Procedurally made games (Human creativity with AI doing the math )

+
Procedurally made 2d art :


2d art, one more dimension and it will be 3d "art". So I could type my words and get a computer game combat arena. THEN from there someday an entire game made with my unskilled but abundant creativity using the AI's hard work. I predicted this many years ago. But it is coming faster than I thought.
 
Impressive :)
Now, I wonder :
If you used the AI to create something and you plan to sell it (like an painting or even a game to see further), knowing that you don't really created anything by yourself, who will collect the copyright ? the AI creator ? the AI owner ? the AI itself ? Or you, the one who simply have provided a descrition and details to the AI and "just" waited the final result ?
 
Yeah, I find this scary.

And these things seem to be getting everywhere - big data, AIs, IoT, machine learning,... - smartphones, cameras/sensors, "virtual assistance", artificial art, self-driving cars, intelligent devices like fridges, houses,...
Smartphones may know more about people than people themselves - or remember and predict much more about them, I guess.

I believe that if you need AI or similar, then the solution is to make the product smaller/simpler.

Who knows, maybe in time there will be some sort of super AI, human-computer interface, or whatever.
Could the year possibly be 2077...?
 
Impressive :)
Now, I wonder :
If you used the AI to create something and you plan to sell it (like an painting or even a game to see further), knowing that you don't really created anything by yourself, who will collect the copyright ? the AI creator ? the AI owner ? the AI itself ? Or you, the one who simply have provided a descrition and details to the AI and "just" waited the final result ?

It will be the same as any tool that helps "create" a product.

I mean even large retail "copywritten" programs include huge chucks of other peoples work such as libraries and algorithms.

Music artists "borrow" liberally and call them "sampling".

edit: or I guess the term is "Appropriation":

"Appropriation in art is the use of pre-existing objects or images with little or no transformation applied to them. The use of appropriation has played a significant role in the history of the arts (literary, visual, musical and performing arts). In the visual arts, to appropriate means to properly adopt, borrow, recycle or sample aspects or the entire form."

"Let no one else's work evade your eyes
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes
So don't shade your eyes
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize
Only be sure always to call it please research" ;)
Post automatically merged:

OH wow, it is coming so much faster than I thought it would:

 
Last edited:
Yeah :)
It's more than just a "help" or creative tool (like photoshop). In short, this is like asking someone else to create something and saying you made it.
If I push the idea "further", as if I were asking the AI :
I want a sci-fi game, with the possibility of traveling the whole galaxy, a lot of extra-terrestrials more or less friendly with conflicts here and there, vastly superior synthetics that eradicate evolved life forms every 50 miles years and a hero who saves the galaxy.
After a while, boom, the AI gives me Mass Effect "ready to play" and I proclaim that I have created a great game... Not really true, nor fair :D

It remind me a NC54 news in Cyberpunk, where it's the AI which is claimed as the author and win rewards. They considered its recent novel, In the shade of an apple tree as a "treasure of this generation". Its previous novel, a requiem for a samourai, is already considered as a "masterpiece the of post collapse literature" :)
 
If I push the idea "further", as if I were asking the AI :
it's the AI which is claimed as the author and win rewards
Precisely as I see it.
I bet that even current gen "AIs" can "write" better stories than the new star wars trilogy :eek:

One way to use and understand AIs/generators/... "responsibly", "non-destructively",...might be to use them to "generate" something if you know what you want (and it just saves you work), but not if you want it to do the "thinking" (creative process, knowledge base, iterations,...).

This might be the difference between being a creator (using the tools) and being a slave (the tools using you):
A creator can switch to different tools, but a slave can't, because he wasn't creating anything in the first place.
 
In theory, this is certainly possible - using AI as a creative tool to "do the math" and build your dream game for you. The issue that I see is that if you want to have an AI create something that follows your vision, you have to very precisely describe what you actually want from every single aspect of your game and how different systems should behave without any ambiguity. It's called programming.
 
In theory, this is certainly possible - using AI as a creative tool to "do the math" and build your dream game for you. The issue that I see is that if you want to have an AI create something that follows your vision, you have to very precisely describe what you actually want from every single aspect of your game and how different systems should behave without any ambiguity. It's called programming.


The product created (as shown in the OP) was the human's vision told to the AI and the AI did the grunt work in the same way Todd TELLS his coders what HIS vision for Starfield is and they make the programs for him.

Same thing more or less...

:shrug:
 
The product created (as shown in the OP) was the human's vision told to the AI and the AI did the grunt work in the same way Todd TELLS his coders what HIS vision for Starfield is and they make the programs for him.

Same thing more or less...

:shrug:
I just mean that you would still need to describe your game in sufficient detail for an AI to be able to create your vision, rather than just a very rough approximation of it. You can tell an AI to draw you a picture of a rabbit, and it might do that, but will it be the exact rabbit you had in mind, without providing more detail? Unlikely. What is the environment of this rabbit, how old is it, what gender, is it doing anything, where is it looking, what is the colour of its fur, the pattern of it etc. etc. etc. Same logic applies to asking an AI to build you a game, except with a lot more complexity involved.

It's not Todd telling his team to make him a Skyrim, it's years of design work by many people that then needs to be translated into a set of technical requirements, which teams then spend days/months refining until they get to the core of what their idea even is. You have to describe your game, its systems and behaviour in greater and greater detail the closer you get to actually implementing anything.

If you don't specify these things, an AI would have to make assumptions on your part , and at that point what it makes would diverge from what you actually wanted.

And a description of a software that is sufficiently detailed for a computer to interpret it in exact detail is called a program. AI would just be another layer of abstraction that you can add on top of the actual code.
 
Just an idea who crossed my mind :)
After years to work for humans, after becoming self-aware, after studying and playing the whole history of video games, studying all the player datas available, an AI could decide that it does not longer need any human intervention (in short, humans are "too" dumb, they work too slowly and their creativity is way too limited...). Then the AI start to publish with its own studio the best games ever made and become the "Delamain corporation" of the gaming industry, at point to buy the "human" studios one by one.
How ironic :D
 
If you don't specify these things, an AI would have to make assumptions on your part , and at that point what it makes would diverge from what you actually wanted.
Doesn't this hold up for bugs as well?
But we don't care about bugs if they cause only (minor?) issues - it could be the same with AI - e.g. if you wanted a game where you can set things on fire, both manually written code and AI could contain a mistake and make it possible to set water on fire as well.

I get the point that code (should) act as a whitelist - being concrete and building the logic up - and AI would possibly be a black list (or maybe a combination of both of them), but in the end, I guess that player doesn't care what is happening under the hood, right?

You just wanna see adequate responses to your actions - like hitting someone with a sword causes damage to them, etc...?
But you don't have to care about if the damage was calculated via some deterministic formula, or just guessed/improvised by AI.
 
Doesn't this hold up for bugs as well?
But we don't care about bugs if they cause only (minor?) issues - it could be the same with AI - e.g. if you wanted a game where you can set things on fire, both manually written code and AI could contain a mistake and make it possible to set water on fire as well.

I get the point that code (should) act as a whitelist - being concrete and building the logic up - and AI would possibly be a black list (or maybe a combination of both of them), but in the end, I guess that player doesn't care what is happening under the hood, right?

You just wanna see adequate responses to your actions - like hitting someone with a sword causes damage to them, etc...?
But you don't have to care about if the damage was calculated via some deterministic formula, or just guessed/improvised by AI.
I think it's a lot lower detail than that even. Let's say you have a menu and you want a button on that menu to take you to the Inventory screen.

That alone requires so many little design decisions from the person making the request, not by the AI/programmer that has to implement it.

Does the button make a sound when you click it? What is that sound - now you have to describe what sound you want your sound AI/designer to make. How does the button look? What font/size should the text be? What colour? When you hover over it, do you want the button to be highlighted? How does that state look like? Oops, let's go ask the UI AI/designer. Do we want a smooth transition from the state where the button isn't being hovered over to it being hovered over, to it then being clicked? Need an animation for that - better go ask the animation AI/designer. Do we want a screen transition? This goes on and on.

The player doesn't care, but the person coming up with this has to think about it. The above was some of the decisions you have to make about a single UI element. You can tell the AI to come up with answers to those questions on its own, but there's a very good chance that when you look at the result you would go "not quite what I had in mind..."
 
And a description of a software that is sufficiently detailed for a computer to interpret it in exact detail is called a program. AI would just be another layer of abstraction that you can add on top of the actual code.

I think we are saying the same thing then.

As in the OP the Human did keep giving details and refining the art just as Todd and his people do to get as close to Todd's vison as can be done.

This AI is just going to be another tool really. However I do not have as much optimism for our laws to keep up with it all.
And unlike Buggy whip makers that had to learn to do other things this AI TEC is progressing much faster and may not be giving us time to adapt.
 
I think we are saying the same thing then.

As in the OP the Human did keep giving details and refining the art just as Todd and his people do to get as close to Todd's vison as can be done.
I'm disagreeing with the assessment that there will be "someday an entire game made with my unskilled but abundant creativity using the AI's hard work". You do need a lot of skill to describe a game so fully. There's a lot more to programming than just coding and there's a lot more to making (good) games than having an idea. You could let an AI come up with those low-level details and ideas for you, but then it wouldn't be your game, it would be the AI's approximation of your game. Just like Skyrim isn't Todd's game, it's the result of many months of work done by hunderds of people collaborating together, probably discovering and thinking about things Todd hadn't even conceived of and had no input on.
This AI is just going to be another tool really. However I do not have as much optimism for our laws to keep up with it all.
And unlike Buggy whip makers that had to learn to do other things this AI TEC is progressing much faster and may not be giving us time to adapt.
RIght now, AI is (what essentially boils down to) a bunch of data analysis. And by a bunch I mean ridiculous amounts of it. And by analysis I mean trial and error on a massive scale. It has no concept of anything and is not true AI, really. Actual AI as we think of it from sci-fi is still a long way off and there is still disagreement if that is even possible, since we don't even know what consciousness is yet. There are actual debates on this in very serious circles. If there's something special to consciousness that can't be recreated by a machine, then true AI may remain fiction.

If it is possible, however, it would be very interesting to see how humanity adapts to it. I do feel we have quite a bit of time until then though. Probably need to focus on things like making sure we survive that long as a species first.
 
it would be the AI's approximation of your game. Just like Skyrim isn't Todd's game, it's the result of many months of work done by hunderds of people collaborating together,

Then we are saying the same thing.
Someday there will be an AI that you can work with to create programs such as games.

Collaborative effort with you as the TODD and the AI as the "team". ;)
At the very least this will open up (even more than it was in Oblivion) making mods to existing games to people that cannot program. I am by no means a "programmer" but I have made dozens of popular combat and game mechanics mods for over two decades. I stop at Skyrim, for various reasons. but one of the reasons was the code for todays games got too massive (and require pro tools) for me to handle.

I guess if you still think we disagree, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I just read this article today but they do agree with me:
https://futurism.com/4-our-computers-are-learning-how-to-code-themselves

They say:
"DeepCoder is a machine learning system that can write its own code. It does this using a technique called program synthesis. Essentially, it creates new programs by combining existing lines of code taken from other software, which is what human coders do."
and
"Ultimately, this algorithm can make programming accessible to non-coders,"

This reminds me of a debate I use to have all the time with a friend of mine in the Halloween Haunted House industry. He insisted that Animatronics were not scary like humans could be. He said that until an animatronic could tell a joke with comic timing he would never use them in his Haunted House projects:


I guess it is time to call him up and try to sell him some of my products! :p
It is true it is harder for a designer to make an animatronic "scary" like a human, so you do not see it done well all the time. But it has been done well such as in Disney's ExtraTERRORestrial Alien Encounter show.

Nothing is impossible, the word itself says I'm possible” - Audrey Hepburn.
 
Last edited:
What I'm tryingto say is that if we're talking about the kind of AI that is in the OP, then a programming AI which follows that principle would not be able to replace a team of people. You would still need a team to come up with, firstly, all the right questions that need to be asked about the game's design, then answer those questions, then translate them to something so detailed based on which a programming AI can then generate code. At the end of this chain, you would essentially still need a programmer who knows exactly how these commands need to be presented to the AI so that the generated code meets the technical requirements that have been provided, i.e. you would need skills in technical thinking and you would also need to know the AI's "language" to be able to communicate that detailed information effectively. And you would have had to design the whole game in the first place.

So, with current "AI" capabilities (again, what we have today is not true AI, it's trial and error on steroids), you could definitely have a tool that can generate code for you, but there is so much more work you need to do before you even get to coding anything, and even then you need to know how to communicate that information to the "AI" in an unambiguous way, which would essentially require a "language" of its own - abstracted away from high level code specifics, but precise enough that code specifics can be derived from it. I.e. you would be replacing one programming language for another, even more abstract one. Similar to how C is an abstraction of Assembly, which is an abstraction of Machine Code, which is an abstraction of electrical signals.

But yeah, with boundless AI capabilities, you could replace the team, Todd, humanity, the planet with AI and it could create a game all on its own. That is the bit we're in agreement with. What we don't seem to agree on is that somehow not having to write C or some other similarly high-level language would allow you to create a game without any other skill except your creativity.
 
Last edited:
A Ukrainian 3d artist that finds this could be a good thing...
Edit: OH WOW he is saying the exact same thing I was saying:

 
Top Bottom