this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
195 points (94.1% liked)

Gaming

19919 readers
84 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 44 points 3 months ago (11 children)

I mean, it feels kinda obvious. If there's any company in this space that would never need to use generative AI, it's Nintendo. They already employ some of the most talented art teams in the industry, they're not exactly struggling to produce art or assets.

If this was from a developer who maybe hasn't been a gaming monolith for the last 30+ years, that'd be different. This is like if Bill Gates says he promises not to open his 401k early; like, okay cool, I don't think that was ever in doubt in the last 30 years, Bill, but thanks for letting us know.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

We haven't really seen high quality art that uses AI as part of the creative process yet, but this could be similar to the animation studios of the 90s who refused to use computers. They're all out of business now.

The reality is, generative AI is a really powerful tool, so they will be at a disadvantage going forward if they don't use it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The situation is different from the 90s companies not wanting to use computers. Using AI today is a risk of violating copyright. The reason is totally different and is not comparable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

The copyright issue is tangential. You don't have to train a model using unethically sourced artwork, just like you don't have to build a structure using slave labor. Nintendo has the resources to legally protect themselves one way or another if they actually wanted to use generative AI.

load more comments (8 replies)