Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by dijit | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

dijit

Isn't it a gradient? I'd probably rank it like this.

AI Used in back-office administration, internal documentation & presentations

AI Used in research

AI Used for generating placeholders

AI Used for Upscaling (DLSS)

AI Used for translations of UI.

AI Used in the final product (assets incl. textures, 3D, sound and voice)

AI Used in final product (code)

To say nothing of the other disciplines of AI like machine vision or voice recognition or dynamically building a story tree or character response.

View on HN

I'd say gen-AI art assets are definitely the deep end, and DLSS-Yassify is right behind it. I'd put code behind them because there's a second gradient within it from Copilot-on-a-short-lease to vibe coding.

I used to assume that low effort indies would be the major force for the game equivalent of gen-AI tiktok fruit slop, but when I saw DLSS 5 I realised it might come for AAA first.

Why does art have some different value compared to code?

It may not, by some philosophical definition, but most consumers (and I'd say most programmers too) place little importance on code as a human artistic expression. In the case of games the art assets are also a much more clear and direct signal that there was AI involved in the creation of the game. A game with handmade art but vibe coded game logic might not be as obvious.

I disagree. The core of gameplay is handled in the code. Art by itself doesn't make a game fun. Think about card games like Poker, Black Jack, Spades, you name it. Nobody plays those games because the cards are a particular art style, they play them because the rules and strategy are fun.

You can have AI create the rules for you, or you can have the AI create the code that implements the rules. It's not different for art. You can have the AI create concepts for your, or you can direct the AI towards a specific vision.

I argue that while it is possible to direct AI to implement your artistic gameplay idea faithfully, it is not possible to direct AI towards an artistic vision without losing a lot in the handling of the details.

There’s no right vs wrong, for art the details Are the fun part.

I’m enough of a sucker to think that there’s art in code as well (not just the game design but implementation too) but clearly less and it’s not nearly as visible.

Art is more artistic, it’s more of an expression of human ideas.

I don’t want AI either but I find AI art more offensive

There's nothing inherently offensive about AI generated art. You simply choose to dislike it. Are you offended by screws made by industrial machines instead of hand-carved?

Well, other than the fact that it’s art-shaped extrude, not art.

I didn’t say you had to.

And machine screws are a lot less art that art is, obviously, so I don’t think that comparison helps your case. Screws are the code equivalent in the analogy.

My point is that some object created by an automated process that serves its purpose should not be offensive. You can absolutely have a preference, but offended? On what grounds is something created by AI inherently offensive? And how can that be uniquely applied to art but not software?

If you think the only point of art is to serve a functional purpose, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree

> You simply choose to dislike it.

Too reductive.

I choose to dislike the taste of cilantro, but that choice is wired into many people and doesn’t present as a choice at all: it is instinctual.

Completely aside, but you maybe haven't even chosen to dislike cilantro. Some people have some gene configuration that make them taste cilantro like soap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OR6A2

Yeah, I chose that example on purpose because of this.

“choice” rarely factors, since I technically could choose to continue consuming it despite disliking it- which is pretty much what the parent is suggesting.

Because value in this case is particular to the engagement of a player.

Most playing a video game know nothing of programming let alone the specific architecture or development process, so I am not sure how you would expect them to express feelings about the code.

Narrarive or script is still in the same artistic consideration though, so say if the game was a sort of meta exploration of the code, this might expose the same sort of "value" over code.

I know a professional board-game designer who's using AI to make web prototypes now. He doesn't understand JS yet he still manages to model the gameplay he personally comes up with. I'm coming to terms with the fact that slop code can satisfy non-slop functional requirements, and the latter is what players will identify as non-slop.

But I don't think non-slop art is separable from the process to make it. I do however think gen-AI is blurring the qualities that distinguish non-slop by proxy, and we'll end up trying to find meaning in non-existent design/art decisions. I've already stopped trying to discover new digital artists for this reason. One day I might drop out of gaming beyond casual play with friends at this rate.

One pragmatic difference is that the art we directly interface with, the code we don't.

On the other hand, art is also strongly related to the human expression. Code can be artful as well, but usually it's more like utility, and to be frank, most art is utilitarian as well. So, art was was soulless enough before AI, and AI now ratcheted this up to a level never seen before.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com