is just an old human, frodo is just a short dude!

So what does that leave that is original? Should all of our ficitiln need entirely new ideas? Do our writers need to invent new qwarks and new rules for how they interact, so that fictional universes can have different elements where we can imagine life forms without carbon that interact? Would it still be derivative to you if we keep the strong nuclear force the same in this fictional universe?

I’m not making assumptions about their financial situation. I’m critical of their hypocrisy. I don’t care about the excuses.