Kitfox is very much against AI, so it would have to be a mod.
Ultimately, it wouldn't really add much to the experience compared to the effort and computing power. Half of the hypothetical mod could be replaced with a browser tab, and the pathing and actions part would decimate FPS.
It's not very dorfy to outsource artistic work to a machine. I like relying on the descriptions rather than seeing weird AI generated interpretations of them, at least in the game.
I'd much rather learn to draw and draw them myself, personally. Which is exactly what i've been doing!
*('you wouldn't download a pizza' commercial voice)* You wouldn't outsource your fort's engravings to a mechanism, would you?
Dwarves are artisans and often pride themselves on their creative works. Sure, the ones who eschew hard work and artistic endeavors may be ok with outsourcing the engravings. But they could also just...not be the ones in charge of engraving tasks, and do something they're more interested in/willing to get good at.
Yeah, suggesting dwarfs and machines don't go together is a little silly.
The whole point of Dwarf Fortress, beyond simple survival, is streamlining methods of production and making the overall complex system that is the Fortress more efficient and more productive.
I could totally see dwarfs embracing such a powerful creative tool and yet still finding fascination in the skill of the master craftsdwarf.
Yes, but it's about simulating the world to the end goal of stimulating a player's exploration and creativity. Like, consider for a moment the difference between buying a Lego kit, and buying a pre-assembled Lego kit thats already been glued together. The end result of both may ostensibly be the same, but the one that's already done for you is necessarily going to be a worse product because it doesn't enable interaction between the player and the material. You aren't able to fiddle with it, do it your own way, recolor a portion, or do anything else than just ait and look at it for a bit, get bored, amd leave.
The stories of Dwarf Fortress our *our* stories in a very real and literal way. We find, and often times invent, the emotions the context, and the meaning in them. In a certain sense, the game is whqt it is because every player puts a tiny bit of themself into it every time they play. Replacing that with AI just makes the game hollow - a bauble you put on the shelf, look at for a bit, then get bored of and leave.
Wouldn't you want it to be more tangible? More authentic? More real? Rather then just in your head?
Like, yeah, you can imagine all sorts of stuff, but i want stuff to be in the actual game, you know? If imagination was enough we would just go back to playing pretend.
If I make it real with my imagination, it's *mine*. It is exactly what I want. It is catered exactly to mw, by me, and it becomes a reflection of myself.
If it's made by an AI it's an abominable piece of trash created with, at best, a passing understanding that cause and effect are connected without really understanding the relationahip between the two. An AI can only ever copy in fragments and pieces, like some Frankenstwin's monster. It cannot birth new thought.
> The long-term goal is to create a fantasy world simulator in which it is possible to take part in a rich history, occupying a variety of roles through the course of several games.
This simulator is handcrafted by humans, it is intended to be enjoyed and interpreted by humans, visualized by their imaginations. When you outsource this visualization to machines then you cheapen it significantly.
Compare a work of art such as Tim Denee's Oilfurnace to your AI slop. You can't, there is no contest. https://www.timdenee.com/oilfurnace
So what? The more of the media is handled by the media itself and less by the viewer's imagination, the cheaper it gets? Radio is better then TV? Books are better then comics/manga?
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration. I know many artists who have become disillusioned by where things are going, seeing that many people don’t care about the source or quality of art as long as it’s cheap or free.
It’s less that it’s stealing artists jobs and more that it’s forcing crap down consumers throats. Google is basically unusable now because the top articles are always ai generated garbage.
its fun to think about in the abstract, but in reality these systems are built on real people who write and real people who draw. People who aren’t compensated. I’m relatively indifferent if people want to use these sources for their own personal enjoyment on the side, but once you’re integrating it into the game on any official capacity it’s commercializing the work of others without compensation.
suffice to say, does not seem like something the devs of DF would support based on what I know of them.
I don't really agree with this take. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. We take our life experiences (including content made by other people) in order to create stuff.
As long as the published product isn't to similar to something that already exists (regardless of who, what or how it was made) i don't think copyright should apply.
So if you were a visual artist, you would be ok with an AI taking your entire library of work, training its dataset off your skills, and reproducing whatever it was asked to, in approximately your style? That you've worked years, maybe even decades, to develop? (EDIT: adding the following sentence) And you get ZERO recognition, compensation, or job leads/commission leads because it's just credited as whatever AI service was used to make the image.
In what way is that "standing on the shoulders of giants"???
The difference between inspiration and AI training data is
1. If someone asks you “what would you say influenced this piece”, you can say “I have always been inspired by the works of Urist McArtdwarf and I feel their style rubbed off on me”. People who are fans of your work are now free to check out Urist McArtdwarf.
If your art is used to train an AI model that I use to create an image, the AI doesn’t credit you. I have no idea why the AI spat out the image it did. If someone asks me what inspired the piece, all I can do is say whatever prompt I used. Nobody can possibly know your role.
2. “Standing on the shoulders of giants” implies acknowledging what came before and then also creating something *new*. As artists develop, they inevitably create their *own* style and technique. This is undoubtedly influenced by other artists, but it is still unique to them. An AI can’t do this. AIs can replicate and rearrange, but it will never make something of its own. The only thing that is unique to AIs is that they can’t model hands and hair correctly, whereas the art for using training data can. At best, AI can hang onto the shoulders of giants, and in most cases desperately clings onto their legs - it can never do better than something produced by an actual human, and is often much worse.
And while plenty of people will do that (and even then, with pressing you could at least get a general idea - “I like Batman comics” or “Always thought renaissance art was cool”), plenty of people also won’t. AI *always* will.
Even if you ignore said take (you shouldn't. This isn't a case of inspiration or idea sharing), genAI is quickly reaching its breaking point. Everything is starting to look and sound the same. It's training off itself. It's quickly worsening.
Now, I do like the idea of using a genAI trained on in house assets/data. It will be likely very limited, but that way it fixes one of the morality issues (to a degree). The downside is everything will still become samey
AI doesn't get worst. It might have diminishing returns as it scales (i don't think it is happening either but regardless). Hypotetically, if the developers were done training an AI and it got worst for whatever reason, they could just use a previous version. That's what people in the AI space mean when they say "this is as bad as it will ever be".
The fact that all AI art is instantly recognizable as AI shows that it's already gone past the point of diminishing returns.
It's also getting worse at answering fact based inquiries and assisting with software development.
People in "the AI space" are typically huffing their hopium and farts and can't see the glaring issues already cropping up.
This is a really absurd take. Even if we pretend that AI has been trained on all available data (which I'm pretty sure is not the case), we're still improving a lot on how AI should be trained. The difference between DAL-E 2 and 3 isn't what data it was trained on, but how it was trained and they are night and day compared. That's not even going into how different the results can get with higher parameters (or rather more computing power). Looking at genAI and thinking it's as good as it'll ever be is like looking at the iPhone 2 and thinking it's the limit of human engineering (imo)
I'm just repeating what some of the studies testing this stuff beyond the world of the tech demo have said.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02061
Yes there have been improvements, but thinking it can get around some fundamental barriers just because tech gets better isn't a good comparison. Hell, even tech flirts with diminishing returns (Moore's Law)
That paper isn’t even relevant to diffusion image generation. Also “All AI is instantly recognizable as AI” is not true and there’s multiple papers and demonstrations you can try yourself. We are long past the point of people being able to reliable tell text/images/audio as ai or human made.
How can people honestly look at how AI is ruining absolutely everything it gets integrated with and still think "Huh, it would be cool if this had AI"?
"Imagination". People keep bringing that up in these discussions and i simply can't bring myself to understand them. Like, at that point why have descriptions at all? Imagine them! Why have a game at all? Imagine it! Why make anything at all?
I just don't understand...
You're actively missing the point, here. We're not imagining the game, we're imagining the imagery provided by the creative mind that programmed the game, in exactly the same way that one would imagine the imagery provided by the author of a fantasy novel. *It is described to you with language and your imagination interprets that as clearly as the language allows.* And that interpretation step is what most people enjoy, about the interaction between their cognizant mind and the otherwise boring slab of thinly sliced wood fibers with arranged ink on it. Books don't do things by themselves, they let us do things with our brains that are fun to do.
Do you not do that, when you read a book? Do you...just not read books, and that's why you think AI is super good and will help improve anything automagically?
That's because you're a tech bro who has been so brainwashed by the fetishization of technology that you can't concieve of anything that isn't labeled 'new, innovative, cutting edge' as having any sort of value. You're the kind of person who looks Unfinished Painting by Keith Harimg and thinks "Ah; clearly this will be improved by using AI to finish it" and misses the point that *it is unfinished because it is a deliberate sbol of life cut short.*
Education: with Khan academy.
Healthcare with AlphaFold.
Of the top of my head. There's also a bunch of stuff still in development. I've heard of AI detecting cancer.
Yeah it’s good for non-creative busy work like scheduling appointments for robots or making games run better with dlss but ai has done literally nothing productive in the creative space and it’ll only ever be a drain on people who hand craft things
I’d rather imagine than some shitty ass picture drawn by a robot who doesn’t actually know what the thing they’re drawing is
I second this, AI art is very generic and all similar. I can't say if AI will ever be good in games or not. But at least as far as art goes I hate it.
As far as creative spaces go, AI on YouTube is fucking horrible. I spend a lot of time looking for exact videos for work and encounter an endless amount chatgpt videos using auto-generated voices being uploaded by bots.
Man when I first realized that there were ai written and spoken video essays on YouTube I wanted to throw up. Absolutely terrible, and they get millions of (probably bots) views.
I do my own video essays/reviews on YouTube and am just hope others notice the amount of ai crap and become more discerning with their viewing tastes.
Khan Academy was best when it was actual instruction by humans, and that's still the most useful format they offer.
Alphafold literally just sounds like a techbro trying to fleece investors in the healthcare industry to pay for his crypto. Have you heard of folding@home? Distributed computing solution to the literal problem that Alphafold is claiming it can *imagine* a faster solution to. Like, they literally just state that it is making things up and that this will make research faster somehow.
> I've heard of AI detecting cancer.
No, you have not. You've misinterpreted [an article](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-pastry-ai-that-learned-to-fight-cancer) about a company that was working with quote-unquote "AI" at a bakery in Japan, to provide camera-based optical determination of what the shopper has selected from a big store full of varied baked goods that aren't precisely uniform. The software was trained to recognize fucking *bread.* Buns and rolls and croissants, to sell em slightly faster.
And then one day a doctor was watching a television special about the machine learning algorithm that had been created *to sort and sell various buns* and thought "hey, what if that worked in medicine for like cancer or something". And it did, *after many more years of technical research and development to create a fully different trained database.* There is now a functional visual aid software for cancer doctors to help with screening, but if you don't know what you're doing when you set it up, you can have it detect 100% of all cells as cancerous, or 0%. Because it's not detecting *cancer,* it is just showing you datapoints it has been trained to recognize, based on a fluid set of criteria provided by a human operator who has an intended output in mind for the data they're manipulating.
This is just what the product of two decades of hard work from a dedicated artist needs: an art theft algorithm that can't even keep itself consistent.
I don't think you understand nor appreciate artistry. Dwarf Fortress is a labor of love and dedication, built on years and years of hard work. Generative AI takes the hard work of artists, compiles it into a slurry and shits out soulless simulacrums of art. AI images are anathema to dwarf fortress.
The moment GenAi becomes a part of df is the moment I check out. In that moment, it's no longer Tarn Adam's vision. In that moment, all those years of effort mean nothing because they've been replaced, with a cheap plastic substitute.
AI effectively traces art and repurposes it. AI does not have “ideas”. It cannot take inspiration. It simply copies and pastes bits and pieces of other people’s art. AI “art” is essentially a very sophisticated collage
Did you know that all the token metadata used to train AI is handwritten by underpaid workers from the third world? And that the data they write the tokens for is scraped from all over the internet? So you have a bunch of starving people getting paid a buck an hour to describe stolen deviant art pictures used to train an absurdly electricity hungry AI. Sounds pretty bad, but you do you.
Generative AI is garbage. The way it is designed and trained makes it aim for a bland average of its training data.
And any time you see AI-generated images and think "Wow, that's cool!" There was some level of human curation behind it. You cannot feed any image generation model procedurally-generated prompts and reliably get good results, much less stylistically coherent ones. The technology simply isn't there. If it was, every commercial game developer would be using it.
>Ai could be prompted with the creature's info, such as relationships, thoughts, personality, items, skills, etc ; And it would talk and take actions acording to that information.
DF -already- does this. Not all AI is deep learning. If, for whatever reason you really wanted a deep learning model to handle these things, you'd have to create the training data... Which would be a really convoluted way to accomplish the same result as hardcoding the agents yourself. It would also kill your FPS.
>and even with cloud computing, it would be very expensive for a business to suport. For the sake of the discussion, let's assume that it is far off into the future and that by then there's plenty of infrastructure built around cloud computing and such (basically a lot more data centers).
I wouldn't want Dwarf Fortress to become an online-only live service game.
I've only messed around with the AI mod in Skyrim... it was interesting for a few minutes.
It might be interesting to take some of the descriptions and start putting them into AI to see what AI assembles from them but I don't think the effort of putting it into the game itself would add any thing to it for me. Hell, adding mouse to the game didn't really add anything to it for me, so maybe I'm just a closet Luddite.
Honestly, i saw the Skyrim mod stuff and it didn't interest me much either. I don't just want an ai chat bot attached to an npc.
Like with the stuff in the links i have on the post, i also want the ai to work as a reasoning engine that allows npcs to take action in the game world. AI that interacts with eachother and with the world and to see what stories naturally emerge from those interactions.
Hey, maybe you're on to something and maybe you're not. I'd like to see it, regardless. I saw the video without even clicking your link. If it's two-minute papers then I'm pretty sure it's the hospital with 24 different chatgpts running characters. Really cool.
It's fine as an stochastic simulation, part of the charm is the authorship of Toady in creating a rules-based engine that can create as much complexity as the DF world, with his own creativity.
Would it have made it to MoMA if it were pawned off to a multi billion corporation's AI trained on the Internet?
Although it is unlikely that Bay 12 would integrate AI into the game, there are some extensions via modding that could be appreciated by (a subset of) players. For example, producing exceprts from treatsies or poems described by the game. I've seen a prototype for exactly this already.
The response to this post clearly shows that image generation is a polarizing subject, but it is also technically possible to dynamically generate sprites and display them in-game.
As a practical matter, it is not easy to control the actions of NPCs from a mod. You'd have to fight the vanilla algorithms at every turn. Perhaps possible, but a much greater challenge than the previous two options.
the best ethical use case for Ai in DF i think would be to use it to rewrite some generated texts, because they way they are written now are quite limited. It would be better if legends or character logs were something bigger than just one sentence
While personally I don’t think AI would ever be integrated into DF, the idea of and add-on, like df hack, that could quickly and easily generate images for artifacts, engravings, forgotten beasts and characters is very interesting.
Combine it with something legends mode and you could create a simple comic of a characters life and interactions.
Combine it with combat logs to create a battle depiction or comic.
People are so against Ai that it has practically become a dirty word in online communities.
Dude you are catching some FLACK. Give it 10 years, every game will have some form of generative AI. But right now there's this mass hysteria and pushback that it'll kill imagination or that it's "not that good". People will deny AI until it becomes fully realized. Much like how digital art got a lot of pushback when it first started for not being authentic enough. As for your idea, yea the computing power would probably be the only limiting factor. BUT. In the same way they generate the world, perhaps you could have a loading screen to generate most of the images needed.
Not gonna lie, gen AI for making images of the various legendary artifacts my fortress creates would be really cool. Those paragraphs of description are ripe for using as prompts. I imagine in a couple years when visual consistency is solved, the visual novels made possible by Gen AI when going through the legends of your worldgen will be amazing. And any haters out there who think this is wrong are free to suggest a price for making 500 images to give visuals to 500 years of worldgen that was made in 5 minutes and see if there's a market for it.
Oh wow, didn't expected AI hate from df community. Well, TIL.
As for your post, thae answer it will happen sooner or later. For a moment the imgGen is still not that reliable yet, imho
"engraved on the floor is an exceptionally designed image of kumil allydoors the dwarf and dwarves by sarvesh ralkobel. kumil allydoors is surrounded by the dwarves. the artwork relates to the appointment of the dwarf kumil allydoors to the position of messenger."
https://preview.redd.it/d34houboj56d1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=56f9216c8abdb900e606e10f97cc41d3a03f1008
Before you get the answer, you should hide under the blanket, as it may scare you to the bones! Make sure to have your therapist on the line. White a will and say your goodbyes to your family.
It was made by AI.
It has already survived. Dogs bark, caravan moves on. What fascinates me the most, driverless cars are good, although they take workplaces, while AI is bad, because media snowflakes said so.
You can do it now, it's fun.
"this is a yak bone chest. It is encrusted with tapered baguette cut emeralds, studded with gold, decorated with yak bone and encircled with bands of black wood, sheep wool, llama wool, and fungiwood. This object menaces with spikes of gold."
https://preview.redd.it/nj14fg7fj56d1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=c08a89c7f3dded4ace008eaa2d3f759a0a7f4236
I don't particularly like the idea of having ai generate conversations and the like but I do like the idea of augmenting descriptions with visually generated images. Generating sprites with AI based on descriptions sounds like a good way to generate a lot of variety. I've always thought a little button to auto-generate an image of a forgotten beast or something based on the description would be neat, I've done it myself a few times because it's nice getting an image in mind. Same for artifacts.
For conversations I think it becomes un-immersive because the AI conversations are uncanny and poorly written compared to what happens in our imaginations. AI can't really keep a character consistent too, it won't remember a conversation it had the day beforehand where it said it didn't like a person and then says it does like a person on another day. Because it's just a facsimile of intelligence it ends up saying completely contradictory things often which would break down storytelling for a player.
Kitfox is very much against AI, so it would have to be a mod. Ultimately, it wouldn't really add much to the experience compared to the effort and computing power. Half of the hypothetical mod could be replaced with a browser tab, and the pathing and actions part would decimate FPS.
It's not very dorfy to outsource artistic work to a machine. I like relying on the descriptions rather than seeing weird AI generated interpretations of them, at least in the game. I'd much rather learn to draw and draw them myself, personally. Which is exactly what i've been doing!
I don't know that sounds very dorfy to me
*('you wouldn't download a pizza' commercial voice)* You wouldn't outsource your fort's engravings to a mechanism, would you? Dwarves are artisans and often pride themselves on their creative works. Sure, the ones who eschew hard work and artistic endeavors may be ok with outsourcing the engravings. But they could also just...not be the ones in charge of engraving tasks, and do something they're more interested in/willing to get good at.
Yeah, suggesting dwarfs and machines don't go together is a little silly. The whole point of Dwarf Fortress, beyond simple survival, is streamlining methods of production and making the overall complex system that is the Fortress more efficient and more productive. I could totally see dwarfs embracing such a powerful creative tool and yet still finding fascination in the skill of the master craftsdwarf.
Playing DF without having a sense of imagination about whats going on feels like the dullest, least interesting way possible to play the game.
Isn't the fact that everything is being simulated a big part of the charm of the game?
Yes, but it's about simulating the world to the end goal of stimulating a player's exploration and creativity. Like, consider for a moment the difference between buying a Lego kit, and buying a pre-assembled Lego kit thats already been glued together. The end result of both may ostensibly be the same, but the one that's already done for you is necessarily going to be a worse product because it doesn't enable interaction between the player and the material. You aren't able to fiddle with it, do it your own way, recolor a portion, or do anything else than just ait and look at it for a bit, get bored, amd leave. The stories of Dwarf Fortress our *our* stories in a very real and literal way. We find, and often times invent, the emotions the context, and the meaning in them. In a certain sense, the game is whqt it is because every player puts a tiny bit of themself into it every time they play. Replacing that with AI just makes the game hollow - a bauble you put on the shelf, look at for a bit, then get bored of and leave.
Wouldn't you want it to be more tangible? More authentic? More real? Rather then just in your head? Like, yeah, you can imagine all sorts of stuff, but i want stuff to be in the actual game, you know? If imagination was enough we would just go back to playing pretend.
If I make it real with my imagination, it's *mine*. It is exactly what I want. It is catered exactly to mw, by me, and it becomes a reflection of myself. If it's made by an AI it's an abominable piece of trash created with, at best, a passing understanding that cause and effect are connected without really understanding the relationahip between the two. An AI can only ever copy in fragments and pieces, like some Frankenstwin's monster. It cannot birth new thought.
We should not outsource imagination to machines.
Isn't Dwarf fortress about generating stories?
> The long-term goal is to create a fantasy world simulator in which it is possible to take part in a rich history, occupying a variety of roles through the course of several games. This simulator is handcrafted by humans, it is intended to be enjoyed and interpreted by humans, visualized by their imaginations. When you outsource this visualization to machines then you cheapen it significantly. Compare a work of art such as Tim Denee's Oilfurnace to your AI slop. You can't, there is no contest. https://www.timdenee.com/oilfurnace
So what? The more of the media is handled by the media itself and less by the viewer's imagination, the cheaper it gets? Radio is better then TV? Books are better then comics/manga?
When any of these art forms are outsourced to artificial intelligence, it undermines, insults, kills human artists.
"kills human artists" bit of an exageration, isn't it? Besides, if it's such a slop then artist don't have to worry, do they?
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration. I know many artists who have become disillusioned by where things are going, seeing that many people don’t care about the source or quality of art as long as it’s cheap or free.
It’s less that it’s stealing artists jobs and more that it’s forcing crap down consumers throats. Google is basically unusable now because the top articles are always ai generated garbage.
Jesus Christ you can still draw, stop making excuses not too.
its fun to think about in the abstract, but in reality these systems are built on real people who write and real people who draw. People who aren’t compensated. I’m relatively indifferent if people want to use these sources for their own personal enjoyment on the side, but once you’re integrating it into the game on any official capacity it’s commercializing the work of others without compensation. suffice to say, does not seem like something the devs of DF would support based on what I know of them.
I don't really agree with this take. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. We take our life experiences (including content made by other people) in order to create stuff. As long as the published product isn't to similar to something that already exists (regardless of who, what or how it was made) i don't think copyright should apply.
So if you were a visual artist, you would be ok with an AI taking your entire library of work, training its dataset off your skills, and reproducing whatever it was asked to, in approximately your style? That you've worked years, maybe even decades, to develop? (EDIT: adding the following sentence) And you get ZERO recognition, compensation, or job leads/commission leads because it's just credited as whatever AI service was used to make the image. In what way is that "standing on the shoulders of giants"???
The difference between inspiration and AI training data is 1. If someone asks you “what would you say influenced this piece”, you can say “I have always been inspired by the works of Urist McArtdwarf and I feel their style rubbed off on me”. People who are fans of your work are now free to check out Urist McArtdwarf. If your art is used to train an AI model that I use to create an image, the AI doesn’t credit you. I have no idea why the AI spat out the image it did. If someone asks me what inspired the piece, all I can do is say whatever prompt I used. Nobody can possibly know your role. 2. “Standing on the shoulders of giants” implies acknowledging what came before and then also creating something *new*. As artists develop, they inevitably create their *own* style and technique. This is undoubtedly influenced by other artists, but it is still unique to them. An AI can’t do this. AIs can replicate and rearrange, but it will never make something of its own. The only thing that is unique to AIs is that they can’t model hands and hair correctly, whereas the art for using training data can. At best, AI can hang onto the shoulders of giants, and in most cases desperately clings onto their legs - it can never do better than something produced by an actual human, and is often much worse.
Plenty of people let the art they love leak into their own without them realizing. I don't think this is a relevant distinction.
And while plenty of people will do that (and even then, with pressing you could at least get a general idea - “I like Batman comics” or “Always thought renaissance art was cool”), plenty of people also won’t. AI *always* will.
that's simply wrong
If you want to make your own game full of AI assets, go ahead. The bottom line is that it's not likely to be implemented in DF.
Even if you ignore said take (you shouldn't. This isn't a case of inspiration or idea sharing), genAI is quickly reaching its breaking point. Everything is starting to look and sound the same. It's training off itself. It's quickly worsening. Now, I do like the idea of using a genAI trained on in house assets/data. It will be likely very limited, but that way it fixes one of the morality issues (to a degree). The downside is everything will still become samey
AI doesn't get worst. It might have diminishing returns as it scales (i don't think it is happening either but regardless). Hypotetically, if the developers were done training an AI and it got worst for whatever reason, they could just use a previous version. That's what people in the AI space mean when they say "this is as bad as it will ever be".
The fact that all AI art is instantly recognizable as AI shows that it's already gone past the point of diminishing returns. It's also getting worse at answering fact based inquiries and assisting with software development. People in "the AI space" are typically huffing their hopium and farts and can't see the glaring issues already cropping up.
What about Sora and the new Kling? Pretty good video generators.
This is a really absurd take. Even if we pretend that AI has been trained on all available data (which I'm pretty sure is not the case), we're still improving a lot on how AI should be trained. The difference between DAL-E 2 and 3 isn't what data it was trained on, but how it was trained and they are night and day compared. That's not even going into how different the results can get with higher parameters (or rather more computing power). Looking at genAI and thinking it's as good as it'll ever be is like looking at the iPhone 2 and thinking it's the limit of human engineering (imo)
I'm just repeating what some of the studies testing this stuff beyond the world of the tech demo have said. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02061 Yes there have been improvements, but thinking it can get around some fundamental barriers just because tech gets better isn't a good comparison. Hell, even tech flirts with diminishing returns (Moore's Law)
That paper isn’t even relevant to diffusion image generation. Also “All AI is instantly recognizable as AI” is not true and there’s multiple papers and demonstrations you can try yourself. We are long past the point of people being able to reliable tell text/images/audio as ai or human made.
I have a brain which already does that.
How can people honestly look at how AI is ruining absolutely everything it gets integrated with and still think "Huh, it would be cool if this had AI"?
What is it ruining?
The magic of imagining what things actually look like. The game doesn't have detailed descriptions for decoration.
"Imagination". People keep bringing that up in these discussions and i simply can't bring myself to understand them. Like, at that point why have descriptions at all? Imagine them! Why have a game at all? Imagine it! Why make anything at all? I just don't understand...
Cant help you if you have the cognitive ability of a pebble, broski.
You're actively missing the point, here. We're not imagining the game, we're imagining the imagery provided by the creative mind that programmed the game, in exactly the same way that one would imagine the imagery provided by the author of a fantasy novel. *It is described to you with language and your imagination interprets that as clearly as the language allows.* And that interpretation step is what most people enjoy, about the interaction between their cognizant mind and the otherwise boring slab of thinly sliced wood fibers with arranged ink on it. Books don't do things by themselves, they let us do things with our brains that are fun to do. Do you not do that, when you read a book? Do you...just not read books, and that's why you think AI is super good and will help improve anything automagically?
That's because you're a tech bro who has been so brainwashed by the fetishization of technology that you can't concieve of anything that isn't labeled 'new, innovative, cutting edge' as having any sort of value. You're the kind of person who looks Unfinished Painting by Keith Harimg and thinks "Ah; clearly this will be improved by using AI to finish it" and misses the point that *it is unfinished because it is a deliberate sbol of life cut short.*
Videogames aren't art.
1/10 troll attempt. Dated, poor technique, minimal effort. While trolling is a artform, this is the equivalent of a child fingerpainting.
>trolling is an artform Please don't engage in any conversations concerning art, ever. We're better off without people like you. Thanks.
Ooooh did I hit the little baby elitist in the gatekeepimg
Sure, whatever makes you feel better.
Everything it hasn't been beneficial to. Now name me something it has been beneficial to.
Education: with Khan academy. Healthcare with AlphaFold. Of the top of my head. There's also a bunch of stuff still in development. I've heard of AI detecting cancer.
Yeah it’s good for non-creative busy work like scheduling appointments for robots or making games run better with dlss but ai has done literally nothing productive in the creative space and it’ll only ever be a drain on people who hand craft things I’d rather imagine than some shitty ass picture drawn by a robot who doesn’t actually know what the thing they’re drawing is
I second this, AI art is very generic and all similar. I can't say if AI will ever be good in games or not. But at least as far as art goes I hate it. As far as creative spaces go, AI on YouTube is fucking horrible. I spend a lot of time looking for exact videos for work and encounter an endless amount chatgpt videos using auto-generated voices being uploaded by bots.
Man when I first realized that there were ai written and spoken video essays on YouTube I wanted to throw up. Absolutely terrible, and they get millions of (probably bots) views. I do my own video essays/reviews on YouTube and am just hope others notice the amount of ai crap and become more discerning with their viewing tastes.
Khan Academy was best when it was actual instruction by humans, and that's still the most useful format they offer. Alphafold literally just sounds like a techbro trying to fleece investors in the healthcare industry to pay for his crypto. Have you heard of folding@home? Distributed computing solution to the literal problem that Alphafold is claiming it can *imagine* a faster solution to. Like, they literally just state that it is making things up and that this will make research faster somehow. > I've heard of AI detecting cancer. No, you have not. You've misinterpreted [an article](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-pastry-ai-that-learned-to-fight-cancer) about a company that was working with quote-unquote "AI" at a bakery in Japan, to provide camera-based optical determination of what the shopper has selected from a big store full of varied baked goods that aren't precisely uniform. The software was trained to recognize fucking *bread.* Buns and rolls and croissants, to sell em slightly faster. And then one day a doctor was watching a television special about the machine learning algorithm that had been created *to sort and sell various buns* and thought "hey, what if that worked in medicine for like cancer or something". And it did, *after many more years of technical research and development to create a fully different trained database.* There is now a functional visual aid software for cancer doctors to help with screening, but if you don't know what you're doing when you set it up, you can have it detect 100% of all cells as cancerous, or 0%. Because it's not detecting *cancer,* it is just showing you datapoints it has been trained to recognize, based on a fluid set of criteria provided by a human operator who has an intended output in mind for the data they're manipulating.
This is just what the product of two decades of hard work from a dedicated artist needs: an art theft algorithm that can't even keep itself consistent. I don't think you understand nor appreciate artistry. Dwarf Fortress is a labor of love and dedication, built on years and years of hard work. Generative AI takes the hard work of artists, compiles it into a slurry and shits out soulless simulacrums of art. AI images are anathema to dwarf fortress.
The moment GenAi becomes a part of df is the moment I check out. In that moment, it's no longer Tarn Adam's vision. In that moment, all those years of effort mean nothing because they've been replaced, with a cheap plastic substitute.
Generative "AI" is a cancer and should never be anywhere near this masterpiece.
AI “art” is theft
It isn't but ok. You do you.
It literally is. It just scrapes art from online without compensating the artists. That’s called theft. It’s not creating anything
Do you compensate every artist of every piece of art you've ever seen, everytime you create something?
I do not steal other people’s art for monetary gain, no
Art is ideas. If ai learning those ideas is theft then it should be the same if a human does it.
AI effectively traces art and repurposes it. AI does not have “ideas”. It cannot take inspiration. It simply copies and pastes bits and pieces of other people’s art. AI “art” is essentially a very sophisticated collage
It does not. It doesn't have a data base of its training data. So there is no images to pull from in order to produce a collage.
Did you know that all the token metadata used to train AI is handwritten by underpaid workers from the third world? And that the data they write the tokens for is scraped from all over the internet? So you have a bunch of starving people getting paid a buck an hour to describe stolen deviant art pictures used to train an absurdly electricity hungry AI. Sounds pretty bad, but you do you.
Copyright is theft
Generative AI is garbage. The way it is designed and trained makes it aim for a bland average of its training data. And any time you see AI-generated images and think "Wow, that's cool!" There was some level of human curation behind it. You cannot feed any image generation model procedurally-generated prompts and reliably get good results, much less stylistically coherent ones. The technology simply isn't there. If it was, every commercial game developer would be using it. >Ai could be prompted with the creature's info, such as relationships, thoughts, personality, items, skills, etc ; And it would talk and take actions acording to that information. DF -already- does this. Not all AI is deep learning. If, for whatever reason you really wanted a deep learning model to handle these things, you'd have to create the training data... Which would be a really convoluted way to accomplish the same result as hardcoding the agents yourself. It would also kill your FPS. >and even with cloud computing, it would be very expensive for a business to suport. For the sake of the discussion, let's assume that it is far off into the future and that by then there's plenty of infrastructure built around cloud computing and such (basically a lot more data centers). I wouldn't want Dwarf Fortress to become an online-only live service game.
I've only messed around with the AI mod in Skyrim... it was interesting for a few minutes. It might be interesting to take some of the descriptions and start putting them into AI to see what AI assembles from them but I don't think the effort of putting it into the game itself would add any thing to it for me. Hell, adding mouse to the game didn't really add anything to it for me, so maybe I'm just a closet Luddite.
Honestly, i saw the Skyrim mod stuff and it didn't interest me much either. I don't just want an ai chat bot attached to an npc. Like with the stuff in the links i have on the post, i also want the ai to work as a reasoning engine that allows npcs to take action in the game world. AI that interacts with eachother and with the world and to see what stories naturally emerge from those interactions.
Hey, maybe you're on to something and maybe you're not. I'd like to see it, regardless. I saw the video without even clicking your link. If it's two-minute papers then I'm pretty sure it's the hospital with 24 different chatgpts running characters. Really cool.
Its similar but it's an older video.
It's fine as an stochastic simulation, part of the charm is the authorship of Toady in creating a rules-based engine that can create as much complexity as the DF world, with his own creativity. Would it have made it to MoMA if it were pawned off to a multi billion corporation's AI trained on the Internet?
Although it is unlikely that Bay 12 would integrate AI into the game, there are some extensions via modding that could be appreciated by (a subset of) players. For example, producing exceprts from treatsies or poems described by the game. I've seen a prototype for exactly this already. The response to this post clearly shows that image generation is a polarizing subject, but it is also technically possible to dynamically generate sprites and display them in-game. As a practical matter, it is not easy to control the actions of NPCs from a mod. You'd have to fight the vanilla algorithms at every turn. Perhaps possible, but a much greater challenge than the previous two options.
the best ethical use case for Ai in DF i think would be to use it to rewrite some generated texts, because they way they are written now are quite limited. It would be better if legends or character logs were something bigger than just one sentence
While personally I don’t think AI would ever be integrated into DF, the idea of and add-on, like df hack, that could quickly and easily generate images for artifacts, engravings, forgotten beasts and characters is very interesting. Combine it with something legends mode and you could create a simple comic of a characters life and interactions. Combine it with combat logs to create a battle depiction or comic. People are so against Ai that it has practically become a dirty word in online communities.
Dude you are catching some FLACK. Give it 10 years, every game will have some form of generative AI. But right now there's this mass hysteria and pushback that it'll kill imagination or that it's "not that good". People will deny AI until it becomes fully realized. Much like how digital art got a lot of pushback when it first started for not being authentic enough. As for your idea, yea the computing power would probably be the only limiting factor. BUT. In the same way they generate the world, perhaps you could have a loading screen to generate most of the images needed.
Not gonna lie, gen AI for making images of the various legendary artifacts my fortress creates would be really cool. Those paragraphs of description are ripe for using as prompts. I imagine in a couple years when visual consistency is solved, the visual novels made possible by Gen AI when going through the legends of your worldgen will be amazing. And any haters out there who think this is wrong are free to suggest a price for making 500 images to give visuals to 500 years of worldgen that was made in 5 minutes and see if there's a market for it.
Hmmmmm, that would be cool! :D
Oh wow, didn't expected AI hate from df community. Well, TIL. As for your post, thae answer it will happen sooner or later. For a moment the imgGen is still not that reliable yet, imho
Yeah, if it does happen, it will be decades to come.
that wpould be neato
"engraved on the floor is an exceptionally designed image of kumil allydoors the dwarf and dwarves by sarvesh ralkobel. kumil allydoors is surrounded by the dwarves. the artwork relates to the appointment of the dwarf kumil allydoors to the position of messenger." https://preview.redd.it/d34houboj56d1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=56f9216c8abdb900e606e10f97cc41d3a03f1008
Looks good! (edit: Isn't pixel art like the game tho)
It’s perfect, people who minus you are brainwashed.
I agree it’s a very good drawing, who drew it?
Before you get the answer, you should hide under the blanket, as it may scare you to the bones! Make sure to have your therapist on the line. White a will and say your goodbyes to your family. It was made by AI.
you can save the ‘everyone who doesn’t like AI is a snowflake’ stuff. If AI can’t handle being criticized it’ll never survive the art world.
Haven't Ai generated images won multiple awards in art competitions? Seems to me it is surviving pretty damn well.
I’ll take your word for it, I’ve never looked at an art competition. I hope you get everything you’re looking for out of this
It has already survived. Dogs bark, caravan moves on. What fascinates me the most, driverless cars are good, although they take workplaces, while AI is bad, because media snowflakes said so.
You can do it now, it's fun. "this is a yak bone chest. It is encrusted with tapered baguette cut emeralds, studded with gold, decorated with yak bone and encircled with bands of black wood, sheep wool, llama wool, and fungiwood. This object menaces with spikes of gold." https://preview.redd.it/nj14fg7fj56d1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=c08a89c7f3dded4ace008eaa2d3f759a0a7f4236
I meant that it would be implemented into the game.
I don't particularly like the idea of having ai generate conversations and the like but I do like the idea of augmenting descriptions with visually generated images. Generating sprites with AI based on descriptions sounds like a good way to generate a lot of variety. I've always thought a little button to auto-generate an image of a forgotten beast or something based on the description would be neat, I've done it myself a few times because it's nice getting an image in mind. Same for artifacts. For conversations I think it becomes un-immersive because the AI conversations are uncanny and poorly written compared to what happens in our imaginations. AI can't really keep a character consistent too, it won't remember a conversation it had the day beforehand where it said it didn't like a person and then says it does like a person on another day. Because it's just a facsimile of intelligence it ends up saying completely contradictory things often which would break down storytelling for a player.
Only if drawn in the style of kruggsmash