386
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2026
386 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
88814 readers
6202 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Man, if this is true – that they agonized over the cutscenes but decided they couldn't and that AI would be better* – then I feel legitimately bad for them.
I went in assuming it was strictly a lazy "ah, fuck it" kind of thing, but even though this still wouldn't be acceptable, it seems like this team really is hard-working, cared about the final product, and actually did think AI could deliver a good experience. Deluded, but that seems like part of a larger culture of delusion in SK.*
* Notably, the article remarks on how sentiment around AI in South Korea is vastly more positive than e.g. the US.
That's basically a statement for the press to try to minimize damage. He even said they had the cut scenes done and later replaced them with AI. Bullshit.
They are mad they got caught and it's the AIs fault for not being good enough to hide it.
"if that choice hurt your experience, the fault is not in the tool. It is in our own shortcomings."
The director literally outright says it's their fault for using the tool.
And what do you mean "got caught"? It's very obvious. They mistakenly thought most audiences would enjoy it, not that audiences wouldn't notice. Which makes sense given the overwhelming difference in the perception of AI between SK and the West. He even outright says he expected people to notice: "I expected some of you would be disappointed by our use of AI. I did not expect it to become this big."
The very first thing you need to become an artist is a sense of taste. Everything builds from that. If in his judgment he thought that art looked good enough then what does that say about him as an artist.
I'd rather see the "bad" things than Ai.
Honestly if the rest of the game is good, I would rather have some napkin sketches, or a computer based paint software.
I'm 100% with you. Bad art with genuine effort put into it has a charm of its own. I understand the team's mistake, but it's still a mistake.
"Sentinels of the Multiverse" is a fairly popular board game (within those circles) and it looks pretty rough. Pokemon S/V got rightfully dunked on for looking like shit but it still made a bunch of money. "The Case of the Golden Idol" is highly regarded. Runescape.
No one really gave pokémon any s*** for the art. They gave s*** for the performance such as like the pop-in and reused assets.
But the actual art is fine. No one really had issue with that. It's pokémon for heaven's sakes. Not crisis.
That's why people got mad. It's basic 3D models in really simple backgrounds and it ran like s***. There's no reason for something that looks like pokémon to run poorly.
I think pokemon was so heavily criticized partly because it's developed by a veteran studio that really should be able to do better. And the way it looked bad wasn't so much the art style, but how it was loaded into the game.
You had a lot of pop-ins, things not being animated in the distance, and every npc using the exact same animation at the exact same time, as well as some truly uninspired textures out in the wild.
Gamefreak is clearly capable of better when you look at Beast of Reincarnation or Little Town Hero, they just don't seem to care about pokemon anymore.
Most obvious example I can think of is Cruelty Squad, the art style is intentionally eye-searing there though.
Five Nights at Freddy's is popular if nothing else, but the art in the early games isn't bad on purpose.
Why not hire people or another firm to do the cutscenes then. You know, professionals who have learned and perfected their craft. Professionals you don’t have.
Backslash shouldn’t have been a surprise.
Money. Capitalists have it. Developers need it.
How do you not understand this. You and 14 other people.
"Oh just spend a million more on this and delay the release!"
It's bullshit, they experienced zero agony, they skipped from trying it themselves straight to AI without bothering to just pay real artists because they're cheap.
Still seems like a cop-out.
If they had intended to do it manually in the first place, I don’t see why they couldn’t just use AI to help generate a number of rough outlines to help conceptualize a solid template that satisfied their needs before investing their time into it.
AI could maybe help stress test the game before the final release. If AI were used like that, the game itself would likely not be considered slopified.
The dirty data centers, the RAM chip grab, the widening divide between the haves and the have nots being exacerbated by the billionaire AI ownership, these problems have to be addressed before I can even consider the other issues. AI as tech is usable, but as a socioeconomic phenomenon it is hugely problematic.
even then, you use the AI output as inspiration, not as the end product..
Interesting context, but that statement sounds so fucking stupid.
"Welp, we tried so hard, but just couldn't portray our art in the best possible way. So naturally, we turned to the soulless machine that fails at generating anything resembling art even if you tell it to do a 1:1 copy of a real art piece."
How could AI possibly tell a complex story better than a human could? It sounds like bullshit.
I was thinking the same but I have so many questions (that I don't care enough to research).
How big is their team? Could they not find any competent artists? Could they not afford any competent artists? Could they not afford to upskill any of their current team, like getting them lessons in whatever was relevant?
It seems like they were just shallow and wanted a "classically" pretty product right now. And that doesn't engender much sympathy.
If a few paragraphs of reading into the article we're supposed to be discussing is too much, I'm not sure why you're here trying to discuss it.
It's almost as if neither "ai can do everything for me" nor the ai witch hunting are healthy approaches, but, as always, people keep polarizing themselves to hate on the opposite tribe.
I'm so fucking tired of this bullshit...
The pendulum has only just started to swing. Homeostasis will take time.
Unfortunately it may be politicized beyond recovery, at least in the US with the trajectory of things.
Its going to be associated with the corporations doing awful things with it, and thats going to blot out the sun.
Yyyyyyyyup. Even attempts at honest discussion get polarized. "If you use AI(LLMs) you're an unethical AI-Bro!"
Oh... I didn't realize that my self-hosted open source small model trained on Wikipedia and Stack Exchange was unethical. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
Yes, you are acting unethical. Your self-hosted model is neither open nor was it trained with consent. Using them is just as unethical as using the models from OpenAI.
CC BY-SA gives freedom of use. Why do you think additional consent would be necessary? Or do you mean that because the restricting conditions are not met, additional consent would be necessary?
Given the form of transformation, Share-Alike is certainly difficult to meet, if not impossible. Is that what you referred to with "is not open"? Or do you mean something else?
Some models do use open datasets and largely reproducible training, with the Nvidia Nemotron series being the highest profile example. You are right that many are opaque about training data, though, and this is not okay.
And I vehemently disagree with this.
OpenAI is a different order of magnitude of moral depravity. Thats like saying using Lemmy is just as bad as using Facebook or Palantir.
The logical fallacy of extremes will never not be one of the biggest issues with humanity
un-fucking-fortunately. That's twice as infuriating when you consider the fact that this isn't even a hard fallacy to avoid.
Lesson learned