People are saying “it’s fine because it was used in the early stages of the game for placeholder art” but that’s kind of missing the point
The problem is that they used AI and didn’t disclose it, as well as releasing the game with AI textures still in it. Yes, these textures were quickly replaced, but it’s still very concerning they weren’t upfront on how they were using it in the game making process
Edit: there isn’t even a disclosure on their steam page
If I make a mock up of a cake using toxic ingredients, then throw that out and make my cake from scratch using food safe ingredients, do I need to disclose that “toxic material was used when making this cake”? I don’t think so.
Of course this kinda falls apart when they shipped with quickly replaced textures. But I also wouldn’t expect them to disclose the game as unfinished if they forgot to replace blank textures with the proper assets until just after release.
This is less like making a new cake from scratch after disposing of the previous one, and more like making a new cake using the same unwashed cake tin and utensils
No matter what, the AI replacements would have affected how the artists made the final products as, whether they liked it or not, they had a point of reference in the form of the AI texture
Not necessarily. If I use an anthropomorphic cat as an asset for a character who in the end is a robot, can you really say it took inspiration?
Granted, I haven’t seen any of the assets. But placeholders aren’t inherently inspiration. They can easily just be random things to look at before proper assets are made.
And even if they did take inspiration, that isn’t the complaint. Would there be a need to disclose if they used a generative AI to generate a picture, and they used that as inspiration? What if they saw an gen AI image someone else posted and used that as inspiration? Inspiration isn’t the problem, it’s the “use of AI in development” which seems silly when these could have potentially been wire frames and result in the exact same final product.
It’s is still their own artistic sensibility that made the art, not the AI. You will always be inspired by other things while doing anything requiring creativity.
Would being inspired by Picasso suddenly make one art worthless? Of course not. So why would being inspired by an AI generated example make it any different ?
Maybe because all AI generated assets got removed?
Honestly, as a programmer that uses extensively AI to debug, and do various tedious tasks like unit tests, I think the whole anti-AI craze of late is more bullshit than sane arguments.
It’s an invaluable tool for many cases, and as soon is it is not used to replace someone, I don’t see the problem. They where used by artists, to be used as placeholders while working on the gme, not by executives seeking to make some more bucks by not hiring anyone.
They forgot some of them in the final game? Shit happens. You cannot expect someone to go through every single texture in a game that probably got thousands, if not tenths of thousands, just to make sure none was forgotten.
Anyway, that’s blown way out of propositions, and feels more like some people trying to get views by hating on something popular than having real concerns about it.
Especially since Blue Prince does use AI assets in the final product, and strangely no one bats an eye.
This entire comment is baffling to me, in all honesty
Maybe because all AI generated assets got removed?
Not before being unknowingly sold to the public
I think the whole anti-AI craze of late is more bullshit than sane arguments.
My problem with AI is its heavy usage of plagiarism and vast degree of power consumption, as well as the price hikes its caused for many computer parts
They where used by artists… not by executives seeking to make some more bucks
Whenever anything is attempting to make money, it should be put under the highest scrutiny. It does not matter who’s pushing it. Similarly, I find it odd that we’re assuming the inner workings of Clair Obscur’s workplace
You cannot expect someone to go through every single texture in a game… just to make sure [no AI] was forgotten
If you replaced AI here with anything defamatory, like pictures of penises placed by an enraged employee after being fired, then even having a few would be devastating on sales. The single fact that we’re okay with a few means that, over time, that bar will likely be pushed further down the road “oh, it’s just this one character that practically never shows up” “oh, it’s just the skyboxes, they’re basically not noticeable anyway” “who cares if the early access uses AI voices? They’ll be replaced eventually!”
people trying to get views by hating on something popular
People are saying “it’s fine because it was used in the early stages of the game for placeholder art” but that’s kind of missing the point
The problem is that they used AI and didn’t disclose it, as well as releasing the game with AI textures still in it. Yes, these textures were quickly replaced, but it’s still very concerning they weren’t upfront on how they were using it in the game making process
Edit: there isn’t even a disclosure on their steam page
I dunno…
If I make a mock up of a cake using toxic ingredients, then throw that out and make my cake from scratch using food safe ingredients, do I need to disclose that “toxic material was used when making this cake”? I don’t think so.
Of course this kinda falls apart when they shipped with quickly replaced textures. But I also wouldn’t expect them to disclose the game as unfinished if they forgot to replace blank textures with the proper assets until just after release.
This is less like making a new cake from scratch after disposing of the previous one, and more like making a new cake using the same unwashed cake tin and utensils
No matter what, the AI replacements would have affected how the artists made the final products as, whether they liked it or not, they had a point of reference in the form of the AI texture
Not necessarily. If I use an anthropomorphic cat as an asset for a character who in the end is a robot, can you really say it took inspiration?
Granted, I haven’t seen any of the assets. But placeholders aren’t inherently inspiration. They can easily just be random things to look at before proper assets are made.
And even if they did take inspiration, that isn’t the complaint. Would there be a need to disclose if they used a generative AI to generate a picture, and they used that as inspiration? What if they saw an gen AI image someone else posted and used that as inspiration? Inspiration isn’t the problem, it’s the “use of AI in development” which seems silly when these could have potentially been wire frames and result in the exact same final product.
And yet, as we seem to be skirting around my original point of, this wasn’t disclosed when sold
I’m against AI in video games, but what I dislike here is the action of deceit. Of not allowing buyers to make an informed choice
It’s is still their own artistic sensibility that made the art, not the AI. You will always be inspired by other things while doing anything requiring creativity.
Would being inspired by Picasso suddenly make one art worthless? Of course not. So why would being inspired by an AI generated example make it any different ?
To compare using AI to getting inspired by Picasso is wild
They want to argue for AI, they just don’t know how. Says it all.
Maybe because all AI generated assets got removed?
Honestly, as a programmer that uses extensively AI to debug, and do various tedious tasks like unit tests, I think the whole anti-AI craze of late is more bullshit than sane arguments.
It’s an invaluable tool for many cases, and as soon is it is not used to replace someone, I don’t see the problem. They where used by artists, to be used as placeholders while working on the gme, not by executives seeking to make some more bucks by not hiring anyone.
They forgot some of them in the final game? Shit happens. You cannot expect someone to go through every single texture in a game that probably got thousands, if not tenths of thousands, just to make sure none was forgotten.
Anyway, that’s blown way out of propositions, and feels more like some people trying to get views by hating on something popular than having real concerns about it. Especially since Blue Prince does use AI assets in the final product, and strangely no one bats an eye.
This entire comment is baffling to me, in all honesty
Not before being unknowingly sold to the public
My problem with AI is its heavy usage of plagiarism and vast degree of power consumption, as well as the price hikes its caused for many computer parts
Whenever anything is attempting to make money, it should be put under the highest scrutiny. It does not matter who’s pushing it. Similarly, I find it odd that we’re assuming the inner workings of Clair Obscur’s workplace
If you replaced AI here with anything defamatory, like pictures of penises placed by an enraged employee after being fired, then even having a few would be devastating on sales. The single fact that we’re okay with a few means that, over time, that bar will likely be pushed further down the road “oh, it’s just this one character that practically never shows up” “oh, it’s just the skyboxes, they’re basically not noticeable anyway” “who cares if the early access uses AI voices? They’ll be replaced eventually!”
I assure you, AI is not popular. Studies have shown that AI is causing people more concern than excitement Not the most reputable source, but oh well
No it didn’t
But guess what did? The Alters