My biggest concern with AI is the consolidation of power/markets it causes, and how that affects creatives and their ability to earn a living.
The better/larger model generally wins, and models are private, proprietary and closed source. They are made through harvesting the creativity of earnest creators with little to no compensation or even recognition of the tiny degrees in which each person's work influenced the model.
It also steers individual creative goals towards the viable outcomes it's designed to favour through a subtle process of path of least resistance, guaranteeing further homogenisation of creative outcomes. ie if nobody can afford to hire real writers and concept artists, then by necessity all written word will starts to resemble ChatGPT's phrasing patterns. This is of course already true outside of AI, such as with Unreal engine games being said to "look and feel" like Unreal engine games regardless of the creator or studio.
All the statements as far as its ability to reduce the barriers to entry and allow for more people to enter the space are accurate, but that ubiquity of access comes with extremely concentrated ownership and control that are seldom addressed by evangelists.
I might be able to one day generate an entire game by simply describing the game I want to play, but that one piece of creative input ceases to be my own property the second I enter it into the waiting text field. In a fair and equal world that would be a non-issue, but in a world where generating an income is necessary, these tools become a barrier demanding the creative give freely of themselves in order to just be a part of the conversation. Compensation and control cease to be a part of the conversation at all.
It all sounds a bit dark, but I'm not sure it's anything fringe conceptually. Writers and concept artists are already experiencing an early version of this now. It's also important to keep fear mongering and arguments about runaway generalised AI separate from discussion of the potentially crippling economic effects AI products have on real people's livelihoods along this process of progression.
For reference I work in the games industry, and previously worked in the conversational AI space.
My biggest concern with AI is the consolidation of power/markets it causes, and how that affects creatives and their ability to earn a living.
The better/larger model generally wins, and models are private, proprietary and closed source. They are made through harvesting the creativity of earnest creators with little to no compensation or even recognition of the tiny degrees in which each person's work influenced the model.
It also steers individual creative goals towards the viable outcomes it's designed to favour through a subtle process of path of least resistance, guaranteeing further homogenisation of creative outcomes. ie if nobody can afford to hire real writers and concept artists, then by necessity all written word will starts to resemble ChatGPT's phrasing patterns. This is of course already true outside of AI, such as with Unreal engine games being said to "look and feel" like Unreal engine games regardless of the creator or studio.
All the statements as far as its ability to reduce the barriers to entry and allow for more people to enter the space are accurate, but that ubiquity of access comes with extremely concentrated ownership and control that are seldom addressed by evangelists.
I might be able to one day generate an entire game by simply describing the game I want to play, but that one piece of creative input ceases to be my own property the second I enter it into the waiting text field. In a fair and equal world that would be a non-issue, but in a world where generating an income is necessary, these tools become a barrier demanding the creative give freely of themselves in order to just be a part of the conversation. Compensation and control cease to be a part of the conversation at all.
It all sounds a bit dark, but I'm not sure it's anything fringe conceptually. Writers and concept artists are already experiencing an early version of this now. It's also important to keep fear mongering and arguments about runaway generalised AI separate from discussion of the potentially crippling economic effects AI products have on real people's livelihoods along this process of progression.
For reference I work in the games industry, and previously worked in the conversational AI space.