I have steered clear because I do not trust it to be accurate enough, but my peers have posted position descriptions for job roles they need to hire made using ChatGPT 4 after only minor editing. But for GPT related technologies, there are already a half dozen people in my office using it. NFTs and cryptocurrency only got traction because people began to use them (or designed them) as speculative financial assets and people saw dollar signs. If you want to argue both are bad, I suppose, but unlike NFTs and Crypto there are large numbers of actual use-cases for generative AI across myriad fields, and they're already being used. What that stuff is able to do is really insane and still absolutely baffles me nearly every day. After integrating these into our workflows and working with them day to day, I feel like I was knocked off my high horse extremely quickly though. I was a bit overconfident in my skills in my field surely couldn't possibly be matched by some silly LLM model. Creativity is possibly seen as one of the core pillars that makes us human, and it certainly feels rather threatening if some model is able to mimic such traits in a way indistinguishable to unknowing observers.Īnyways, long story short. Maybe there the crux of the issue though. Overall, the evidence so far however indicates to me it's very very plausible AI can generate output even in creative fields that would be indistinguishable from human generated content. This stuff is rapidly evolving and sees crazy investment, it's hard to tell how rapidly we'll see further improvements. Linguistic experts only managed to correctly identity AI written articles less than 40%.Īnd those are just some random indications today. 27% of people can't tell AI generated speech from real speech. I see this assumption a lot, but it's not clear to me how people arrive at that conclusion with such certainty.įor example, in a test 32% of people already can't tell whether they're chatting to or an actual person.ĪI art already w on an art contest when people weren't aware it was actually AI. I'm a 3D artist, I get the concerns about being replaced, but this technology is not going away so I don't think the discussion should be "should we use AI or not" but rather we need to start talking about how we can use it without sacrificing the human workers. We're already seeing some early examples like this: View: It's already been and will continue to be an important tool in developing games into the future. There NEEDS to be protections for writers, the same thing SAG is fighting for right now, but all AI isn't bad. There should always be a throughline for your game that will be bespoke and require the crafting of human writers, but there can also be a place for using AI to dynamically fill the world. I think that even in that kind of world writers will still have a big role in directing that interactivity that doesn't rely on having them write hundreds of thousands of lines of dialogue. Having said that, the "Holodeck" has long been a dream of many people and you don't get that kind of interactivity in games and other storytelling without having a computer/AI be able to dynamically respond to the player's words and actions. Using AI ethically and not as a replacement for current writing is obviously the fear and it's an important thing to fight against. With any new technology, there will be old jobs that will need to adapt, and new jobs that will be created as well. I don't want anyone to be replaced or to lose their jobs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |