Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AI Games

Game Developer Survey: 50% Work at a Studio Already Using Generative AI Tools (arstechnica.com) 31

A new survey of thousands of game development professionals finds a near-majority saying generative AI tools are already in use at their workplace. But a significant minority of developers say their company has no interest in generative AI tools or has outright banned their use. From a report: The Game Developers Conference's 2024 State of the Industry report, released Thursday, aggregates the thoughts of over 3,000 industry professionals as of last October. While the annual survey (conducted in conjunction with research partner Omdia) has been running for 12 years, this is the first time respondents were asked directly about their use of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, DALL-E, GitHub Copilot, and Adobe Generative Fill.

Forty-nine percent of the survey's developer respondents said that generative AI tools are currently being used in their workplace. That near-majority includes 31 percent (of all respondents) that say they use those tools themselves and 18 percent that say their colleagues do. The survey also found that different studio departments showed different levels of willingness to embrace AI tools. Forty-four percent of employees in business and finance said they were using AI tools, for instance, compared to just 16 percent in visual arts and 13 percent in "narrative/writing."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Developer Survey: 50% Work at a Studio Already Using Generative AI Tools

Comments Filter:
  • by tphb ( 181551 ) on Friday January 19, 2024 @12:46PM (#64172995)

    First off, it's not 50% of _work_. It's 50% of studios. The stupid headline make it sound like half the work is being done by AI, when clearly it's not.

    And then if you RTFA, it's not 50%. It's 31% use AI tools, and 18% have a colleague who does. That doesn't make 50% of anything.

    In short, it's the dumbest summary on Slashdot I've read in a long time, and that's saying something.
     

  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Friday January 19, 2024 @12:46PM (#64172997)

    Remember that AI products do not have copyright...

    • I would think AI would be used just to do portions of something and the individual parts aren't what is being copyright protected but rather the sum of the parts.

      So I may use AI to write some dialogue then take that dialogue and improve upon it before release. At that point, I would argue I wrote that stuff because I went back and did all the editorial work and more.

      Say I'm creating an RPG. I could use AI to help create various components but would then need to expel a bunch of work gluing it all together a

      • by Hadlock ( 143607 )

        To use the dialog someone has to 1) prove you didn't write it without evidence and 2) prove you didn't rewrite portions of it, also without evidence. That's a pretty high burden of proof for the person trying to copy something they could have just asked chatgpt to generate for them.

    • by Hadlock ( 143607 )

      You'd need to identify and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

      1. that particular game asset was AI generated, and

      2. the asset had not been modified in any way after generation, since modifying the asset makes it an original work and thus copyrightable

      There's an extremely thin slice of AI generated work, like chat responses, first pass image generation that doesn't have copyright, but also has zero or close to zero economic value. You don't get to pirate the entire game GTA VI simpl

    • Purely AI generated works cannot be copyrighted. But if you generate something and then work it over manually, it can be.

    • Remember that AI products do not have copyright...

      This does not mean what you (perhaps) think it means. Any work produced by an AI may still have copyright by an upstream human being due to reusing substantial elements of training data. It's only the AI (aka a software tool) that does not hold a copyright in the work that is produced.

      So if you decide to generate some image from an AI, and if the generated image happens to include a character with black perfectly circular ears who looks exactly like Mick

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        That is just BS. AIs are machines and have no legal rights. That has never been in dispute, except by some complete morons. It is always about the tool user. Incidentally, copyright because of the training data makes the the idea of using AI worse, because that would be copyright belonging to somebody else.

  • by packrat0x ( 798359 ) on Friday January 19, 2024 @01:02PM (#64173049)

    FTFS: "...generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, DALL-E, GitHub Copilot, and Adobe Generative Fill."
    "Forty-four percent of employees in business and finance said they were using AI tools..."

    Using generative AI in finance. Now *THIS* is popcorn munching time!

    • FTFS: "...generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, DALL-E, GitHub Copilot, and Adobe Generative Fill."
      "Forty-four percent of employees in business and finance said they were using AI tools..."

      Using generative AI in finance. Now *THIS* is popcorn munching time!

      People are using them all over for mundane things like writing performance reviews, formatting their email.

      It's like the power drill. Did that lead to a bunch of overdriven or stripped screws? Yup ... so don't. It's not rocket science, they're easy to use tools, if you manage to fuck up something beyond your own reach with it, that's all you. The concern over all them is silly.

  • I just saw an ad for this new Indiana Jones video game - and it couldn't have been more uncannily clear that they'd deepfaked Harrison Ford's voice for the narration voice-over.

    They couldn't make it sound more like a Harrison Ford Robot if they tried... yikes!!!

  • Video games aren't derivative enough already.
    • by sinij ( 911942 )
      More so, the level of dialog writing that typically found in games can only be improved by AI.
      • Yes I haven't been able to get through a few of the recent single player titles because the dialogue was seemingly written by the corniest teenager alive.
  • Generate a new plot for the new Assassin's Creed game we are working on

    Ok so um Adam Sandler is like in love with a girl. But the girl is like a golden retriever or something

    God dammit! Bob! This things broken again, have we done pharaohs yet? Wait what? we did? when the fuck was that? .... sigh

  • Looks like only a small percentage use it for their creative work. 13-16% is still something, but it's disappointing that finance is even included in this survey.

  • CP2077 used JALI, a form of AI, to generate the facial animations. Nvidia uses AI in DLSS 3.5 uses to make ray tracing actually viable. Cascadeur is animation software that uses AI to generate plausible secondary motion for animations. Generative imaging solutions like the ones mentioned in the summary are frequently used by concept artists, or for storyboarding and the like. Image generators can also be used for upscaling textures quite effectively, or even generating brand new textures, including seam
  • In terms of pure model creation not game-engine code: How many model designers are keying in all of their polygons / etc by hand? How many of them are coding frame by frame where their points are moving to?

    Just because you don't have a terminal open to ChatGPT doesn't mean you're not using generative AI... Modeling tools have been doing this kind of generation for AGES.. it's what makes a lot of this work even doable for your average human. HUGE credit to the old school animators that had to sketch, by hand

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Working...