CEO Strauss Zelnick says generative AI remains a tool for enabling creators to do bigger and better things, but it sounds like a shift away from past comments.
Or, better idea, stop using AI for creative work people find genuine personal fulfillment in, and eliminating any pathway to excellence. If you can’t afford to pay real people to create genuinely human artistic works, you’re a terrible business person and deserve to fail. It doesn’t make you a “Genius Creative” finding shortcuts to success, it makes you a pathetic hack with no independent talent, a parasite, and a miserly cheapskate on top of that.
People can use whatever tools they want, if someone wants to be a great oil painter they can do that, if someone wants to learn how to draw on a digital tablet and use photoshop to edit it then let them do that, if someone wants to use diffusion models and Photoshop then let them do that.
You do not lose personal fulfillment in a thing that you genuinely enjoy because someone else is enjoying their own thing. This is not about creative expression. Your argument is an economic argument at base, not one about artistic expression.
If you can’t afford to pay real people to create genuinely human artistic works, you’re a terrible business person and deserve to fail.
An AI tool is not going to produce higher quality work than a professional human. Anyone who is gutting their business because they think AI is going to replace creative workers will fail because they’re making the wrong bet. The tools simply cannot replace human creativity.
At the same time, the framing that any use of AI tools to save labor is inherently bad is simply a denialist position. These tools exist and people are using them, this is the reality that we live in. Yes, it causes disruption in the labor markets this is unavoidable.
Think about how much you feel for the jobs of the Computers. Remember them? The people who used to earn their living calculating math problems… hundreds of thousands of professional people who had advanced degrees and worked their whole life in the field were suddenly replaced by some silicon and electricity. Are you boycotting the Field Effect Transistor because it decimated an entire industry?
Why do you even acknowledge the rights of digital artists or engineers to own intellectual property? After all, they’re using (by this logic) the terrible digital design tools, the software that replaced an entire industry of Drafters and support artists. Because of that software, nobody is going to hire a team of drafters, with their college educations and high salary expectations. Instead they just buy an AutoCAD license for less than a single worker would earn in a week.
Attacking a technology because it causes disruption in the labor market is pointless. If you’re living in a country where this disruption is causing serious problems, then you can understand the value of creating a social safety net in order to protect everyone from the next unforeseen circumstance/technology/disruption.
An AI tool is not going to produce higher quality work than a professional human.
Yes it will, because there will cease to be professional humans. If there’s no development pipeline, no one is going to achieve the pinnacle of art, because there’s no return on that investment. The AI will become better than any human, not by raising the standard by by kneecapping our ability to reach higher.
It’s ironic you chose to compare it to computers because we’ve seen that the generational decline in mathematical ability has fallen off a cliff as people now don’t even have to think about how numbers work. We have college graduates with zero reading comprehension or writing ability because they’ve never had to independently develop those skills. We have vanishing competency in critical analysis and the ability to carry a dialogue at levels that were considered natural and intrinsic a handful of generations ago. Everywhere we see the constant erosion of the capability of achieving objectives that are less than a generation removed from us. We’re not talking about forgetting how to knap flint or the decline of the buggy whip maker. We’re talking about the intrinsic capacity of the human mind to engage with the world suddenly becoming an investment on which there is no chance of return in a single human lifetime, because there is no economically sustainable path from raw novice to professional.
AI will absolutely surpass us, not by raising the bar, but lowering it into hell under a firehose of garbage.
You’re using art and ‘return on investment’ in the same paragraph. You’re not describing art, you’re describing an industry.
People will draw pictures with charcoal out of a fire because they feel the compulsion to make art. People who want to make art will make art even if the world is burning. AI tools are not going to kill art.
But, like every technological innovation, AI tools will reduce the number of people in the industry. This happens with all technology. Yes, it’s disruptive and displaces a lot of workers who need to work to earn a living. This is just a fact of the situation we are in, it is not something that you’re going to stop by trying to convince people to not use the technology.
You can’t put this back in the bottle when anyone with an undergraduate understanding of linear algebra and a python interpreter can create new image generation models on a whim. A few TB of images and a few weeks of a single GPU’s time will train a model.
What is the endgame here? If you were dictator of the world, how would you even propose ‘fixing’ this? It’s one thing to be angry, but point that anger in the direction of something that is actually possible to change.
It’s ironic you chose to compare it to computers because we’ve seen that the generational decline in mathematical ability has fallen off a cliff as people now don’t even have to think about how numbers work. We have college graduates with zero reading comprehension or writing ability because they’ve never had to independently develop those skills. We have vanishing competency in critical analysis and the ability to carry a dialogue at levels that were considered natural and intrinsic a handful of generations ago. Everywhere we see the constant erosion of the capability of achieving objectives that are less than a generation removed from us. We’re not talking about forgetting how to knap flint or the decline of the buggy whip maker. We’re talking about the intrinsic capacity of the human mind to engage with the world suddenly becoming an investment on which there is no chance of return in a single human lifetime, because there is no economically sustainable path from raw novice to professional.
Sure, I agree with that in broad strokes.
That doesn’t mean that I’m going to get angry on the Internet that people are using computers in their business. Or driving cars instead of hiring a horse a buggy team, or eating food from a grocery store instead of driving a plow in their own fields.
Technology moves forward and we have to deal with the consequences. Look at ways that we can deal with the consequences if you want to actually make a difference. It is a waste of time to think that you’re going to shame the entire world into not using this technology that we’ve discovered.
What is the endgame here? If you were dictator of the world, how would you even propose ‘fixing’ this? It’s one thing to be angry, but point that anger in the direction of something that is actually possible to change.
Ban all for-profit use of LLMs or generative AI products. The models are in people’s hands now, we can’t stop that, but we can end their monetization. Selling AI tools or products should be considered on the same level as human trafficking with similar penalties.
Was your comment generated by AI? I read it three times and I still don’t understand what you’re getting at.
He’s just saying just push to prod no need for any checks.
Or, better idea, stop using AI for creative work people find genuine personal fulfillment in, and eliminating any pathway to excellence. If you can’t afford to pay real people to create genuinely human artistic works, you’re a terrible business person and deserve to fail. It doesn’t make you a “Genius Creative” finding shortcuts to success, it makes you a pathetic hack with no independent talent, a parasite, and a miserly cheapskate on top of that.
People can use whatever tools they want, if someone wants to be a great oil painter they can do that, if someone wants to learn how to draw on a digital tablet and use photoshop to edit it then let them do that, if someone wants to use diffusion models and Photoshop then let them do that.
You do not lose personal fulfillment in a thing that you genuinely enjoy because someone else is enjoying their own thing. This is not about creative expression. Your argument is an economic argument at base, not one about artistic expression.
An AI tool is not going to produce higher quality work than a professional human. Anyone who is gutting their business because they think AI is going to replace creative workers will fail because they’re making the wrong bet. The tools simply cannot replace human creativity.
At the same time, the framing that any use of AI tools to save labor is inherently bad is simply a denialist position. These tools exist and people are using them, this is the reality that we live in. Yes, it causes disruption in the labor markets this is unavoidable.
Think about how much you feel for the jobs of the Computers. Remember them? The people who used to earn their living calculating math problems… hundreds of thousands of professional people who had advanced degrees and worked their whole life in the field were suddenly replaced by some silicon and electricity. Are you boycotting the Field Effect Transistor because it decimated an entire industry?
Why do you even acknowledge the rights of digital artists or engineers to own intellectual property? After all, they’re using (by this logic) the terrible digital design tools, the software that replaced an entire industry of Drafters and support artists. Because of that software, nobody is going to hire a team of drafters, with their college educations and high salary expectations. Instead they just buy an AutoCAD license for less than a single worker would earn in a week.
Attacking a technology because it causes disruption in the labor market is pointless. If you’re living in a country where this disruption is causing serious problems, then you can understand the value of creating a social safety net in order to protect everyone from the next unforeseen circumstance/technology/disruption.
Yes it will, because there will cease to be professional humans. If there’s no development pipeline, no one is going to achieve the pinnacle of art, because there’s no return on that investment. The AI will become better than any human, not by raising the standard by by kneecapping our ability to reach higher.
It’s ironic you chose to compare it to computers because we’ve seen that the generational decline in mathematical ability has fallen off a cliff as people now don’t even have to think about how numbers work. We have college graduates with zero reading comprehension or writing ability because they’ve never had to independently develop those skills. We have vanishing competency in critical analysis and the ability to carry a dialogue at levels that were considered natural and intrinsic a handful of generations ago. Everywhere we see the constant erosion of the capability of achieving objectives that are less than a generation removed from us. We’re not talking about forgetting how to knap flint or the decline of the buggy whip maker. We’re talking about the intrinsic capacity of the human mind to engage with the world suddenly becoming an investment on which there is no chance of return in a single human lifetime, because there is no economically sustainable path from raw novice to professional.
AI will absolutely surpass us, not by raising the bar, but lowering it into hell under a firehose of garbage.
You’re using art and ‘return on investment’ in the same paragraph. You’re not describing art, you’re describing an industry.
People will draw pictures with charcoal out of a fire because they feel the compulsion to make art. People who want to make art will make art even if the world is burning. AI tools are not going to kill art.
But, like every technological innovation, AI tools will reduce the number of people in the industry. This happens with all technology. Yes, it’s disruptive and displaces a lot of workers who need to work to earn a living. This is just a fact of the situation we are in, it is not something that you’re going to stop by trying to convince people to not use the technology.
You can’t put this back in the bottle when anyone with an undergraduate understanding of linear algebra and a python interpreter can create new image generation models on a whim. A few TB of images and a few weeks of a single GPU’s time will train a model.
What is the endgame here? If you were dictator of the world, how would you even propose ‘fixing’ this? It’s one thing to be angry, but point that anger in the direction of something that is actually possible to change.
Sure, I agree with that in broad strokes.
That doesn’t mean that I’m going to get angry on the Internet that people are using computers in their business. Or driving cars instead of hiring a horse a buggy team, or eating food from a grocery store instead of driving a plow in their own fields.
Technology moves forward and we have to deal with the consequences. Look at ways that we can deal with the consequences if you want to actually make a difference. It is a waste of time to think that you’re going to shame the entire world into not using this technology that we’ve discovered.
Ban all for-profit use of LLMs or generative AI products. The models are in people’s hands now, we can’t stop that, but we can end their monetization. Selling AI tools or products should be considered on the same level as human trafficking with similar penalties.
You think the world would be improved if we started throwing people in prison en mass because they use AI to make background art for their video game?
This is an improvement in your eyes?
Yes, I do think so. And I’m tired of pretending I don’t.