this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
132 points (94.0% liked)

Technology

57853 readers
6753 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 39 points 5 months ago (3 children)

"Replacing Talent" is not what AI is meant for, yet, it seems to be every penny-pinching, bean counting studio's long term goal with it.

[–] darthsid@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago (12 children)

Yep AI at best can supplement talent, not replace it.

[–] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 19 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I'm not a developer, but I use AI tools at work (mostly LLMs).

You need to treat AI like a junior intern.... You give it a task, but you still need to check the output and use critical thinking. You cant just take some work from an intern, blindly incorporate it into your presentation, and then blame the intern if the work is shoddy....

AI should be a time saver for certain tasks. It cannot (currently) replace a good worker.

[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children)

As a developer I use it mainly for learning.

What used to be a Google followed by skimming a few articles or docs pages is now a question.

It pulls the specific info I need, sources it and allows follow up questions.

I've noticed the new juniors can get up to speed on new tech very quickly nowadays.

As for code I don't trust it beyond snippets I can use as a base.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's clutch for boring emails with several tedious document summaries. Sometimes I get a day's work done in 4 hours.

Automation can be great, when it comes from the bottom-up.

[–] isles@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Honestly, that's been my favorite - bringing in automation tech to help me in low-tech industries (almost all corporate-type office jobs). When I started my current role, I was working consistently 50 hours a week. I slowly automated almost all the processes and now usually work about 2-3 hours a day with the same outputs. The trick is to not increase outputs or that becomes the new baseline expectation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I do think given time, AI can improve to the level that it can do nearly all of the same things junior level people in many different sectors can.

The problem and unfortunate thing for companies I forsee is that it can't turn juniors into seniors if the AI "replaces" juniors, which means that company will run out of seniors with retirement or will have to pay piles and piles of cash for people just to hire the few non-AI people left with industry knowledge to babysit the AIs.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 months ago

It's very short sighted, but capitalism doesn't reward long term thinking.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

The problem is the crazy valuations of AI companies is based on it replacing talent and soon. Supplementing talent is far less exciting and far less profitable.

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago

Not even that, it's a tool. Like the same way Photoshop, or 3ds max are tools . You still need the talent to use the tools.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)
sed “s/studio’s/tech industry c-suite’s/“

As an engineer, the amount of non-engineering idiots in tech corporate leadership trying to apply inappropriate technical solutions to something because it became a buzzword is just absurdly high.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

But that's pretty much why AI is developed.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Folks really didn't understand how AI will work. It's not going to be some big we're dropping 1000 people.

It's going to reduce demand over time.

[–] dariusj18@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I've heard it as "No one is losing their job to AI, but they will lose their jobs to someone who is using AI."

[–] smackjack@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Think of AI like computers and spreadsheet software in the early 80s. I bet a lot of accountants were pretty freaked out about what this new technology was going to mean for their jobs.

Did technology replace those accountants? No, but companies probably didn't need as many accountants as they did before. AI will likely reduce the number of programmers that a company needs, but it won't eliminate them

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

And in that regard it's no different than any other productivity tool or automation, I have seen software being bought that immediately Eliminated 80 odd jobs.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It will start with going from 5 writers to 3, or going from 10 animators to 6.

Then 10 years from now as it gets more advanced we will be down to maybe 1 writer and 2 animators.

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

going from 10 animators to 6

It’s still crazy to me that like half of Across the Spider-Verse was AI generated

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kissaki@feddit.de 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The article doesn't say much. So I checked the source for more information. It doesn't say much more, but IMO in a much better way, in two concise paragraphs. In the sourced financial report, it is in the intro, two paragraphs:

An example R&D initiative, sponsored by the Innovation team was Project Ava, where a team, initially from Electric Square Malta, attempted to create a 2D game solely using Gen AI. Over the six-month process, the team shared their findings across the Group, highlighting where Gen AI has the potential to augment the game development process, and where it lags behind. Whilst the project team started small, it identified over 400 tools, evaluating and utilising those with the best potential. Despite this, we ultimately utilised bench resource from seven different game development studios as part of the project, as the tooling was unable to replace talent.

One of the key learnings was that whilst Gen AI may simplify or accelerate certain processes, the best results and quality needed can only be achieved by experts in their field utilising Gen AI as a new, powerful tool in their creative process. As a research project, the game will not be released to the public, but has been an excellent initiative to rapidly spread tangible learnings across the Group, provide insights to clients and it demonstrates the power and level of cross-studio collaboration that currently exists. Alongside Project Ava, the team is undertaking a range of Gen AI R&D projects, including around 3D assets, to ensure that we are able to provide current insights in an ever- evolving part of the market


The central quote and conclusion being:

One of the key learnings was that whilst Gen AI may simplify or accelerate certain processes, the best results and quality needed can only be achieved by experts in their field utilising Gen AI as a new, powerful tool in their creative process.

Which is obvious and expected for anyone familiar with the technology. Of course, experiments and confirming expectations has value too. And I'm certain actually using tools and finding out which ones they can use where is very useful to them specifically.

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The overall point may be relatively obvious, but the details are not.

Which steps of which processes is it good at, and which not? What can be easily integrated into existing tooling? Where is is best completely skipped?

[–] Kissaki@feddit.de 2 points 5 months ago

Yes, exactly. That's what I was referring to in my last sentence.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago

Honestly it sounds extremely generous by saying the best results can be achieved by experts with GenAI. In my opinion the best results can be achieved without it entirely.

[–] match@pawb.social 6 points 5 months ago (13 children)

ai automates the behavior of an average agent, not a talented one

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago

And when it doesn't it still tells you that it does, incapable of correction.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] yarr@feddit.nl 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This is a quote that should end in 'yet'. I am very confident in saying there will be an AAA game released that will be designed and implemented 95%+ by a machine. I am less confident in providing a timeline. If you consider the history of machine learning is ~70 years old (in one sense, one can argue other dates) and you plot the advances from tic-tac-toe to what machines can do today (chess being a prime example), it doesn't take much vision to see that it won't be but a matter of time before this is a real thing.

[–] Trollception@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Sure it may produce a game but much of what makes a game good is making it fun and memorable. If we can eventually create a general AI then absolutely I think such a thing is possible. Otherwise it will be a copypasta mishmash and having a cohesive and fluent design is a huge if.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] coffinwood@feddit.de 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Add ", yet" to the headline and come back in a year or two.

Currently AI may fail to produce a video game, but so was the case for images, videos, and texts only a few years ago.

Failure is a good thing because it's preceded by attempt.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›