- Amazing art is rare. Finding this amazing art nowadays is hard, with AI generated mumbojumbo increasing the noise it will be harder. It will be easier to just skip all AI generated stuff to find the real good stuff.
- Art has human touch or a message almost always in it. Purely AI generated stuff lacks meaning, because there's no creator.
- Socially sharing experiences that are unique only to you will be hard. I like to talk with my friends about the newest Nolan film or about Elden Ring's best bosses. If the whole game experience would be unique to me I wouldn't be able to relate with my friends at all and it would be the same as playing a different game.
- Valuing human work. I idolize people who have the skills to make great art. AI takes away from it.
But to these points, I can also see the future where
- AI could generate amazing art a lot, and would make me reconsider my categorical exclusion of AI art.
- AI could make it seem there's meaning behind the art, or an artist would use the AI as a tool to convey his meaning. - Unique game experiences would be so wild that you would be sharing them and relating via that way.
- AI becomes so common that valuing human skills isn't important anymore
Last point, I think novelty is something I value a lot and that's why in my opinion amazing art is rare. If AI would start creating a lot of novel art, novelty and rarity would just become common, and common is boring.
I'm not sure why this is shoved in as an aside near the end of the comment. This is how it's used. This is how it'll be used to create games.
Does anyone think that, what, ChatGPT is going to poop out an entire finished game and we'll release that? Or would artists use AI as just another tool to create their art?
Well if this trajectory continues upwards, it almost certainly will happen in the next decade.
Right now feels like how the 70's-80's felt with the rise of the microprocessor. Tons of promise and implementation ideas, but the tech just wasn't there yet. But sure as hell it came around.
No one who is good at what they do wants to do this. Everyone who is bad at what they do is doing this. I don't know why tech people think they understand the art industry at all.
Writing[2], Print, Photography, Movies, Electronic music, Synths, Sampling, Trackers, Digital Photography, Photoshop, Ray Tracing, Interactive Art (eg computer games) etc etc ...
Every time "it's not really art" , "there's no human touch".
Every time, after a while artists learned to use it.
And they made amazing art!
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzLT6_TQmq8 Propellerheads feat: Miss Shirley Bassey - History Repeating
[2] Surely I'm kidding about the writing, right? https://fs.blog/an-old-argument-against-writing/
The current expectation is that these models allow the creation of equivalent artwork to what artists are currently producing, but at larger scale / lower cost / shorter training. All of these boil down to less effort. And perceived effort is a large part of what brings value to art.
But, if recent attitudes to AI are anything to go by, this will be immediately seen as boring and derivative at best, or at worst people will accuse the back stories as having been "stolen" from other works of fiction.
While my expectations for the capabilities of AI have never been higher, my expectations for how the public will perceive this amazing technology has never been lower. It's all very disappointing.
And that's without specifically placing blame by the way, perhaps it's big techs fault for going about this the wrong way, I don't know, but the public blowback against AI is just making working in this field that I used to love super depressing.