The New York Times recently published an article comparing generative AI to Pac-Man ghosts and The Matrix, sparking ridicule from game developers on social media. The article's author, Zachary Small, suggests that generative AI is poised to revolutionize the video game industry, much like the Pac-Man ghosts' AI changed the game back in the 1980s. However, many developers are poking fun at this comparison, pointing out that the Pac-Man ghosts' behavior was programmed by a human, Tōru Iwatani, and has little to do with modern generative AI.
The article demonstrates a lack of understanding about the differences between traditional AI programming and modern generative AI. Unlike Pac-Man's ghosts, generative AI doesn't rely on pre-programmed rules, but rather uses complex algorithms and machine learning to generate content. Some developers argue that the article exaggerates the impact of generative AI on the gaming industry. While AI will certainly have an influence, it's not a revolutionary force that will completely upend the industry.
Developers like Swen Vincke, CEO of Larian Studios, use generative AI for early prototyping but emphasize that most of the development process is still done manually. Vincke doesn't seem convinced that generative AI will drastically change the industry. CD Projekt is cautious about using generative AI due to concerns over legal ownership and potential liabilities.
Generative AI has its limitations, particularly when it comes to creative tasks. For instance, AI-generated art often struggles with rendering hands and fingers realistically, falling into the "uncanny valley" where they're almost but not quite convincing. As developers continue to explore the potential of AI, it's essential to understand its capabilities and limitations.
