> None of those games are going to be fun, engaging, thought provoking or expressive.
I think you're vastly overestimating what entertainment means for most people, and underestimating the capabilities of AI today, and in the very near future.
People spend countless hours in idle clickers, chance games, and many other "simple" time wasters. Entertainment doesn't have to be thought provoking.
Though what makes you think AI couldn't craft such experiences as well? Can't it already come up with thought provoking stories today?
FWIW, I used to think like you a ~year ago. Art is art, AI can't replace artists, etc. And to some extent I still think that will be true. There will always be a demand for human-created art and products.
But for the vast majority of people, the ability to say what they want to experience, and be able to control all aspects of that experience, will be much more engaging and personal than anything another human could ever create.
>FWIW, I used to think like you a ~year ago. Art is art, AI can't replace artists, etc.
On the contrary, I think AI can and will replace artists, and the ruthless, cynical exploitation of artists and commoditization of talent by companies using AI is what bothers me. I can even concede that AI generated art can be considered art (as generative art is already established as such) - I just don't think the wholesale replacement of human creative effort with AI results in an equivalent exchange of value. It's fine for the low-effort stuff that never meant anything to anyone beyond being a means to making a quick buck, but that isn't what all creative effort should be. Not everything is cookie clickers and time wasters.
I mean, look at the debacle around the Willy Wonka "Experience" in Glasgow. That was mostly generated by AI. That's the future of everything.
>But for the vast majority of people, the ability to say what they want to experience, and be able to control all aspects of that experience, will be much more engaging and personal than anything another human could ever create.
You can't control all aspects of that experience with AI, that isn't how it works. The only way you can do that is by actually doing that, and that requires effort, and study, and hiring people. The end result of AI can't be personal, because AI can only work with what already exists within its training set. And anyone with the same model and settings can create exactly the same thing, which renders any intent on the part of the human being meaningless with regards to the end result.
> You can't control all aspects of that experience with AI, that isn't how it works.
Huh? You can already do that with text and static images _today_. Doing that for video is almost here, and long-form entertainment will be next.
> The end result of AI can't be personal, because AI can only work with what already exists within its training set.
That's not true, even today. Techniques like RAG and very large context sizes can augment the training data with anything the user wants.
The end result can indeed be very personal. Imagine interacting as yourself (so not a role or character) with your deceased relatives, favorite celebrities, romantic interests, etc. They will refer to you by name, and know detailed information about you. No video game programmer and artist can craft such experiences for you, let alone in the time it takes you to think about it and communicate it to the AI.
> Imagine interacting as yourself (so not a role or character) with your deceased relatives, favorite celebrities, romantic interests, etc. They will refer to you by name, and know detailed information about you.
Is an AI generated facsimile of my dead relatives supposed to mean something to me? It's not a person. It's a thing generated from what I can only assume is their publicly accessible social media data and probabilistic conjecture, taken without their consent.
Celebrities? Again, it isn't them. AI generated Einstein or James Cagney can't offer up any real insight, because they can't know anything not already in their data set that isn't randomly generated. It's all superficial.
Romantic interests? I mean, sure, you could strap on vr googles and a fleshlight and fuck the AI generated facsimile of your crush but it isn't the same. It's just closing your eyes and beating off with extra steps, and probably a subscription.
I think you're confused about the difference between "personalized" and "personal" here.
> No video game programmer and artist can craft such experiences for you, let alone in the time it takes you to think about it and communicate it to the AI.
Of course they could, people already do it, it's called identity theft. There is nothing an AI could do that human beings couldn't do given time, because AI works from human-generated data. That AI could do it faster is a bit of a red herring, since we're talking about quality of experience, not speed of turnaround.
I can tell you're engaged with the fantasy and it isn't likely that we're going to find common ground here. But I'm looking at what AI is already being used for and all of it - all of it is worse than the human-created content it replaces.
I think you're vastly overestimating what entertainment means for most people, and underestimating the capabilities of AI today, and in the very near future.
People spend countless hours in idle clickers, chance games, and many other "simple" time wasters. Entertainment doesn't have to be thought provoking.
Though what makes you think AI couldn't craft such experiences as well? Can't it already come up with thought provoking stories today?
FWIW, I used to think like you a ~year ago. Art is art, AI can't replace artists, etc. And to some extent I still think that will be true. There will always be a demand for human-created art and products.
But for the vast majority of people, the ability to say what they want to experience, and be able to control all aspects of that experience, will be much more engaging and personal than anything another human could ever create.