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.
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.
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.