Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

poobearcatbomber t1_ixvnm22 wrote

Video games are about to become a lot less resource intensive

19

NeedsMoreSpaceships t1_ixvohmc wrote

The days of the bedroom coder might be coming back baby!

Until the AI can do that job too... Shit.

Maybe one day the derided 'idea man' (I have great idea for a game, all I need is someone to make it for me) and an AI will be the only all that's necessary to make a game. After that all games will be deeply shit.

13

GregsWorld t1_ixxb74m wrote

>generate 3d space exploration game, randomly generated planets, lots of spaceships, blue ui, ps6 & xbox720

7

youstillhavehope t1_ixy18dn wrote

Check out the Ghostwriter (AI code generator) demo using it to create a video game. 8 minutes.

2

jepvr t1_ixwqp2k wrote

  1. That's not what this is. The models would be generated ahead of time by artists and included in a game, just like a hand-built model would be. The amount of resources used in the game will be the same.
  2. For the generation part, it actually takes a lot MORE resources to get these AIs to generate models than it does for a human to build one by hand. That's because we don't count the human brain as a "resource".
2

vo0do0child t1_ixx64i6 wrote

I think the commenter meant the development of games.

3

jepvr t1_ixxaamo wrote

That's why I commented on both points. This won't make the development less resource intensive. It will make it more.

1

vo0do0child t1_ixyvg1d wrote

Unless by resources they mean artists working weeks to produce work, vs the speed of machine generated assets.

1

YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ixxst5s wrote

By “resource” people normally mean money, not human brains. Less money needed to produce video games = less resources.

2

jepvr t1_ixxv99u wrote

Yes, which is why I said "that's because we don't count the human brain as a 'resource'". What part of that is in need of your clarification?

But aside from that redundancy, it does require more resources. Have you ever looked into the hardware requirements for these AIs? They're fairly steep. Greatly steeper than normal game development. And you haven't taken the human out, because someone has to keep working on prompts.

All this is tangential, because we're not "about" to do anything. This will take at least a decade and more like two or three to get to the level of 3d art we have today. If they manage to get it that way at all. Look up the Pareto Principle. They've done the easy part. Now they have to do the hard part.

1

YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ixxvxsi wrote

You have to pay a salary to those brains, they're not free. If you don't need to pay them (because you use AI now), then you need fewer resources (as in money), ceteris paribus.

I'm not denying it might increase costs (as long as it increases productivity more), I'm simply pointing out that human brains are considered as resources - in business speak and economics at least, which is ultimately what matters.

1

jepvr t1_ixxw942 wrote

>By “resource” people normally mean money, not human brains.
[...]
>
>I'm simply pointing out that human brains are considered as resources

You're kind of doing a bad job of it. :D

1

YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ixxwksz wrote

Are you really not getting what I’m talking about?

Human brains by themselves are not resources, but the salaries to pay for them are… fewer brains, fewer salaries, fewer resources…

1

jepvr t1_ixxwruf wrote

Six of one, half dozen of the other. You're splitting hairs.

And as I pointed out, there's going to be much more hardware resources going on, plus the humans to run the AI. And on top of all that, the output is going to be shit for probably the next couple of decades. So all this is a moot discussion.

1

YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ixxxgaj wrote

I’m splitting hairs? That’s ironic for you to say. You’re the one pretending that resources are not financial resources at the foremost.

The transition will not happen as long as the added productivity is smaller than added costs or, keeping productivity similar, as long as the cost of adopting AI is greater than the cost of paying the salaries.

1

jepvr t1_ixy00c7 wrote

I was never pretending anything. Of course everything is ultimately financial. Such a statement is so obvious to not need stating unless you think the person you are talking to is a total moron (in which case why even bother trying to have an intellectual conversation?)

What I'm saying is that I do not believe the OP was talking about that sort of resource. Hell, they didn't even say development, and I think it very likely they were talking about runtime. Most people don't use the term to mean "resource intensive" when they're talking about "financially expensive." It's more typically used in the context of hardware resources. I think it's likely that's what the OP was meaning.

1