>“I am yet to have a team or gamerunner push back on me once I actually explain how these AI art generators work and how they don't contribute in a helpful way to a project, but I have a sense of dread that it is only a matter of time until that changes, especially given that I've gone the majority of my career with no mention of them to every second conversation having it mentioned.”
I recently played through a game and after finishing it, read over the reviews.
There was a brief period after launch where the game was heavily criticised for its use of AI assets. They removed some, but apparently not all (or more likely, people considered the game tainted and started claiming everything was AI)
The (I believe) 4 person dev team used AI tools to keep up with the vast quantity of art they needed to produce for what was a very art heavy game.
I can understand people with an existing method not wanting to change. And AI may not actually be a good fit for a lot of this stuff. But I feel like the real winners are going to be the people who do a lot more with a lot less out of sheer necessity to meet outrageous goals.
I see a strong similarity with the (over)use of CGI in movies 25 years ago - the producers were of course thrilled to save money on special fx and at first glance, it looked real. But after seeing a lot of it, a feeling starts to creep in: it's all fake, it's all computer. It breaks the illusion and moves the focus from the story to what the hell they were thinking. Of course today it looks laughable, like a bad video game.
I think a lot of it was the move to digital away from film too. Old films keep getting great remasters but 2000s era digital films just cant compete.
Same goes for a lot of TV shows shot on film vs tape vs early digital cameras. Tape and early digital cameras have a much lower quality ceiling than stuff shot on film.