CEO Strauss Zelnick says generative AI remains a tool for enabling creators to do bigger and better things, but it sounds like a shift away from past comments.
You can just skip the experimentation and go directly to conclusions. Testing things is for idiots, the real enlightened among us already have the conclusion, they just need to gather the right observations to prove themselves right.
I prefer real science, thanks. You know, the kind that gets published in scientific journals and peer-reviewed, where they actually try to provide controls for what they are measuring, rather than going “trust me bro, I tried it and it’s a total game changer”.
You’d think, as a science enjoyer, you’d know better than to conflate the process of testing and forming conclusions based on observation and academia.
If you listen to the ai-good crowd, screw economics.
You can just skip the market outcomes and go directly to assertions. Selling things is for idiots, the real enlightened among us already have the conclusion, they just need to gather the right investments to prove themselves right.
You’re attacking the AI bubble, and investments in the services side of things that exceed the revenue that they’re producing. Yeah, the investment in LLMs that NVIDIA is the center of are dumb and a bubble.
The topic of the post, top comment and my reply is about the experimenting with AI in pilot programs. The post is full of people attacking Take-Two for trying AI, which is what I’m replying to.
You’re over here attacking AI companies for investing in a technology that nobody is using (other than Take-Two, apparently) as if that argument has anything to do with the topic at all.
Are you just using that word ironically because I said it or are you actually unable to identify the fallacy that’s being used or do you need people to write /s for you to understand sarcasm?
Maybe you should ask the AI to read comments to you if you’re unable to comprehend basic written English. Here, since your confederates are similarly unable to read I’ve already asked an AI to explain for you:
Or, better idea, stop using AI for creative work people find genuine personal fulfillment in, and eliminating any pathway to excellence. If you can’t afford to pay real people to create genuinely human artistic works, you’re a terrible business person and deserve to fail. It doesn’t make you a “Genius Creative” finding shortcuts to success, it makes you a pathetic hack with no independent talent, a parasite, and a miserly cheapskate on top of that.
People can use whatever tools they want, if someone wants to be a great oil painter they can do that, if someone wants to learn how to draw on a digital tablet and use photoshop to edit it then let them do that, if someone wants to use diffusion models and Photoshop then let them do that.
You do not lose personal fulfillment in a thing that you genuinely enjoy because someone else is enjoying their own thing. This is not about creative expression. Your argument is an economic argument at base, not one about artistic expression.
If you can’t afford to pay real people to create genuinely human artistic works, you’re a terrible business person and deserve to fail.
An AI tool is not going to produce higher quality work than a professional human. Anyone who is gutting their business because they think AI is going to replace creative workers will fail because they’re making the wrong bet. The tools simply cannot replace human creativity.
At the same time, the framing that any use of AI tools to save labor is inherently bad is simply a denialist position. These tools exist and people are using them, this is the reality that we live in. Yes, it causes disruption in the labor markets this is unavoidable.
Think about how much you feel for the jobs of the Computers. Remember them? The people who used to earn their living calculating math problems… hundreds of thousands of professional people who had advanced degrees and worked their whole life in the field were suddenly replaced by some silicon and electricity. Are you boycotting the Field Effect Transistor because it decimated an entire industry?
Why do you even acknowledge the rights of digital artists or engineers to own intellectual property? After all, they’re using (by this logic) the terrible digital design tools, the software that replaced an entire industry of Drafters and support artists. Because of that software, nobody is going to hire a team of drafters, with their college educations and high salary expectations. Instead they just buy an AutoCAD license for less than a single worker would earn in a week.
Attacking a technology because it causes disruption in the labor market is pointless. If you’re living in a country where this disruption is causing serious problems, then you can understand the value of creating a social safety net in order to protect everyone from the next unforeseen circumstance/technology/disruption.
An AI tool is not going to produce higher quality work than a professional human.
Yes it will, because there will cease to be professional humans. If there’s no development pipeline, no one is going to achieve the pinnacle of art, because there’s no return on that investment. The AI will become better than any human, not by raising the standard by by kneecapping our ability to reach higher.
It’s ironic you chose to compare it to computers because we’ve seen that the generational decline in mathematical ability has fallen off a cliff as people now don’t even have to think about how numbers work. We have college graduates with zero reading comprehension or writing ability because they’ve never had to independently develop those skills. We have vanishing competency in critical analysis and the ability to carry a dialogue at levels that were considered natural and intrinsic a handful of generations ago. Everywhere we see the constant erosion of the capability of achieving objectives that are less than a generation removed from us. We’re not talking about forgetting how to knap flint or the decline of the buggy whip maker. We’re talking about the intrinsic capacity of the human mind to engage with the world suddenly becoming an investment on which there is no chance of return in a single human lifetime, because there is no economically sustainable path from raw novice to professional.
AI will absolutely surpass us, not by raising the bar, but lowering it into hell under a firehose of garbage.
If you listen to the ai-bad crowd, screw science.
You can just skip the experimentation and go directly to conclusions. Testing things is for idiots, the real enlightened among us already have the conclusion, they just need to gather the right observations to prove themselves right.
I prefer real science, thanks. You know, the kind that gets published in scientific journals and peer-reviewed, where they actually try to provide controls for what they are measuring, rather than going “trust me bro, I tried it and it’s a total game changer”.
You’d think, as a science enjoyer, you’d know better than to conflate the process of testing and forming conclusions based on observation and academia.
If you listen to the ai-good crowd, screw economics.
You can just skip the market outcomes and go directly to assertions. Selling things is for idiots, the real enlightened among us already have the conclusion, they just need to gather the right investments to prove themselves right.
You’re murdering that strawman, bud.
You’re attacking the AI bubble, and investments in the services side of things that exceed the revenue that they’re producing. Yeah, the investment in LLMs that NVIDIA is the center of are dumb and a bubble.
The topic of the post, top comment and my reply is about the experimenting with AI in pilot programs. The post is full of people attacking Take-Two for trying AI, which is what I’m replying to.
You’re over here attacking AI companies for investing in a technology that nobody is using (other than Take-Two, apparently) as if that argument has anything to do with the topic at all.
Holy shit, maybe ask AI about your own asinine strawman.
What a waste.
Are you just using that word ironically because I said it or are you actually unable to identify the fallacy that’s being used or do you need people to write /s for you to understand sarcasm?
Maybe you should ask the AI to read comments to you if you’re unable to comprehend basic written English. Here, since your confederates are similarly unable to read I’ve already asked an AI to explain for you:
Yap yap yap, projection, byeeeee.
Was your comment generated by AI? I read it three times and I still don’t understand what you’re getting at.
He’s just saying just push to prod no need for any checks.
Or, better idea, stop using AI for creative work people find genuine personal fulfillment in, and eliminating any pathway to excellence. If you can’t afford to pay real people to create genuinely human artistic works, you’re a terrible business person and deserve to fail. It doesn’t make you a “Genius Creative” finding shortcuts to success, it makes you a pathetic hack with no independent talent, a parasite, and a miserly cheapskate on top of that.
People can use whatever tools they want, if someone wants to be a great oil painter they can do that, if someone wants to learn how to draw on a digital tablet and use photoshop to edit it then let them do that, if someone wants to use diffusion models and Photoshop then let them do that.
You do not lose personal fulfillment in a thing that you genuinely enjoy because someone else is enjoying their own thing. This is not about creative expression. Your argument is an economic argument at base, not one about artistic expression.
An AI tool is not going to produce higher quality work than a professional human. Anyone who is gutting their business because they think AI is going to replace creative workers will fail because they’re making the wrong bet. The tools simply cannot replace human creativity.
At the same time, the framing that any use of AI tools to save labor is inherently bad is simply a denialist position. These tools exist and people are using them, this is the reality that we live in. Yes, it causes disruption in the labor markets this is unavoidable.
Think about how much you feel for the jobs of the Computers. Remember them? The people who used to earn their living calculating math problems… hundreds of thousands of professional people who had advanced degrees and worked their whole life in the field were suddenly replaced by some silicon and electricity. Are you boycotting the Field Effect Transistor because it decimated an entire industry?
Why do you even acknowledge the rights of digital artists or engineers to own intellectual property? After all, they’re using (by this logic) the terrible digital design tools, the software that replaced an entire industry of Drafters and support artists. Because of that software, nobody is going to hire a team of drafters, with their college educations and high salary expectations. Instead they just buy an AutoCAD license for less than a single worker would earn in a week.
Attacking a technology because it causes disruption in the labor market is pointless. If you’re living in a country where this disruption is causing serious problems, then you can understand the value of creating a social safety net in order to protect everyone from the next unforeseen circumstance/technology/disruption.
Yes it will, because there will cease to be professional humans. If there’s no development pipeline, no one is going to achieve the pinnacle of art, because there’s no return on that investment. The AI will become better than any human, not by raising the standard by by kneecapping our ability to reach higher.
It’s ironic you chose to compare it to computers because we’ve seen that the generational decline in mathematical ability has fallen off a cliff as people now don’t even have to think about how numbers work. We have college graduates with zero reading comprehension or writing ability because they’ve never had to independently develop those skills. We have vanishing competency in critical analysis and the ability to carry a dialogue at levels that were considered natural and intrinsic a handful of generations ago. Everywhere we see the constant erosion of the capability of achieving objectives that are less than a generation removed from us. We’re not talking about forgetting how to knap flint or the decline of the buggy whip maker. We’re talking about the intrinsic capacity of the human mind to engage with the world suddenly becoming an investment on which there is no chance of return in a single human lifetime, because there is no economically sustainable path from raw novice to professional.
AI will absolutely surpass us, not by raising the bar, but lowering it into hell under a firehose of garbage.