axelhander

I love the look personally.

@poyo_pie Exactly. All AI is doing is what people already do, but faster. The same rich corpos leveraging it for-profit already leverage EVERYTHING for-profit. AI isn't at fault here.

People acting like you're shortchanging artists you haven't hired in the first place. It's ridiculous.

Good to see a number of people in the comments not falling for the fearmongering. Warms my heart. <3

@MSaturn Exactly. The tool is never the problem; it's what those with the most power (aka, the most money) will do with it.

Hooray more AI fearmongering.

Viper Phase 1 is a very pretty game. I don't think it's the greatest of shmups but there's still something so satisfying about those missiles that cause the green 'splosions that trigger even more green 'splosions.

Hope Funko AND the domain registrar both get in trouble for this.

Considering how overpriced the Playdate is I'm surprised this thing isn't $50.

Secret of Mana and Wild ARMs still have the best town themes in gaming.

@poyo_pie I laughed pretty hard at "sad dad movie games"

Offline only seems silly, but I get it for TGM. Would be nice to see online leaderboards but the odds of cheaters are high.

If the SuperSega wasn't an obvious scam and/or money laundering scheme, I'd be on their side.

I have Dbrand's Killswitch case for my Steam Deck (highly recommended), and it has a modular back mounting socket. I could see someone on Etsy making a holder for this that mounts to the Killswitch. Would be pretty rad.

It's a lot like the SNES vs. Genesis vs. TG16/PCE debates: it all depends on what you're pushing and how good the devs are. The Genesis had the most powerful CPU of the three, but the SNES CPU was more efficient and the console had loads of AV bells and whistles, while the TG16 had its own advantages with color palettes and the like.

I bet you if SotN was made for the Saturn first, it would have been spectacular.

@Freyhon Your communication is fine. I understand what you're trying to say.

"AI art simply CTRL+C information from another electronic source then applies focused randomization based on prompts that it only understands as predictive modifiers." <-- Even if this were true, and it isn't, it still wouldn't change anything I'm saying; building upon what has come before to create something new. It is "stolen" in the exact same way a news site's opinion piece is "stolen."

You're hung up on this carbon copy point and I'm not sure why. There isn't code from SMB in Shovel Knight, but even if there was, who cares; the end result remains an original creation. There's a screenshot of the title screen of the NES game Totally Rad in early builds of World of Warcraft, probably used in some sort of prototyping for a UI or something; again, who cares, the end result isn't some carbon copy of Totally Rad.

We start calling usage of these things "theft" then we have to take them to their logical extreme, because I promise you, rich multi-national corporations ABSOLUTELY WILL. And that extreme leads to:

• Style as trade dress being subject to copyrighting and trademarking. Which means that Disney and Microsoft and Sony and other big organizations will scour their archives, their sat-on IPs, for anything with a distinct style they can claim ownership to. This gives them the legal OK to sue any work, no matter how small, that even remotely looks like it's "infringing." This point could happen very soon, as there are artists fighting for style as trade dress in the misguided hope it will "defeat AI."
• Copyrighting tropes. Nintendo patenting Pokemon capture mechanics and d-pad designs? That's just the beginning; imagine Disney copyrighting the "coming of age" trope based off of all the properties they owned that use it to some degree.
• Same thing but with memes. Want to make your own variant of that "enslaved moisture" meme? Get ready for a takedown notice.

These are what AI fearmongering will lead to, what the basic refusal to accept that AI is just another way human beings create new things out of already existing material will result in.

Beyond that, the point stands: AI is just doing via Python or C++ or whatever what the biological human brain does already. But the machine cannot generate value on its own, which is why the fearmongering over it is unjustified. Only a human can take that raw output, from AI or from their own observation of reality, and make it something valuable.

@Freyhon Editing is an actual skill, and art is in the editing. So the mechanic example stands. You wouldn't want it not to, anyway. The entire idea that one must vet an artist before using AI is akin to artists being some sort of cohesive board or committee, segregrated to some other that must oversee a project when it gets to the art phase. It's belittling at best, and insanity at worst. It's no different than video game publishers claiming that piracy leads to "lost revenue"; if the revenue was never coming in the first place it was never lost.

And rest assured: if there was some magic pill or spray that one could use to suddenly gain the skills of a mechanic, using them wouldn't be "taking a job"; it'd be the new norm. Old jobs are made obsolete by new technology all the time. Ideally, veterans of these old jobs would receive training on new tools and have advisory roles where their experience can guide new talent. That it doesn't, that we yell "TERK ER JERBS" ala South Park, is NOT an indictment of new technology but of the class society that demands wage slaves to keep the owning class afloat. This applies to ANY sort of automation.

The "word for word" argument holds no water. We're not talking word for word, we're talking research into what has come before and aggregrating it to be used for future work. This happens regardless of AI, and has since the beginning of human creativity. Shovel Knight borrows heavily from Mega Man, DuckTales, Castlevania, Super Mario Bros., and a bazillion other things. Giana Sisters wore its SMB1 inspiration on its sleave. Neither is just another game Xeroxed with a different signature. Even the cover art in the article, if it even is AI, isn't just a carbon copy; a human could have arrived at that piece from the same sources, the same inspiration, but over much longer time.

Nothing of ANY creative endeavor comes from scratch. Not. One. Thing. Not anything you draw, not anything I write, not a child taking chalk to pavement, not even this comment I am typing up in Windows Notepad before I copy it over to the Chrome window. That creativity gets perverted into a hunt for endless profit is not the fault of creativity, nor the tools used to foster it. AI is one of those tools, and if rich megacorporations didn't have access to it, they'd abuse whatever came in its place, including every measure currently being undertaken to "defeat AI" that I've already gone over.

If AI is using "stolen assets," so is every novel, every film, every videogame, every news article on Time Extension, EVERYTHING with even one iota of creative input. We both know that isn't actually theft, so let's not have a double standard here. Fearmongering over AI is a distraction, and this article is pointless.

@Freyhon Forgive the long response but I want to make sure I'm answering everything.

The creative process already involves others people's work. Everything iterates. Even innovative things draw inspiration and ideas from what has come before. This includes anything I write, anything you draw, any creative endeavor. This is true whether or not an AI tool was involved in the process.

As already stated, you are not "taking a job" from someone who was never involved in the first place. If I make a game on my own, and I use AI to create a title card for it that I never intended to hire an artist for in the first place, I am taking away nothing. The lunacy in thinking otherwise is akin to refusing to change your own tire because you'd be "taking a job" away from a mechanic.

On art and value: AI is amazing, but it is NOT creative. AI output is not valuable in and of itself; it requires a human to process it, edit it, give it context. I can use my own job (copywriter) as an example: I'm often tasked with projects on topics that I am not a subject matter expert on. I use AI (yes, my bosses not only know, they encouraged me to do so in the first place) for research, to gather information and elaborate on specific topics. I confirm that with my own (non-AI) research and with SMEs, and use that to write (myself) whatever piece is needed. My work is what has value; the raw AI output is nothing without me.

In the case of this game, even if its title card is AI generated, it needs the right prompt, the right cropping, possibly touchups to the image, laying it out with the title and purchase details, etc. The output in and of itself has no value; the value is from the editing. And art is in the editing.

That doesn't make the end result "good," nor does it excuse passing off raw, unedited AI output as a paid product, which is the REAL evil thing scummy companies do. Let's be clear on that.

On AI giving the masses what they didn't have access to: as stated, AI is a tool that can help in the creative process. It greatly speeds up what can already be done without AI but much more slowly. Without AI, doing this with any sort of efficiency was beyond the reach of anyone without suitable resources (ie, money).

Yes, this can include helping people who can't draw well craft pieces for whatever reason they may need (again, the editing is what would give this value). No, this will not invalidate artists, just like how changing your own tires doesn't invalidate mechanics. (EDIT - It also won't stop people from learning how to draw.)

AI fearmongering is stupid and just another thing keeping people trapped in a silly culture war over nothing.

@Damo There was never a debate. Only reason I kept humoring you is because you cannot ignore staff.

@N00BiSH I write for a living. Technical and marketing copywriting. On the side I have both paid and unpaid projects.

Stow your assumptions.

@Damo Nope. What I said was correct. What AI gives to the masses was previously not available to them, regardless of talent.

That's why I brought up the "style as trade dress" case: people like you will celebrate its defeat of AI as you hand the rich a far more powerful way to exploit artists.

@Damo We're not talking about different things. AI fear-mongering supports capitalism, straight up. This is a tool that gives people access to time savings that previously was the sole domain of the rich.

And if the fear-mongering continues, it will encourage anti-AI regulations that will, in practice, ensure that only the rich and powerful keep access to it. It's just degrowth all over again.

Regardless, we're going in circles. You're in the wrong, and I've made my points.

@KoopaTheGamer 99.6% chance you already have, possibly unknowingly. 100% chance you will in the future, as AI is a fantastic tool to organize thoughts, prototype, and smooth out the creative process.

@NinChocolate Art is in the editing and presentation. And only a human can do that. You can piss and moan about how AI is theft all you want: in reality it is just doing more quickly what is already done and has already been done before.

The fearmongering over AI remains silly, and distracts from the true cause of hardship for both unprivileged artists and everyone else who isn't rich.

@Damo You talk of "value exchange" but don't understand what value actually is. The only works that have value are those created by a human. The entire system of capitalism is based on that, and the reason late-stage capitalism is a very bad thing is BECAUSE of that (look up "the falling rate of profit" and see how automation reduces value and leads to capitalistic crisis). AI works in and of themselves have zero value: the human that edits it, reshapes it, presents it, etc. is generating that, no different than they do without AI but when they look for inspiration from other works.

Again, ad nauseum: IP law is not there to protect everyone: it is there to protect rich stakeholders. It treats art as a commodity, as property, and it will protect the owners of that property above all else. This is great for RICH artists and owners, and wildly inadequate for everyone else, because the rich have way more at their disposal to prove their ownership (even if they have no real claim) and win legal cases.

Look at the silly movement to trademark art style as trade dress being touted as a way to "defeat AI": what do you think the owning class is going to do with that, other than trademark every possible art style they can and pull a Nintendo when indie artists draw something in their style? Better make sure your indie art doesn't invoke a Studio Ghibli style, or a Toriyama style, or anything Marvel has ever done and you get the picture.

That IP law can sometimes, rarely, benefit artists who aren't part of the owning class themselves doesn't change any of that. Defending IP law is doing the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" thing; propping up a system that benefits the fewest, richest among us because of the miniscule chance you may one day become part of that class yourself.

There's a video on YouTube whose title I cannot fully post here because it contains a bad word, and I don't want to chance the link either. You can find it by searching YouTube for "Plato is a" followed by a bad word that starts with B.

It's long-ish, but it is a spectacularly thorough (and funny) response to the nonsense about AI being "theft" that a lot of people here have convinced themselves of.

@Damo It actually proves the opposite. Big tech corporations already scrape all of our data all the time, to their financial enrichment, and we receive no compensation. On a smaller scale, the creative process already iterates on what came before, and using AI to speed up the research is only doing what we could already do for that process more slowly.

It's only "theft" if you buy into the notion that IP law protects artists. It does not; it protects the rich at the expense of artists. I've already talked about why and you've said nothing to debunk it.

And if using AI in the creative process is "theft" then Shovel Knight is also "theft" for iterating upon Mega Man and Ducktales among other things.

@gojiguy Please don't cite logical fallacies if you don't understand them. Thank you in advance.

@jojobar Ima repost what I once said on NL:

The "AI is art theft" angle is predicated on the erroneous belief that IP law actually protects artists. It doesn't; it protects corporate interests. Artists who believe otherwise are just doing the artist version of "temporarily embarrassed millionnaire"; they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed famous artists who will no doubt soon win that virtual scratch ticket.

A certain four hour video on plagiarism and AI has made its audience dumber to this reality (as do most of the videos said content creator spews). It is wrong: in fact, AI scrapes things that humans could (and already did) do, just faster. AI businesses are harmful the same way corporations will always be; AI itself is not.

As it relates to this title card / store image, unless we learn that it really is AI generated AND if, and ONLY if, there was some promise that it wouldn't be AI, this news story remains pointless fearmongering.

@-wc- Yeah, just noticed myself that it's an accusation, not a fact.

@SlangWon Agreed 100%.

@-wc- Art is valuable. Necessary. Soul-warming.

None of what I said invalidates any of that, and attempting to twist my position into that is malicious at best.

@PinballBuzzbro Already addressed and dismissed. Scroll up.

@gojiguy Big tech has been scraping your data for decades, and Google has not compensated you for one red cent.

The issue is not AI, it's class society where corporations get to use your data for free and sell it back to you at a premium.

@jojobar Your money is your own and you may opt to purchase something, or refrain, for any reason you see fit.

Everything I said still stands.

@-wc- The implication is that artists are a charity. They are not. What I said still applies: AI is a tool, and making a title card or store graphic using AI is an affront to no one who isn't looking to be outraged.

AI is amazing but it isn't creative. Like I mentioned in my original example, there'd be a world of difference if it was the sole source of, say, cutscenes. And even then, the issue wouldn't be AI, it would be that said cutscenes, devoid of human editing or direction, would feel hollow and lifeless.

That isn't a concern for a freaking title card.

This is fearmongering over nothing.

@Steel76 Now this, I can appreciate.

Voxels are rad.

@RupeeClock It's a stupid sentiment. AI is a tool. There's a world of difference between selling AI work as your own to a client who was promised something that wasn't AI generated, and using AI tools to create cover art for a thing you're selling yourself.

An artist was not shortchanged here. It isn't shortchanging someone who was never involved in your project and that you were never planning TO involve in the first place. The fearmongering over this cover art remains dumb.

Anyone who paid for this needs to turn into a Karen, demand their money back, and get their credit card companies to reverse the charge. ***** scammers.

Who cares. AI fearmongering is stupid.

I could see the outrage if there was like a suite of artwork that the game featured, like if it was an RPG with Phantasy Star IV style cutscenes where every one of them was AI generated. And even then, the issue would be that said scenes would look robotic and lifeless for something that's supposed to convey emotion and themes and the like.

Here, it's for the cover art, and the final result does the job well enough.

Who. Cares.

@jesse_dylan I too thought this was about Rayearth, and when I didn't see Hikaru I was all confused.

@raider266 In your haste to be a wokescold you didn't even read the article.

Protip: don't be a wokescold. Terrible thing to aspire to.

He should get credited. The movies are fantastic and Ohshima deserves praise.

a) Though in early access, folks who want a spiritual successor to classic Starfox games should look at Ex-Zodiac. It's rad. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1249480/ExZodiac/

2) I hope this SF64 PC port gets released before Nintendo takes it down and the drooling Nintendo kiddies cheer.

Yeah, SNES Aladdin is the waaaaaaaaaaaaay better game.

But why though

@Daniel36 Love and respect. <3 And to be fair I do love Chrono Trigger too. Chrono Cross, however...

Interesting.

Phantasy Star IV remains one of the best 16-bit JRPGs ever. It's a better game than Chrono Trigger; fight me.

@PinballBuzzbro You keep the pill lady away from me

@DestructoDisk "When will the controller gods bless us with a bluetooth controller that has 6 primary face button as well as 4 shoulder buttons and two analog sticks?"

RIGHT? I wish 6 face buttons became the norm.