Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: AI game animation sprite generator

godmodeai.cloud

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: Show HN: AI game animation sprite generator

#81

Post by makerofthings »

petesergeant wrote: post #66
makerofthings wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have to agree. I don’t think we should stop ai progress, just that I think we built a bad thing along the way. I will never buy a video game that I know has ai generated content, I want to see some art, not a soulless prediction of what art might look like.

> I will never Bet you $10 that in five years' time you will have.

It's not really practical but I would take the bet that I will never /intentionally/ buy a game with AI generated assets. I just don't see that AI generated art has any value to it. I'm sure you could sneak some past me, it's getting harder to spot all the time.

Re: Show HN: AI game animation sprite generator

#82

Post by jpnc »

elpocko wrote: post #38
spinach wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you consensus is coming from but AI art is getting really, really good. I used to be able to easily tell what was AI art when others couldn't but that's changing fast. It's been trained on some of the best artwork. Various artists have been told their artwork looks like AI, meanwhile it's actually the other around. Already in the app stores there are many games full of AI art that the average perso…

A lot of people are saying that a) AI generates slop that no one needs, and b) AI is putting human artists out of work. If the machine can do art that's indistinguishable from human art, and art is the soul of humanity, then the machine may have a soul? I've told the machine to create art, I've showed the art to humans, and the humans were touched by it. It evoked an emotion, like art is supposed to. My personal anec…

>the man The man, right. Not the father.

Re: Show HN: AI game animation sprite generator

#85

Post by petesergeant »

makerofthings wrote: post #81
petesergeant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will never Bet you $10 that in five years' time you will have.

It's not really practical but I would take the bet that I will never /intentionally/ buy a game with AI generated assets. I just don't see that AI generated art has any value to it. I'm sure you could sneak some past me, it's getting harder to spot all the time.

My guess is that in five years’ time there won’t be any games that don’t include any, and also people will really have stopped caring so much

Re: Show HN: AI game animation sprite generator

#86

Post by davidweatherall »

archerx wrote: post #80
nkrisc wrote: post #71

It’s sad how the existing corpus of artists’ works are being used against them. The only reason this can generate images like these is because artists previously created artwork like this. And then in return they get: > you don't need to high an artist or animator to develop you game. Unless you created all the training material yourself, any model like this is highly unethical, in my opinion.

As someone who is an artist and also a programmer I find the differences between both very different. I never see programmers crying over A.I. chiming “they stole our code so it’s evil and I’ll never use it and neither should you!” Like the artist seem to do. I don’t really care if the image gen models are trained on my renders or photos as long as they are open source. Also I have been making the assets for my game…

I think there's a big difference with how designers and programmers can use AI to enhance their work, and how exploited the average person's work has been. A lot of designers publish their work on social media, or it's visible on their websites etc., which AI models have used to train with. But with coding, most people's code only exists in private repos, or is compiled to a format that LLMs cant easily be trained on.

Re: Show HN: AI game animation sprite generator

#87

Post by jason_oster »

wrasee wrote: post #76
Aeolun wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you didn’t want people to see and use it, maybe you shouldn’t have made it public? I don’t think training AI is fundamentally different from humans learning from things they see, and we don’t restrict that either.

The fundamental difference is that computers can do this at a pace and scale that humans could never aspire to. There is a natural limit to the extent a single individual can be informed by previous works. It sets a natural pace to innovation that is sustainable for both the artist and derivative works. Computers have no such limitation and can consume almost the entirety of a subject’s work in a few weeks or months.…

Automated assembly lines have the same properties. Same with transportation. Buses, trains, airplanes, ships. These all work tirelessly at a pace that humans cannot match.

There is no fundamental difference.

Re: Show HN: AI game animation sprite generator

#89

Post by fourside »

Aeolun wrote: post #73
nkrisc wrote: post #71

It’s sad how the existing corpus of artists’ works are being used against them. The only reason this can generate images like these is because artists previously created artwork like this. And then in return they get: > you don't need to high an artist or animator to develop you game. Unless you created all the training material yourself, any model like this is highly unethical, in my opinion.

Unless you didn’t want people to see and use it, maybe you shouldn’t have made it public? I don’t think training AI is fundamentally different from humans learning from things they see, and we don’t restrict that either.

When it’s big copyright holders we have very specific, very granular definitions of what constitutes fair or allowed use. But when it comes to smaller creators the answer is that it’s their fault for trying to promote their work and make a living.

Re: Show HN: AI game animation sprite generator

#90

Post by archerx »

davidweatherall wrote: post #86
archerx wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who is an artist and also a programmer I find the differences between both very different. I never see programmers crying over A.I. chiming “they stole our code so it’s evil and I’ll never use it and neither should you!” Like the artist seem to do. I don’t really care if the image gen models are trained on my renders or photos as long as they are open source. Also I have been making the assets for my game…

I think there's a big difference with how designers and programmers can use AI to enhance their work, and how exploited the average person's work has been. A lot of designers publish their work on social media, or it's visible on their websites etc., which AI models have used to train with. But with coding, most people's code only exists in private repos, or is compiled to a format that LLMs cant easily be trained on…

There is so much code on github and all the other repos that it can compare with the amount of art that is out there. Also all of your Javascript code is public once your site is published.

There is nothing stopping artists from using A.I. to improve their work. The sketch to image work flows are great, the variation work flows can save from the tedium and inpainting can help fix and improve images.

Text to image is lazy and is the cause of most of the slop but no one is saying artist should replace their Wacom tablets with text prompts. I feel like there is a lot of hurt egos going on. I remember back in the day on CGtalk, there was so much elitism and in hindsight it probably held a lot of people back, myself included.

Post reply on HN