this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
79 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
10156 readers
826 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The sad part is, one day in the (far) future, when real AI (not LLMs) are an actual thing, and they could code great games from scratch, there would be so much bad animosity towards AI by then that they'll probably never see their games played.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
I like human created art because it's created by humans. If AI generated the greatest song, image, or video game i would not care—i don't want it.
Your opinion seems prejudicial, focusing on the creator of the art, and not the art itself.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Your comment seems loaded with purposefully inflammatory language intended to align AI with groups of actual real people who experience prejudice in the real world instead of corporations who have a vested interest in not paying artists, and brother, as a trans person, it makes you look like a real silly goose.
Pointing out that someone justifies if they like something or not by who made it, vs by judging the item being made itself, is inflammatory?
I remember back in the 80's where people were hating on a Top 40 song because it was made by a group who's singer was gay, and thought that was very wrong, that the song itself should be judged on its own merits, and not by who was singing it.
Weird how those lessons learned fade away, needing to be learned again.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
AI isn't human. Stop pretending it is. AI takes advantage of humans. Your argument is invalid.
I did mention previously about "in the future", some day, not today. LLMs are not AI, at least the kind of AI that I'm talking about.
But even taking your point, do we let a human always keep a job that an AI can do much for efficiently? What job protections should humans have from AIs? And for that matter, what job protections should humans have today, right now, regardless of AI? (For the record, I support Unions.)
We all need to figure this out, right now, as corporations are salavating at the though of an AI that can replace a human being's job.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
No amount of passage of time is going to make AI human. You all suggesting that in the future AI will have feelings and emotions and will care that people are prejudiced against it. You are arguing against a hypothetical that you have created in your head and isn't necessarily going to be a reality.
No, not at all. I'm saying that future AI will not just be dumb LLMs, they'll be more like functional code that can literally think for itself. That it will be able to create and learn (like humans do) to do jobs, and do those jobs well. Robots with brains, etc., like you see in the movies.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
And you won’t have to pay it anything. So it will put actual humans that need to eat to live out of jobs and out of homes.
Meanwhile it used the hard work of those humans to “learn” from, being the ultimate capitalist tool. Lets steal the labor of the masses in a way that makes sure they are never properly compensated for that labor again.
You are arguing in favor of technofeudalism.
No, I'm not, at all.
I'm arguing against prejudice, and for starting NOW to play how real AI will be used in our future society.
Personally, I believe in unions, I'm not looking to replace humans. But I sure as hell know that CORPORATIONS are looking to replace humans (and increase their profits).
So just trying to "stiffarm" pre-AI today via prejudice is not going to cut it. And that's what I see people trying to do, its irrational and unproductive. "Sticking your heads in the ground" never works.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Possibly, although I seen no evidence that that is an inevitability. But even if it becomes reality we can change our association with AI then I don't see any reason to do anything right now.
I have yet to see any evidence that we are in any way progressing towards that world.
You haven't been an observer of humanity then. They have quite a track record (see "Etymology") of how they interact with new technologies and new ways of being.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Okay I read that Wikipedia article and I absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.
Did you read the first paragraph in the “Etymology” section?
Well to be fair, i don't like art made by humans that are assholes either.
Though i dont agree that ai is inherently equal to those human assholes. Especially since for most of the important use cases (ie not spamming ai slop all over galleries online), an artist is usually the one influencing the ai tools, not the other way around.
🤔 Fair enough, I'll allow it. lol! 🙂
Actually I'd agree with this. Right now we're in the infancy of "AI" (note the quotes). I was speaking towards a future when true AI has been created, and the artist is the tool as well, and those AI beings start creating art on their own. Would decades/generations of anti-"AI" prejudice make it a hard climb for real AI to have their art seen as just art, and not a fake human "AI" creation.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Imma feed your comment into an llm and your magic spell can't stop me
Its not a magic spell, its laying down a marker.
lol! And you're too late, Google beat you to it. But still, laws will catch up some day, and when it does, I'll be there. 😈
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Once they actually produce great games, you'll probably want to play them. People didn't stop buying products because they were made by machines instead of artisans.
Well, there are those who like throwing the sabo's into the machinery, so you're not guaranteed people would ignore the AI creation nature of the great game, when deciding to buy/play the great game. You're already seeing a constant "No AI here!" mindset occuring.
But at some point, AI will be creating, especially if Capitalism can see it succeed and remove the need to pay for workers. We need to think about job-protecting laws today that are just and even-handed, and not just trying to stiff-hand AI creation, as that won't work long term.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Idgaf if ai exists I just don’t want it replacing people without warning where people are way better for the job
Agreed. We're going to need laws for that though, and right now Congress only listens to Corporations, and Corporations want AI to get rid of those pesky workers that drain away their profits.
But also, you gotta understand that at some point, for some things, AI will be better than humans for particular jobs. When that happens, what then? Force-keep the human on the job, or retrain them, or just tell them "sucks to be you have a nice day" and show them the door, or something else???
This is really the beginning of a monumental time for the species, as big as the introduction of the Internet was. Better start figuring this shit out now, instead of (metaphorically) just covering our ears and yelling "LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" trying to ignore the whole thing.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
I think what we need to protect is the quality of life rather than the jobs. I wish for a 20h work week at the same QoL.
I wouldn't disagree with that. Today's reality is that you need a job to obtain a QoL (aka 'pay the bills'). If we could get to a place as a species to where three/four day work weeks were the norm, that would be fine by me.
I'm assuming that at some point in our species future we'll be in a Post-scarcity place, and jobs as we know them now won't be needed. Instead people will have 'hobbies' that they enjoy doing. That's assuming the Morlocks don't eat all the Eloi before the Post-scarcity occurs, that is.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Humans still controlled the machines.
AI takes the human creativity out of the equation.
Yes, it's different in the creative aspect, but it's similar in the job loss aspect.
Yes, that's true.
I believe we should be able to embrace new technology and peoples lives should be made easier with it. We should be able to eliminate jobs and simultaneously ease financial burden with the efficiency increase. But i don't have an MBA so what do i know 🤷♂️
Reminder you still have to instruct the machine
Yes but writing gcode for a CNC machine isnt taking the creativity from the human. Even programs that write the gcode for you are still following the design of the human. AI generated art does not follow the human design, it generates its own.*
*Obviously other than art theft which i think doesnt count.
Arguably the point of having machines do the work for us is that they're NOT sentient.
Is it? Or is it for companies to not have to pay out salaries so they increase profits for AI-generated work, regardless if the AI is sentient or not?
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Cells within cells.
Interlinked.
This post is unsettling. While LLMs definitely aren't reasoning entities, the point is absolutely bang on...
But at the same time feels like a comment from a bot.
Is this a bot?
Clearly. Sentience would imply some sense of internal thought or self awareness, an ability to feel something ...so LLMs are better since they're just machines. Though I'm sure they'd have no qualms with driving slaves.
I'm not talking about sentience per se, but how any "AI" would think, lookups (LLMs), vs synthesized on-the-fly thinking (mimicing the human brain's procesing).
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~