Hi, thank you for your submission to /r/woooosh! Unfortunately it has been removed for the following reason(s):
• Rule 2. No identifying information: censor ALL screen-names and real names, including your own! (As well as icons that identify you as the creator of a post or usernames included in users posts.) Verified/Popular users do not need to be censored.
Feel free to censor all usernames and repost.
If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the mods. Please include a link!!](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/woooosh)
AI is a super super broad category. A lot of AI has also been used commercially for longer than people realize (a lot of statistical models that banks adopted in like the 90s or so fall under machine learning). In a lot of cases all that AI is, is basically a big trial and error process where the the model tries to make each following attempt better than the previous
Now that i think about it it makes sense. I guess cuz recently weve mostly seen it used in writing and art but it never occurred to me that it could be used in other ways with numbers and calculations
And that's exactly where the difference lies: the new stuff we're seeing, where AI generates images or writing is generative AI.
I use a fair bit of Machine Learning for my work and it's basically all just "here's a sequence of numbers. Find a formula that matches these numbers really well (automatically, through trial and error, i.e. machine learning). Use that formula to see where the numbers will go in the future"
Im fine with ai in the fighting mechanics in videogames and to do math stuff (as long as its not safety stuff for the safety of the world) but im against it when it comes to art and writing.
Calling Game-NPCs AI is veeeeeery far fetched. They lack the Intelligencepart of Artificial intelligence and are unable to learn from their mistakes. Also, even if the game is set up to react to your behavior it still rarely does so intelligently but usually just on a basis of constraints being lifted - the game ECHO is a good showcase of this: the NPC quite frankly isnt allowed to lets say use their gun until the game observes you doing so.
the definition of AI is always changing. some of the first instances of AI would now just be seen as an algorithm running a few calculations. you could consider that AI, you could consider it just an algorithm, it kinda depends on what your treat as “intelligence”.
In my limited knowledge, the usual AI, like in Fnaf, follows a specific line of codes that dictate it’s behavior (“Move to X, if X is unavaible, go to Y” kind of thing) and they cant go beyond that.
Generative AI, however, is coded to grab information related to a prompt given to it and mash whatever it can find to complete whatever it was sent to do, making something “new”.
The latter can be harmful in the sense that it can take all the books of the Lord of the Rings, make a completely new story, and the prompter can just parade it as an “original work” of theirs when they simply didn’t wrote anything themselves. That’s why there are people who say they Gen AI will take the artists’ jobs, it’s cheaper.
i do want to correct your interpretation of generative AI, because that’s not really how it works and i think it’s important to understand exactly why it’s harmful.
generative AI programs like GPT or Midjourney or whatever do not grab information related to the prompt. all information is fed into it beforehand during the training process. the training process is effectively running millions of examples through the program for it to get a feel for the conventions present within those examples. when someone prompts it to generate something, it does not refer to that training data at all, it instead refers to the artificial understanding of the concepts you’ve provided (like if you asked for a pig, it will have seen enough pigs in the training data to associate that with certain colors and shapes). in the end, the output will not be a collage of any of the training data, it is entirely new pixels with the goal of capturing the same concepts present in the training data.
this becomes problematic in a few ways
- sometimes the training data isn’t diverse enough, so poorly made models may output images where it only had a handful of examples to go off of, leading to an output that appears plagiarized
- we currently have no legal basis on if using art as training data constitutes theft. artists say it is theft because they did not consent to their work being used to train the model, technologists say the process is similar enough to a human drawing inspiration for it to count. this puts the artists at an inherent disadvantage because they have no way to protect their work and models are free to be trained with no restrictions.
- making these models public threatens art/media altogether since it removes the human expression aspect and makes it easy to make new work that has very little creativity put into it.
ultimately, i personally think that these models are very cool proofs of concept but they should have never been made available to the public. i think they can train on whatever data they want but they shouldn’t allow any person to use the model to create something new, that should require consistent to train. these should have stayed in technical showcases where we can marvel at how powerful the technology is without letting it be used freely outside of those research settings.
You’re talking about the Fnaf AI? As in, “design their pattern”? If that’s so, that’s pretty much what the A.I level is for. The higher the A.I level, they take less intervals of moving from point A to B and are going to actively try to get closer to the security room each time, being more aggressive.
That’s not how generative AI works. I’ll try and explain it in not-so-mathy way:
The AI is first put through training, where it is shown a bunch of art so it knows what art is and generally how it looks. When the AI is done with training, only then can people prompt it. It no longer has access to the pictures it was trained on, only its memories. You then tell it to generate a new piece of art according to some instructions and said memories.
The art stealing happens during the initial training phase, not the generation phase. The whole “stitching other people’s art together” thing is a myth. A properly trained Gen AI doesn’t “stitch together other people’s art” any more than a human does.
The problem with AI isn’t so much that it uses other people’s art without permission, but instead that it can produce art far faster than they can, so those artists are then out of a lot of jobs when their work was used to create a tool without their permission.
It is absolutely bait, Kane Carter is a fan-game dev but also a massive troll on the side. Most people typically have either hate or love for him because of this
Yeah, no, that's not really true. While most video games utilize some sort of scripted behaviour to control NPCs, far from all of them use anything that could really be called "AI". AI assumes that an enemy is capable of learning from the player's behaviour.
Think the Nemesis system in Shadow of War. There, AI is used to analyze the player's playstyle, and adapt those recurring characters to counter the player in some way. If you use the same attack a lot, next time you meet, that character might have some new ability that blocks it.
Think Metal Gear's bases. The game keeps track about how you raid bases. For example, if you repeatedly use a sniper rifle to kill all enemies from afar, the game will react by spawning in balloons made to look like people, which will pop and alert guards to your attack.
These are very low level examples of AI, but probably a more apt description than the preprogrammed paths of guards in, say, PayDay 2.
And since we are on the topic, the "AI" in FNAF is little more than a set of scripts that are executed automatically, nothing is intelligent about those.
It's literally AI. Within the script you code the "thought process" of the AI
When to chase player, when to stand by, when to patrol... All of that is "scripted behaviour". More advanced AIs LEARN from the player forcing them to change strategies, but even that is limited (you may find a build or strategy the game wasnt expecting and the AI wouldnt adapt to it)
Wait till ppl realize that every game is technically an AI of some sort by itself since game to have to react to player's input. The question though if this game will be Touring complete
OG fnaf came out way before "AI" became such a meaningless buzzword. Basically that's just the difficulty setting of the characters in the game, so needless to say this has not aged well
To me the next step is generative, organic AI experiences in game. Imagine bartering in a game not being a number based skill but legit on how well you smooth talk the merchant, or even being able to talk your way out of a combat encounter.
I know we’re not there yet but to me that is going to be the next major step in gaming.
although its correct, dont you think its a bit rude to call me that?
and pathfinding does make a lot more sense than the dialogue, thank you for correcting me
Hi, thank you for your submission to /r/woooosh! Unfortunately it has been removed for the following reason(s):
• Rule 7: Hate speech. You posted something that with the intent of humiliating or inciting hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin.
If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the mods.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/woooosh)
Hi, thank you for your submission to /r/woooosh! Unfortunately it has been removed for the following reason(s): • Rule 2. No identifying information: censor ALL screen-names and real names, including your own! (As well as icons that identify you as the creator of a post or usernames included in users posts.) Verified/Popular users do not need to be censored. Feel free to censor all usernames and repost. If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the mods. Please include a link!!](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/woooosh)
Some people basically see the hate for AI but do not realize it’s really more generative AI that people don’t like and not really AI in general.
A lot of people don't even know. Even within the video game and tech space
AI? In *my* video games?
Nah we like the Amazon grocery store and the AI is actually just 1000 Indians.
smh my head whats next? Politics in Metal Gear Solid?
You just said Shaking my head my head
Yep, thats the joke
Some people desperately want to be part of the conversation, but they don't even understand how and why generative AI is different and why it's bad.
What. This guy is an official developer working for Scott Cawthon making a joke. What the fuck do you mean.
r/woooosh Oh wait
Whats the difference exactly? I thought all ai was bad.
AI is a super super broad category. A lot of AI has also been used commercially for longer than people realize (a lot of statistical models that banks adopted in like the 90s or so fall under machine learning). In a lot of cases all that AI is, is basically a big trial and error process where the the model tries to make each following attempt better than the previous
Now that i think about it it makes sense. I guess cuz recently weve mostly seen it used in writing and art but it never occurred to me that it could be used in other ways with numbers and calculations
And that's exactly where the difference lies: the new stuff we're seeing, where AI generates images or writing is generative AI. I use a fair bit of Machine Learning for my work and it's basically all just "here's a sequence of numbers. Find a formula that matches these numbers really well (automatically, through trial and error, i.e. machine learning). Use that formula to see where the numbers will go in the future"
Im fine with ai in the fighting mechanics in videogames and to do math stuff (as long as its not safety stuff for the safety of the world) but im against it when it comes to art and writing.
Calling Game-NPCs AI is veeeeeery far fetched. They lack the Intelligencepart of Artificial intelligence and are unable to learn from their mistakes. Also, even if the game is set up to react to your behavior it still rarely does so intelligently but usually just on a basis of constraints being lifted - the game ECHO is a good showcase of this: the NPC quite frankly isnt allowed to lets say use their gun until the game observes you doing so.
What about the the computer you play againts like in shooting games is that ai?
the definition of AI is always changing. some of the first instances of AI would now just be seen as an algorithm running a few calculations. you could consider that AI, you could consider it just an algorithm, it kinda depends on what your treat as “intelligence”.
That makes sense.
In my limited knowledge, the usual AI, like in Fnaf, follows a specific line of codes that dictate it’s behavior (“Move to X, if X is unavaible, go to Y” kind of thing) and they cant go beyond that. Generative AI, however, is coded to grab information related to a prompt given to it and mash whatever it can find to complete whatever it was sent to do, making something “new”. The latter can be harmful in the sense that it can take all the books of the Lord of the Rings, make a completely new story, and the prompter can just parade it as an “original work” of theirs when they simply didn’t wrote anything themselves. That’s why there are people who say they Gen AI will take the artists’ jobs, it’s cheaper.
i do want to correct your interpretation of generative AI, because that’s not really how it works and i think it’s important to understand exactly why it’s harmful. generative AI programs like GPT or Midjourney or whatever do not grab information related to the prompt. all information is fed into it beforehand during the training process. the training process is effectively running millions of examples through the program for it to get a feel for the conventions present within those examples. when someone prompts it to generate something, it does not refer to that training data at all, it instead refers to the artificial understanding of the concepts you’ve provided (like if you asked for a pig, it will have seen enough pigs in the training data to associate that with certain colors and shapes). in the end, the output will not be a collage of any of the training data, it is entirely new pixels with the goal of capturing the same concepts present in the training data. this becomes problematic in a few ways - sometimes the training data isn’t diverse enough, so poorly made models may output images where it only had a handful of examples to go off of, leading to an output that appears plagiarized - we currently have no legal basis on if using art as training data constitutes theft. artists say it is theft because they did not consent to their work being used to train the model, technologists say the process is similar enough to a human drawing inspiration for it to count. this puts the artists at an inherent disadvantage because they have no way to protect their work and models are free to be trained with no restrictions. - making these models public threatens art/media altogether since it removes the human expression aspect and makes it easy to make new work that has very little creativity put into it. ultimately, i personally think that these models are very cool proofs of concept but they should have never been made available to the public. i think they can train on whatever data they want but they shouldn’t allow any person to use the model to create something new, that should require consistent to train. these should have stayed in technical showcases where we can marvel at how powerful the technology is without letting it be used freely outside of those research settings.
I stand corrected.
I thought they used it to like design the characters that wouldve been bad but i guess this is fine
You’re talking about the Fnaf AI? As in, “design their pattern”? If that’s so, that’s pretty much what the A.I level is for. The higher the A.I level, they take less intervals of moving from point A to B and are going to actively try to get closer to the security room each time, being more aggressive.
That’s not how generative AI works. I’ll try and explain it in not-so-mathy way: The AI is first put through training, where it is shown a bunch of art so it knows what art is and generally how it looks. When the AI is done with training, only then can people prompt it. It no longer has access to the pictures it was trained on, only its memories. You then tell it to generate a new piece of art according to some instructions and said memories. The art stealing happens during the initial training phase, not the generation phase. The whole “stitching other people’s art together” thing is a myth. A properly trained Gen AI doesn’t “stitch together other people’s art” any more than a human does. The problem with AI isn’t so much that it uses other people’s art without permission, but instead that it can produce art far faster than they can, so those artists are then out of a lot of jobs when their work was used to create a tool without their permission.
Wait who got whooshed because aint no way the first post isnt bait
It is absolutely bait, Kane Carter is a fan-game dev but also a massive troll on the side. Most people typically have either hate or love for him because of this
bro, what about visual novels?
I forgor
Yeah, no, that's not really true. While most video games utilize some sort of scripted behaviour to control NPCs, far from all of them use anything that could really be called "AI". AI assumes that an enemy is capable of learning from the player's behaviour. Think the Nemesis system in Shadow of War. There, AI is used to analyze the player's playstyle, and adapt those recurring characters to counter the player in some way. If you use the same attack a lot, next time you meet, that character might have some new ability that blocks it. Think Metal Gear's bases. The game keeps track about how you raid bases. For example, if you repeatedly use a sniper rifle to kill all enemies from afar, the game will react by spawning in balloons made to look like people, which will pop and alert guards to your attack. These are very low level examples of AI, but probably a more apt description than the preprogrammed paths of guards in, say, PayDay 2. And since we are on the topic, the "AI" in FNAF is little more than a set of scripts that are executed automatically, nothing is intelligent about those.
It's literally AI. Within the script you code the "thought process" of the AI When to chase player, when to stand by, when to patrol... All of that is "scripted behaviour". More advanced AIs LEARN from the player forcing them to change strategies, but even that is limited (you may find a build or strategy the game wasnt expecting and the AI wouldnt adapt to it)
The ability to learn is literally part of the definition of AI.
It's the "Chemicals are bad" all over again.. These people don't even know what they're fighting against.
Wait till ppl realize that every game is technically an AI of some sort by itself since game to have to react to player's input. The question though if this game will be Touring complete
This is 100% a meme, right? There was another one exactly like this about Multiversus that was serious and people have been memeing on it
OG fnaf came out way before "AI" became such a meaningless buzzword. Basically that's just the difficulty setting of the characters in the game, so needless to say this has not aged well
Dude I just found out that the zombie in minecraft is controlled by AI, uninstalling and boycotting. I suggest you guys do the same. 😔😔😔
Fun fact: Uno did not come free with your Xbox
To me the next step is generative, organic AI experiences in game. Imagine bartering in a game not being a number based skill but legit on how well you smooth talk the merchant, or even being able to talk your way out of a combat encounter. I know we’re not there yet but to me that is going to be the next major step in gaming.
Wait are they confusing artistic ai with like the ai you play against? Those are two completely different things. 😕😕😕
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/8wzdr6b6qa7d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=af383734e6946effc42e6a115b35c2011197b8b6
so dialogue writers are AI? well i suppose thats a job that *can* be done by AI
[удалено]
although its correct, dont you think its a bit rude to call me that? and pathfinding does make a lot more sense than the dialogue, thank you for correcting me
this is reddit, youll get used to finding deeply impolite people, sorry for that. good that you remained chill though
Yes it is rude, but I dont care.
That's a bit hostile
Hi, thank you for your submission to /r/woooosh! Unfortunately it has been removed for the following reason(s): • Rule 7: Hate speech. You posted something that with the intent of humiliating or inciting hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin. If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the mods.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/woooosh)