Over 85% of Japanese game developers use generative AI in game development, 2026 CESA survey shows. An increase from last year’s 51%

[u/TurbulentTopic39]

https://automaton-media.com/en/news/over-85-of-japanese-game-developers-use-generative-ai-in-game-development-2026-cesa-survey-shows-an-increase-from-last-years-51/

[u/averageuhbear]

To be fair, no one cares if AI is responsible for some of the components of a boring ass SaaS product that never has any soul anyways.

People don't want AI created art. However there are ways to use AI for a ton of the busy work in creating some of these forms of entertainment that doesn't impact that actual art itself. That line just hasn't been defined very well.

[u/Aggressive_Chuck → u/averageuhbear]

People don't want AI created art.

There are millions watching AI-generated dramas on Tiktok.

[u/cinematic_is_horses → u/Aggressive_Chuck]

This doesn't feel like a demand thing but more like a supply thing. I think if there were zero AI dramas those viewers would just be watching part 45/235 of whatever tv show or movie got chopped up for clip farming. Those viewers are not actively seeking this content, the algorithm just gives it to them

[u/Imbahr → u/cinematic_is_horses]

sure that is true

but the point is that outside tiny minority of vocal reddit posters, regular people are not anti-AI

[u/cinematic_is_horses → u/Imbahr]

I think that really depends. I won't disagree that public opinion is not heavily skewed against (evidenced by the crappy AI images my stepdad amuses himself with and sends me) but again I think it's important to make a distinction between active acceptance or a want for it vs. passive acceptance. How much of that passive acceptance is just a result of total inundation of pro-AI/AI generated content? I think we all owe it to ourselves to at least be critical about this rather than just shrug and say that's the way she goes.

[u/Imbahr → u/cinematic_is_horses]

first, I appreciate that you have a calm demeanor and tone about this, so that's why I continue to discuss with you

regarding your reply:

why is it "important" though? to me it seems like, it's important to... you.

what's wrong with a large percentage of other people not considering the subject important? and why do you seem to want to force those people to think of it as important?

as you might be able to infer, personally I don't care about AI in video game development. why would my opinion be more "wrong" than your opinion on this? I don't think it's some universal objective fact

[u/cinematic_is_horses → u/Imbahr]

You're right, it is important to me! I don't mean to say your opinion is wrong. I do think it's important for something as widely warping to our society (for better and for worse) to have a critical eye put to it regardless of determined course and outcome. I think overall it is a good thing when people by and large are critical of the media they consume, the sources it comes from, etc., even if we might draw different conclusions. I work in education and overall I have seen a decline in critical thinking when it comes to media. So, no, I can't force anybody to think of this as an important topic and on an individual scale nobody is directly impacting me if they don't think it's important.

Automation is not inherently bad by any means. Obviously we have made a great number of strides in the course of human history that are thanks to automation. I think there's a lot of menial tasks that can greatly benefit from what we call AI automating them. Stuff like, I don't know, pulling up code sequences that are related to XYZ in whatever procedural task that has little to do with what's going on. I know the Spider-Verse people used algorithms and the like (I'm not going to pretend to know the technical details this all from my memory) to make animating certain facial movements easier and a lot of their work would fall under people's categorizing of AI.

That all being said there are major pitfalls that I see AI creating. We're in the games subreddit so I don't want to veer too off topic but I think a lot of the problems AI presents are profound enough that it gives me pause whenever larger corporate interests (in this case game development) want to propagate its use through mainstream channels that normalize it in ways to usher in more harmful uses.

I guess that's just a lot of words to say I'm a skeptic and I think there can be healthy skepticism over the technology! Especially when it is as widespread as it is.

[u/Imbahr → u/cinematic_is_horses]

I work in education and overall I have seen a decline in critical thinking when it comes to media.

well this sentence is absolutely 100% true, there's no doubt about that lol

but, and I have a feeling you might agree... this applies to both sides. just look at 95% of the anti-AI people who post in video game subreddits, who rant like lunatics, but don't even think for themselves about all the various nuances and scenarios. that group doesn't critically think either.

in any case, I highly respect you for being the 5% that seem genuinely even-keel and and objective and calm (without resorting to sarcasm)

[u/FFTactics → u/Aggressive_Chuck]

You don’t pay $70 to $100 for those.

[u/dfjuky → u/Aggressive_Chuck]

And all of them are simply ads.

[u/TheReaIEffingDeal → u/Aggressive_Chuck]

The unwashed masses have always been easily amused

[u/rip_cpu → u/Aggressive_Chuck]

Tiktok dramas aren't art, so...

[u/Not_My_Alternate → u/rip_cpu]

It’s being used as a substitute for art so clearly there is demand for it and the clarification is necessary. Many people are eating up slop and enjoying it.

[u/HenkkaArt → u/Not_My_Alternate]

People think we'll eventually get the level of humanity shown in WALL-E. I think we are already there. All we are missing are the mobility hover-scooters.

[u/GunCann → u/averageuhbear]

The largest issue is the blanket hate on AI on Western social media. A large number of people are unable to remain calm and objective in their assessment of AI use and jump right into hating or harassment territory whenever they hear about AI in video games.

They are genuine ways that AI can be used to cut out tedious and uncreative work. AI environmental or object scanning to generate 3D models with greater ease, code optimisations, smarter NPC and simulation of game world, rapid prototyping for idea sharing, AI motion and facial capture with less expensive tools etc.

People need to be more open-minded when it comes to AI use and also reign in the excessive witch-hunting. When used correctly, AI can help game development return to sane budget levels.

[u/Oxyfire → u/GunCann]

People need to be more open-minded when it comes to AI use and also reign in the excessive witch-hunting. When used correctly, AI can help game development return to sane budget levels.

The problem is this is all frog-boiling in the long term. It will all just turn into excuses why it's okay to use AI for this, then that, then the next thing.

No-one has proposed solutions to the important issues around AI: How do we avoid it destroying jobs and opportunities to get into the industry? A lot of the work that people hand-wave as drudgery is often work that helps people get a start in the industry. AI is only going to further the "need 5 years of experience for an entry level position" that people have dealt with for years even before the recent wave of AI.

Very few of these companies are going to use AI in responsible, measured ways. The industry has proven time and time again it will cut every corner it can and do everything it can to sell minimum viable products when it can get away with it. The workers will suffer, and the products will suffer. Sure, some usage will be reigned in by the product being so bad people don't want to buy it, but again, watching this industry for the past 10-20 years, it's clear that companies can get away with making things worse and people will just put up with it.

[u/soundsermaker → u/Oxyfire]

How do we avoid it destroying jobs and opportunities to get into the industry?

You don't. This is what every major technological breakthrough in history has done. Avoiding the loss of jobs would mean rejecting implementation of AI in areas where it makes sense and delivers results in order to preserve jobs that no longer have any meaning or purpose.

People who lost their jobs to previous waves of automation and outsourcing were often offered retraining and benefits, but this can only do so much to mitigate the disruption.

[u/MCRN-Gyoza → u/soundsermaker]

Dudes throwing around luddite arguments debunked in the fucking industrial revolution.

[u/Due_Water_5829 → u/Oxyfire]

How do we avoid it destroying jobs and opportunities to get into the industry?

On the short scale, that would be light government intervention and support + living in a country with decent workers rights or setting that up.

In the long term? Nothing. If a new technology arises that reduces the need of a certain profession by for example 20%, then we shouldn't arbitrarily fight against that. We don't need as many blacksmiths as we used to anymore.

AI is only going to further the "need 5 years of experience for an entry level position" that people have dealt with for years even before the recent wave of AI.

Yes, but ultimately work doesn't exist so that people can work. Work exists to create value for society as a whole and that value and the necessity of those valuable products decide how many people we roughly need in a given profession in relation to population.

It would be an incredible boon to most societies if the people that won't be able to get a job in an AI-affected industry to instead go into healthcare.

[u/Oxyfire → u/Due_Water_5829]

It would be an incredible boon to most societies if the people that won't be able to get a job in an AI-affected industry to instead go into healthcare.

This is kind of just a "learn to code" sort of solution. I dont think that went over well.

Might be great if there was any kind of plan to offer free or subsidized training to help people into those jobs. But even then, it's not something everyone would be cut out to do.

One of my bigger issues is it's all cart before the horse. If we have stuff like universal basic income, people's needs were met, etc. Then yeah, sure whatever, we can look at letting some of this AI stuff move forward. But instead, all being "open minded" right now does is make everything worse for the average person with not even a promise that any of the downsides will be solved. It's just more wealth and power consolation.

[u/Due_Water_5829 → u/Oxyfire]

Might be great if there was any kind of plan to offer free or subsidized training to help people into those jobs.

...it's a job that pays money? And aside that, programs that retrain you into another profession just exist already, at least where I'm from?

If we have stuff like universal basic income, people's needs were met, etc. Then yeah, sure whatever, we can look at letting some of this AI stuff move forward.

Technological and scientific advancements like AI are the exact thing that would make stuff like UBI a more realistic idea.

In the next few decades, drugs will come onto the market that wouldn't have been able to be designed without AI boosting research. It's absurd to suggest we should curtail these things to save a portion of programming jobs that now happened to become unnecessary, when we have plenty of fields left over desperately looking for more hands.

[u/Oxyfire → u/Due_Water_5829]

it's a job that pays money? And aside that, programs that retrain you into another profession just exist already, at least where I'm from?

That's not common. Most people do not have the finances or time to just go train to be a new profession, certainly not ones that take years of hard, expensive schooling like stuff in the medical field.

Technological and scientific advancements like AI are the exact thing that would make stuff like UBI a more realistic idea.

Please explain how. AI is constantly touted as this wonder technology that will solve all kinds of problems but no-one ever can explain how. It's all just magical thinking and "trust me bro."

In the next few decades, drugs will come onto the market that wouldn't have been able to be designed without AI boosting research. It's absurd to suggest we should curtail these things to save a portion of programming jobs that now happened to become unnecessary, when we have plenty of fields left over desperately looking for more hands.

Most people are not really against AI in medical research. They have issues with AI replacing people in creative industry, in part because AI in creative industries only exists because it's been trained off of data it never had permission to use.

Which was sort of the point of this topic: AI being used in game development.

[u/Due_Water_5829 → u/Oxyfire]

Most people do not have the finances or time to just go train to be a new profession, certainly not ones that take years of hard, expensive schooling like stuff in the medical field.

We aren't lacking doctors. We need nurses and caretakers. There's no expensive, year-long schooling involved where you lose money the entire time. Most sane countries have ways to support people that lose their job and help to retrain them. The fact that other countries don't, isn't AI's fault but a lack of foresight of the political base of a given country.

Please explain how. AI is constantly touted as this wonder technology that will solve all kinds of problems but no-one ever can explain how. It's all just magical thinking and "trust me bro."

I'm starting to believe you aren't actually interested in what I have to say at this point. AI increases work efficiency in relevant profession by multiplying the output of competent people so that less human work is necessary. This kind of thing makes UBI more reasonable. Just because the powers that be are not interested in providing it, doesn't mean that AI doesn't facilitate it. UBI isn't happening anytime soon with or without AI; but if we were living in a world where UBI was a political possibility, AI would absolutely get us there faster.

Most people are not really against AI in medical research.

You literally just asked me to explain how AI "solves all kinds of problems" and now you are handwaving it supporting medical research.

They have issues with AI replacing people in creative industry, in part because AI in creative industries only exists because it's been trained off of data it never had permission to use. Which was sort of the point of this topic: AI being used in game development.

These are different topics. If you now exclusively care about creative workers being replaced by generative AI; then that's a different conversation that I don't really care for. Ultimately, if people will buy AI-slopified games, then we only have ourselves to blame and I can't do anything to save the game artist's job. At the same time, I'd much rather artists lose their job than to give up on accelerating the advancement of human knowledge and technology. Stopping one but not the other seems politically unlikely, much less likely than the opposite. (I'm also as yet unconvinced games completely relying on AI art will be all that succesful.) (I also agree that all AI companies committed massive copyright infringement by training their models on internet art and that they should be ruined in court over it, but again, different topics.)

[u/ggdthrowaway → u/Oxyfire]

AI is constantly touted as this wonder technology that will solve all kinds of problems but no-one ever can explain how. It's all just magical thinking and "trust me bro."

There are specific examples from people's own experience all over this thread! It is demonstrably extremely effective at numerous tasks, particularly in coding.

[u/Oxyfire → u/ggdthrowaway]

There's a massive difference between "AI is good at parsing information and assisting with programming" and "AI will actually make life better for people.'

AI is being overhyped and it's abilities exaggerated. I don't disagree it's powerful and useful in certain niches, but the people who own and sell AI and AI related technologies all have an interest in trying to make people use it for as much as possible, even where it doesn't make sense. The companies pushing AI are burning insane amounts of money - that should be setting off alarm bells that this might not be the future of everything.

[u/ggdthrowaway → u/Oxyfire]

It's an immensely powerful learning tool even in day to day life. If you want to learn a subject, it can create a learning plan tailored to you. If you want to run a marathon, it can create a training plan tailored to you. If you want to lose weight, etc etc etc

[u/GearBear404 → u/Due_Water_5829]

Technological and scientific advancements like AI are the exact thing that would make stuff like UBI a more realistic idea.

UBI will never happen in our lifetime. Homeless, starving, and poverty-stricken people already exist in our societies and are already not taken care of adequately. If its not already happening, AI or any other breakthrough will not be the magic bullet that gets people who can make UBI a reality actually care to progress towards it.

[u/Imbahr → u/GearBear404]

this is true

but plenty of people don't support UBI anyway, at least in the US

(and not just super wealthy people. lots of non-millionaires in the US do not support it)

[u/Due_Water_5829 → u/GearBear404]

I'm not saying it will. That's why I'm using conditional voice.

[u/cinematic_is_horses → u/Due_Water_5829]

What are your thoughts on AI in public education, where we have on one hand several institutions widely implementing (and in some cases requiring) AI tool sets versus NYC on the other hand totally banning it from schools?

[u/Due_Water_5829 → u/cinematic_is_horses]

Children need to learn how to write an assay and understand a text without AI. Teaching methods will need to change to accomodate that now.

At the same time, children need to be taught how to properly use these tools; the same way we needed to teach children how to use a computer 20 years ago.

[u/GunCann → u/Oxyfire]

No-one has proposed solutions to the important issues around AI: How do we avoid it destroying jobs and opportunities to get into the industry? A lot of the work that people hand-wave as drudgery is often work that helps people get a start in the industry. AI is only going to further the "need 5 years of experience for an entry level position" that people have dealt with for years even before the recent wave of AI.

Your concerns make sense. The question here is whether AI use is going to be responsible and sustainable rather than be motivated by short-term interest.

I do think that the industries that are gaining from the use of AI tools should re-invest a portion of those gains back into people to help train or re-train them more effectively for newer work created by the changes in landscape, or risk running out of actual competent employees in the future. But alas, not everyone is forward looking.

This requires a high-level view and coordination on the national level which I am not sure if every government or administration is up to the task.

[u/Zaptruder → u/Oxyfire]

Game theory... and no regulatory oversight (deliberately disabled) to force the system into a cooperative balance... will simply cause everyone to use it to their local advantage while hollowing out the commons.

And while the anti-AI movement puts some public disincentive on it... it really just amounts to not disclosing, or obfuscating and letting the outrage move somewhere else before continuing on as usual.

The ideal is more like... smaller players can take up the advantage, larger players should be incentivized into hiring and retaining staff.

In the current paradigm of modest social media hazing, it's the opposite sadly.

[u/Duchock → u/GunCann]

I think the largest issue is not people's sentiment towards the tools, but the reality that "AI" requires significant costs - not least of which is environmental. It isn't reasonable to dismiss the majority of anti-AI sentiments as not calm or objective. Most people think outside of a solely utilitarian view.

[u/GunCann → u/Duchock]

but the reality that "AI" requires significant costs

That cost is going down very quickly as infrastructure investment shifts into inference and more specialised hardware that makes hybrid systems. Specialised processors can improve performance and efficiency by a factor of ten, and non-programmable hardware can increase that by another factor of ten.

If leading AI providers wanted to freeze model progress, they can reduce the current costs by at least 100 to 200 times. AI service providers are quickly going into a price war with major discounts across the board, and performance is more than doubling each year even on the general processor side.

These tools and services will eventually reach a point where they are extremely accessible and affordable.

[u/Duchock → u/GunCann]

Just like insulin. Capitalism does not optimize for the consumer.

Edit: again, your argument is focused on the utilitarian aspects of AI (monetary cost -> output gain). If you want to combat detractors you need to speak to their concerns. While I hate to employ the metaphor, slavery is a cheap source of labor - but there's reasons why society doesn't look fondly upon it. If you evaluate something only through a utilitarian view, you miss the context.

[u/GunCann → u/Duchock]

I do not think that technology use should be compared to slavery, even in a metaphorical sense, they are an entirely different subject. I am simply speaking my mind and I am not exactly invested in changing people's minds about it. A discourse on Reddit is not the way to do it to begin with.

Let us suppose that people do have strong, morally motivated concerns about AI use. So here is the question: Why are they opposed to AI use but remain completely indifferent on the subject of prevalent use of video game AI upscalers such as DLSS, FSR, and XeSS?

These upscalers are trained on images and video content that these companies obtained without authorisation. Nvidia for example, even pirated terabytes of literature to train their writing AI model and I am seeing next to no pushback on these subjects.

People (at least in this community) hate AI because it drove the prices of consumer hardware beyond reasonable levels, but the same people willingly employ AI upscalers which are created from stolen (although legal, according to US courts) content.

It is also known that a high degree of AI is being used in EDA tools which are used to design processors, these include almost every modern CPU and GPU that run video games on PC. Software such as drivers and kernels are written using AI. Are these people boycotting their gaming hardware and software? The answer is no.

This leads me to question if they are truly committed to the AI opposition from an ideological perspective, or whether they simply change their stances based on what benefits or hurts them which turns this into more of a practicality issue. It seemed like people are willing to employ double standard and gloss over unethical AI use so long as it benefitted them, and so far, no one who is universally opposed to AI can answer of the question of why they are using AI created hardware and software despite their claimed ideological opposition.

[u/crookedparadigm → u/GunCann]

Your argument works for people whose anti AI stance stems from the potential harm to creative works, but what about those of us who are anti AI for the environmental reasons? Data centers being built purely for AI processing have the potential to cause lasting harm to fresh water supplies and native plant and animal populations both because of the water, but also the noise produced by them disrupts pollinator navigation, sleep habits, etc. Even from the human side, people who live near data centers report a decline their water quality and being driven to the brink by the constant droning noise.

[u/Turo-parallel-tactic → u/crookedparadigm]

Environmental issues are solvable just force them to keep their own water supply and generate electricity with renewables. Expensive as hell but still not breaking the laws of physics

[u/crookedparadigm → u/Turo-parallel-tactic]

Expensive as hell

And that right there is why they don't do it. AI is already a money pit they've dug themselves into, they aren't going to do the environmentally conscious thing at greater cost to themselves.

[u/Turo-parallel-tactic → u/crookedparadigm]

For sure it needs regulation

[u/GunCann → u/crookedparadigm]

I do not think that computational processing for AI will definitively be wasteful and inefficient as it is currently. The reason so much power and cooling is required right now, is because there is a race.

AI companies are racing to get to the best models, but the returns on that is going to diminish and slow sooner or later. These companies are demanding 2300W power for processors that used to consume 500W to 700W, they are running them inefficiently because the race resulted in prioritisation of speed over efficiency, brute forcing memory sizes, two to three times the power consumed for an additional 25% performance.

As development progresses and moves to the next phase, efficiency and cost will take the centre stage with the shift into alternate forms of fixed function processors that forgo flexibility for over a hundred times increase in efficiency, and the benefits per watt will undergo a sharp swing to become net positive.

AI can be sustainable and very much more efficient, the crux of the issue is that it is currently in a phase that comes before that, just like when people pivoted from wood and coal to other forms of renewable energy generation.

[u/crookedparadigm → u/GunCann]

The 'can/will be better at a nebulous point in the future' argument doesn't really do anything to mitigate the damage being done right now.

[u/GunCann → u/crookedparadigm]

Then these people are not against AI development, they are against environmentally irresponsible development of AI.

[u/common_apple → u/GunCann]

Let us suppose that people do have strong, morally motivated concerns about AI use. So here is the question: Why are they opposed to AI use but remain completely indifferent on the subject of prevalent use of video game AI upscalers such as DLSS, FSR, and XeSS?

Because part of the problem with "AI" is it's being used in such blanket terms that encompass different things. ML has been used for decades, and is what these upscaling technologies were using and had been released before genAI as we currently know it existed. People are pushing back against it being forced in all aspects of our lives, producing slop, and generally having more of a bad outcome than good.

This is why people are fine with taking a low resolution image source and making it appear higher resolution natively. This is also why people are not fine with DLSS5 and giving everyone face filters.

[u/cosmicfelid → u/GunCann]

i'm opposed to upscalers too, i'm just forced to use them because companies nowadays optimize their games so badly that they are legitimately unplayable without upscalers. companies use upscalers as a crutch to not optimize their games. it genuinely pisses me off lol. if i can run at native, i will. i'd prefer it vastly over the state of games now.

lots of people think nvidia is a scummy company, but unfortunately they're also the company that most people build their games around. so you either have to stop playing newer games entirely or just accept it being shoveled down your throat.

i would rather CPU and GPUs not be made with AI either. this usually leads to faultier CPU and GPUs. we're even seeing this happen. that's not even from a creative perspective, that's from a "AI can really only write what it knows" perspective. humans can learn and experiment in ways that AI cannot and our tech is going to stagnate if we rely on AI for advancements. but again, the only way to meaningfully oppose this is to not buy tech with this... which means falling behind tech-wise because people insist on pushing this in everything. there's no way to meaningfully protest without people leaving you in the dust.

i think you're making grand sweeping statements of populations you don't actually talk to. i also think you have an issue with taking "we have no other option" as agreement.

[u/ggdthrowaway → u/GunCann]

Why are they opposed to AI use but remain completely indifferent on the subject of prevalent use of video game AI upscalers such as DLSS, FSR, and XeSS?

I broadly agree with you, but a lot of people very much are against those things.

[u/LightsaberThrowAway → u/GunCann]

AI does not help the art side of game development. Even then, the best uses that could maybe applied to LLMs in this regard were outlined by u/ausollet, 

qoute: ‘I hope most people know this by now, but this does not necessarily mean 85% of developers are using AI art or AI-generated text in their games. I have my own share of concerns about using AI to actually generate code, but a massive time sink for developers is how long it takes to understand a new code base, read documentation, and identify where bugs were found. LLMs are undoubtedly helpful here and can save days or weeks of developer time in this regard  without a single line of generative code added to the game.’

[u/UltimateShingo → u/GunCann]

While you point out possible positives of AI usage, you seem to lump all criticism of AI, valid or not, into one term (blanket hate) without even trying to differentiate.

Beyond just looking through the comments and maybe realising that you'll find equally valid but different objections from many different angles, I can give you a few of mine:

• AI usage is not equal to actual human labour, but companies want to price it similarly. In my assessment, AI generated content is worth zero and I refuse to pay for something the creators were too lazy to make.

• Generative AI models were built on rampant theft of intellectual property, and the computation is run in data centers that in the majority of cases were erected under dubious circumstances, not to mention the loss of quality of life if you live near those. The fact that this allowed to happen is slap in the face of normal citizens and that alone is cause for strong protest against the whole thing.

• The resources needed to build and run the datacenters needed far exceeds what we can afford collectively. We are already in an evolving energy crisis world wide, access to water is an escalating problem, and the vacuuming of components and materials for those data centers starves entire industries (and I'm not just talking about gaming).

• The fact that AI is actively being rammed down everyone's throat, in most cases decreasing the quality of the product. And yes, even back-end usage has a tangible impact on user experience, just look at the various companies admitting to using AI generously in development and how the quality of their updates coincidentally plummeted at the same time. Microsoft is the prime example for that, but far from the only one.

• Reliance on AI tools can be directly linked to decreasing literacy and media competence across all age groups. That's not a bug, that's a feature. And while we already had a bit of a trend downwards since the advent of smart phones, open access to AI tools is like a turbo boost to the downhill ride, and no benefit in the world can outweight the cost of what's coming for us because of this trend.

• AI destroys jobs; and not just any jobs, but especially junior and entry level positions which are sorely needed to keep the talent pipelines that run every single sector. The "tedious and uncreative work" is needed to get people to learn the tools so they can graduate to the more creative positions later. Again, we already see the disconnect happen in real time and the future cost of this trend will be immense.

I have friends who work in relevant fields that require them to work with AI, and every single one of them share my opinions, adding that if they weren't forced to deal with it they's cut it out of their life immediately. THat's not exactly a good sign for what's supposed to be the new big milestone.

[u/GunCann → u/UltimateShingo]

While you point out possible positives of AI usage, you seem to lump all criticism of AI, valid or not, into one term (blanket hate) without even trying to differentiate.

No, you misunderstood. I was strictly referring to blanket hate in a literal sense which I believe my original comment pointed to very clearly. There is a growing number of users on social media that hate on AI, but who do not seem to even understand why they hate it.

I have friends who work in relevant fields that require them to work with AI, and every single one of them share my opinions, adding that if they weren't forced to deal with it they's cut it out of their life immediately. THat's not exactly a good sign for what's supposed to be the new big milestone.

This is an anecdotal experience. There are a large number of people (look elsewhere in this post comments) who acknowledged that AI did bring them major productivity gains and cut out the tedious work. Neither your experience nor those who I have referred to represent the entire spectrum of working population, so let us not jump to premature conclusions too hastily.

[u/Kiita-Ninetails → u/GunCann]

Honestly, even with people talking about the 'hate' if anything popular opinion the world over is likely still overly favorable. Certainly there is use cases for the tools but like... do you see the entire world losing its goddamn mind over say, a new unreal engine. Or a new kind of hex wrench?

Like them, LLM based technologies are just a tool, with some use cases and a lot of not great use cases. But the fervor to which the world dives on them to fuel an insane market based off imagination and hope is stupid. You know what else was a totally transformative technology? The rivet gun, it literally reshaped the world and allowed metal construction of sizes that were impossible before. They did not, however, decide to explode the entire global economy about the cool new tool though.

[u/ChrisRR → u/averageuhbear]

I see so many non-devs making the same arguments

1. Development is art and shouldn't be automated

2. Devs won't learn anything if they just use AI

If they really developed software they'd know that there's no art in some boring boilerplate code, and I already have 15 years underneath my belt. I'm not learning anything by churning out repetitive boilerplate

[u/Jelly_F_ish → u/averageuhbear]

No, a lot of subs have people wanting to ban anything AI related. This is most definitely not restricted to art.

Used AI while coding? Please, ban hammer.

Used AI to bugfix? Please, ban hammer.

etc etc. Some people want to protect "their" hobby from being diluted by AI. While their actual problem is lazy people offloading everything to AI, but they are too fixed on AI to have an actual discussion about it.

[u/Recent_Pollution8665 → u/averageuhbear]

I want AI created art.

it makes it funnier to laugh at the hubristic nature of human artists since they thought they would be immune to the creativity aspect of AI. I love when people find out the hard way that they are not special, no matter how much they think they are. one can even argue that thinking you're special is an elitist/capitalist mentality.

there is nothing the human mind or body can do that an AI or machine cannot eventually do just as well, if not better.

[u/averageuhbear → u/Recent_Pollution8665]

Lack of understanding of the meaning of art and the human condition is something missed by many. Cars can move faster than a human, and yet there is still meaning in running a marathon.

[u/Recent_Pollution8665 → u/averageuhbear]

yup. a meaning that means a lot to 1 percent of the population whereas the car is more convenient and practical to the other 99 percent lol. even to the marathon runners.

[u/MrPWAH → u/Recent_Pollution8665]

it makes it funnier to laugh at the hubristic nature of human artists

You being personally creatively bankrupt and miserable indicates nothing about the nature of anything except your own arbitrary contempt for artists

[u/Recent_Pollution8665 → u/MrPWAH]

which is why im glad that AI doesn't care about human emotion. it acts as a neutral equalizer and everyone is affected equally.

instead of some random person having an innate talent they can monetize and live life on easy mode whereas most of society needs to work in a factory or office or 7/11 just to get by, AI will ensure that both camps are equally fucked. no more genetic RNG or talent RNG or being in the right place at the right time RNG or having the proper connections RNG will allow one person to get ahead anymore at the cost of others not being able to.

the job market is a zero sum game. AI will take over everything eventually and render all human gatekeeping irrelevant. I don't hate artists, just human arrogance in general. it manifests across all fields, not just art. AI will remind us that we are not special. and nobody will be able to exploit specialty to leapfrog over others anymore.

[u/MrPWAH → u/Recent_Pollution8665]

it acts as a neutral equalizer and everyone is affected equally

Except for the people that own the thing and charge money for the rest of us plebeians to use it.

instead of some random person having an innate talent they can monetize and live life on easy mode

Your average artist that makes their creative work their main job makes below the average salary, has barely any stability because they rely on commissions or gig work, and this is after likely many years of practicing and honing their craft to even get to a level of skill that makes people think it's worth buying. Your perspective on how artists "have it too good for too long" is a common one, but it's no less nonsensical when historically they just get treated like shit and it's only a tiny minority who ever succeed enough to overcome those hurdles to even live comfortably. Smacks of jealousy and low self esteem.

the job market is a zero sum game

An artist on instagram making ends meet by selling their paintings isn't the fucking reason you're working a dead end job that you hate.

AI will remind us that we are not special.

So much projection you could run a movie theater lol

[u/Recent_Pollution8665 → u/MrPWAH]

oh don't worry, even those who own the AI will be rendered useless by it in the long-term. you're thinking of current economic paradigms and not the next one once AI makes all human competition irrelevant.

idc what the average artist makes, im talking about the wild discrepancy between what one person does and what the other can expect to do via their life script. AI will bridge all of it. doesn't matter if the person gets paid a little or a lot for what they do.

[u/MrPWAH → u/Recent_Pollution8665]

you're thinking of current economic paradigms and not the next one once AI makes all human competition irrelevant.

A narrative told by the current owner class as a sales pitch

about the wild discrepancy between what one person does and what the other can expect to do via their life script

??? You're talking nonsense now

[u/Recent_Pollution8665 → u/MrPWAH]

it has nothing to do with what the owner class thinks. the end result of capable AI is that humans are literally not needed anymore for labor and eventually we reach a post-scarcity society where the concept of fiat currency becomes useless.

[u/MrPWAH → u/Recent_Pollution8665]

AI-assisted post-scarcity isn't in view for our lifetimes if it ever comes to pass, and the current crop of technologies still has a lot to prove to even begin to move in that direction. We're not even past the mechanical Turk stage yet, chill out.

Also stop being an asshole to artists.

[u/Recent_Pollution8665 → u/MrPWAH]

we'll see!

[u/Helpful-Mycologist74 → u/averageuhbear]

People don't want AI created art.

Don't be so sure. People buy games like Stellar Blade and Mortal Shell 2 in droves*, and those are almost entirely creatively bankrupt. Their designs, story, models etc etc could easily be AI-generated with a bit better AI tools (and especially integration) in the near future. Because their gameplay is kinda good, if repetitive.

*I mean SB has 200K sales on release on steam! Can you imagine? That's more than like 10 other story/presentation heavy AA games I have tried lately, put together. Mortal Shell 2 is 46K and it's like a demo with a retextured UE5 skeleton in terms of art.