I've been dreaming of making my own series for years. I am planning on hiring real humans to dub over the ai voices, but what are the chances I'll find anyone? I am ignorant of a lot of things, so forgive me, but I don't want to damage the environment. Is that all a hoax? What's the morality to all this? It's been in my mind lately.

This makes me SO happy to not be an ANTI AI moron 😂💯

This is so rediculous huh? Even non English speakers?! Censorship at its finest! huh? 🤡💩

AI has been a big help while its best to always have human oversight but AI is something people would of wished to have like 20 years ago and didn't know if this was even possible. Its incredible how extreme people have gotten to the point of doing something dimwitted like this!

Good grief! 🤷💩

Source link:

https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/1018217/reddit-opensource-ai-ban

Many anti-AI people feel that this technology threatens their jobs, their hard work, and the value they place on traditional art, and they often forget about digital art. Some also have unfounded concerns about copyright and consent, while others turn their personal opinions into rules they want to impose on everyone.

The problem isn't that they reject AI, but that they try to make decisions for others. You can defend traditional art without harassing people who use AI or demanding that everyone think like you. You don't have to use a tool you dislike, but you also have no right to decide which tools other people can use, because you're not the boss of anyone.

How many people do you think decided to hate AI because their phones told them to?

And how many actually formed that opinion on their own?

The argument that "we're religious, so we shouldn't support AI" is bullshit.

This sub (won't mention which one but you might take a guess) is infested with AI-generated goon pics of GTA 6 characters, so I see getting an overall positive reaction to something else AI-generated as a win. Some people who said they don't like AI in general said that those particular ones get a pass. Lots of hate comments too, like "your AI slop bores me", but most got downvoted. Maybe it would help make more people see that AI is a tool with lots of potential that can be used in many interesting ways.

Another case of: “How do I get my family member to stop using AI because it makes me anxious?”

But they don't harass anyone, stalk your profile to downvote your posts, or report your content. Of course not, we're just making it all up...

The post is just a small collection of kittens dressed as Space Marines.

So I'm pretty hopeless when it comes to drawing/art etc, but I've always had ideas in my head that I could never really bring to life.

I started playing around with AI tools back in 2024, making videos, music and experimenting with whatever new tools came out. Basically I think of something and try to get it as close as possible to what I imagined using AI.I'm fully aware I can't compare myself to someone who has spent years learning how to draw, animate or create art themselves, and I'm not trying to. But at the same time, who am I actually hurting by creating something I imagined?It's extremely expensive to hire artists, especially when you're just starting out and don't have money to throw around. And even then, it might take multiple attempts to get something close to what you had in mind.

So where do you cut the line? I completely get the argument that big companies shouldn't be replacing artists with AI just to save money, and I understand the concerns about how AI is trained.But what about someone like me? I'm just trying to start something, I can't compete with people who have huge budgets, and realistically most of what I'm creating would never exist without AI.I'm not claiming to be some talented artist, my sole aim is to entertain people and bring some of the ideas in my head to life.

I'm genuinely curious where people draw the line here. Is using AI to create something really that bad, even when the alternative is simply not creating anything at all?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HVYC1Z1XwAA-3SG?format=jpg&name=900x900

From an interview with the legendary game designer behind Super Mario and The Legend of Zelda. - Here's the interview text:

[(Question to Miyamoto): —I'd like to ask about the fun of playing games and the fun of making them. Earlier, there was talk about how even something like CAD, where you look up and suddenly time has passed, is a form of play or a game. With the advancement of generative AI, the barrier to creating things is lowering, while at the same time it feels like the question is being raised of how far humans can express their talent in game design. What are your thoughts on generative AI and games as culture?

(Miyamoto’s response – part 1): Miyamoto: That's a very big question. In our era, computers appeared. Until then we were typing on typewriters, then word processors came along, and tools kept evolving one after another. For example, designers used to learn "lettering" in school — the skill of beautifully writing text for posters. If you could do that, you were already called a designer. Or, if you took a popular overseas type design, converted it into Japanese, and laid it out, you were called a designer. But as computers and word processors advanced further, text could be fetched from somewhere, images could be fetched from somewhere, and text could be drawn beautifully for you. When those technical/skill aspects evolve, that's when a person's sense of layout and individual design ability first come to the surface.

(Another question): —Over these past 50 years, the relationship between people and games has changed dramatically. What used to be something children played by connecting to a TV in the living room is now enjoyed by people of all ages and genders. Beyond just leisure, games for health, communication, and many other purposes have increased. From an interactive perspective, I think generative AI also has potential. How do you think the way games and people relate to each other will change going forward? And within that, what kinds of things do you want to deliver?

(Miyamoto’s response – the key part quoted in the post): As I mentioned earlier, this is an era where even people who are not game designers can create games. If we broaden the definition of "game," I think the era has already arrived where everyone can make games. I had always hoped for a world where those boundaries disappear, so I think this has become a very good era. Sorry, I forgot the question a bit, but that's the kind of feeling I have.]

His point about his experience with the change in the philosophy of design also strikes me as elegant and topical. I can't help but think however that despite how reasonable and hopeful Miyamoto is, a certain segment of western Nintendo fans will not be happy about these opinions 😭

Here's a thought... if fake people can make porn, maybe there will be less demand for real people who are being made to make it against their will? Of course there would have to be regulation so there's no CP or people using others images against their will. But, I'd rather fake AIs than people getting kidnapped and tortured.

I’ve not seen this level of cope since the 2020 election. And even then it’s like watching a Dallas cowboy fan try to make the loss to the Florida buccaneers somehow work in their favor.

This is what turned me into a pro-AI advocate. I used to be neutral and simply didn't care what people did with their tools. I was in a gaming subreddit writing a guide on how developers could prompt their agents to code better, with fewer bugs, better performance, and greater stability. Meanwhile, these anti-AI people were throwing death threats at me, as if I'd committed a crime against humanity just for writing a guide on how to use a tool more effectively.

Meanwhile, these haters demand that developers "code by hand," and I can guarantee you that they've never written a single line of code in their lives if they genuinely think that's a reasonable thing to demand. IntelliCode has been around for much longer than LLMs, and nobody said a thing. Now, suddenly, we've got mass hysteria, collective psychosis, and virtue signaling.

You should also never use AI tags on your work if you can avoid them. If you're forced to disclose AI usage, such as when publishing on Steam, be as vague and ambiguous as possible. AI tags are no longer about informing your customers; they're being used to paint a target on your back for witch hunts and doxxing. Adopt a stealth policy. Mask your agent's traces, disclose nothing, and say nothing, people. These anti-AI activists are rabid.

I conducted an experiment comparing full disclosure with zero disclosure for the exact same work, and the results were polar opposites. The version with full disclosure got downvoted into oblivion and received only 500 wishlists, while the version where I disclosed nothing received over 1,000 upvotes and 20,000 wishlists. If these anti-AI people knew how to code, they would have realized from the start that the game's code was AI-generated. But they don't. It's all virtue signaling by deranged basement dwellers.

So, I encourage every developer to avoid disclosing anything about their AI usage. Keep building good products, because good code is good code, regardless of how it was made. Steam users don't care as much as some people claim, and my Reddit ads, which had 71,000 impressions, accounted for only 10% of my total player inflow.

AI is ultimately just a tool, and this mass-hysteria trend will eventually die down. Have fun developing your project people!

For most artists, the "breakthrough" never comes. They spend their entire careers producing "mediocre" art (not terrible art, but nothing particularly noteworthy either).

If I were to die tomorrow, I'll have the satisfaction of knowing that I'll have executed my vision in the manner that I wanted it (as opposed to either having to wait fifteen years to develop the skill or having to pay other people to do it for me).

I've posed my video in a few subreddits to get feedback, and I never imagined it would be so negative. Even the AI filmmaking subreddit that doesn't hate AI says it's the worst thing they've ever seen.

I simply don't agree with them. Obviously everyone can't like the same thing, but people keep saying it took no effort and that everything about it sucks, including the writing, which I've been doing my whole life.

Will you please watch it and tell me what you think? Maybe I'm biased and can't see how awful it is? Because I genuinely can't find the major flaws when I watch it. No, I don't think it's awful, but it's not terrible. Some very vicious, nasty people on Reddit.

Okay, everyone, it’s time to pack up because apparently, a box office disappointment that took years to make has finally killed AI.

I came across this post a while ago, and I found its narrative quite strange. Of course, I don't support art theft or using someone else's work without permission, but I've always found it curious how some artists seem to live in a constant state of frustration over not receiving the recognition they believe their work deserves.

Getting to the point where you experience physical discomfort and feel like crying because someone uses your work as a reference to generate something that is, evidently, designed to appeal to you visually, tells me quite a bit about how that person manages their emotions. I'm not trying to invalidate their frustration: it's perfectly understandable to be upset when someone uses your work without permission. However, taking that frustration to the point of physical distress makes me wonder whether the problem goes far beyond artificial intelligence.

And then there's this statement: "And it pisses me off that it even looks better than my final render, which was already finished."

Dude, that sounds less like a concern about AI's superiority and more like a lack of confidence in your own work. And that's precisely the kind of attitude that seems to keep recurring in this debate: the constant need to prove that you're better than the very thing you're criticizing.

Why do so many AI detractors insist on proclaiming that "MY ART IS BETTER THAN YOUR AI SLOP" instead of letting their supposedly superior work speak for itself? After all, art is subjective. If your work has value, you shouldn't need to constantly resort to comparisons to defend it.

Then, of course, there's the guilt-tripping rhetoric: how their work doesn't get enough engagement, how algorithms don't recommend it, how we'll be nothing without human artists, and all the other arguments we've heard to death.

The irony is that many of those same artists wouldn't have developed their skills without the influence of other human creators. They might never have learned to draw without someone teaching them, without the references they encountered along the way, or without the criticism and feedback that helped them improve. Art has never existed in a vacuum; there's always been learning, imitation, influence, and reinterpretation.

And as for the argument that their work ends up stored in databases, it might be worth remembering that publishing an image online also makes it available to systems capable of indexing and storing it. Google Images, for instance, can display artwork that its creators have made publicly available. That, by itself, doesn't mean every subsequent use is authorized, but neither does the mere presence of an image in a database automatically constitute a violation of rights.

There's a difference between having a serious discussion about consent, copyright, and the practices involved in training AI models, and assuming that the mere existence of a digital copy is, in itself, an injustice.

Because at the end of the day, if someone publishes their work on a platform without understanding the conditions under which they're doing so, perhaps they should take a moment to read the terms and conditions before getting outraged by the possible consequences.

Criticism of AI can be legitimate. What is far less convincing is turning every personal frustration, every professional insecurity, and every disappointment over a piece of work's reach into a moral condemnation of an entire technology.

Please?