It seems like a relatively safe assumption. There are extremely few cases where companies have rewarded improved productivity by reducing work hours rather than reducing staff.
A lot of the reason people have an issue with Larian using genAI isn't even mentioned in this article — it's trained on images stolen from real artists. There's an ethical issue with using it at all, and it's especially insulting to force your artists to use it.
He says that everyone at his studio is basically okay with how they're using it, but has he done an anonymous survey? You have a bunch of employees in an industry where getting a job right now is extremely difficult, at a studio which is notoriously difficult to get a job at — have you considered that maybe they're not raising a stink about this to you because they're afraid of rocking the boat and potentially being replaced by someone who doesn't?
Your last point I think makes a lot of sense. The guys on the Aftermath Hours podcast were talking about this story, and they pointed out that what they're talking about using AI for, like composition, doesn't require AI at all. They've seen amazing art come from an art director drawing on a post it with stick figures to get across what they're going for, and the concept artist can turn that into exactly what they need. And if you're communicating at that base of a level, then you have an actual person (the concept artist) making the creative decisions, rather than the AI making the creative "decisions" that come between that stick-figure idea and the output that then becomes the concept artist's input. And by giving up those creative decisions to AI you're limiting the scope of creativity to what AI can do.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mike T.
Agreed. Taking the creativity out of creating something by having a machine create it for you is not "democratizing creativity."
lol I guess every artist or musician I’ve ever met is a “true artiste diva” then.
The CEO of Larian explained in detail how they do though?
It seems like a relatively safe assumption. There are extremely few cases where companies have rewarded improved productivity by reducing work hours rather than reducing staff.
Stolen training input not mentioned at all
A lot of the reason people have an issue with Larian using genAI isn't even mentioned in this article — it's trained on images stolen from real artists. There's an ethical issue with using it at all, and it's especially insulting to force your artists to use it. He says that everyone at his studio is basically okay with how they're using it, but has he done an anonymous survey? You have a bunch of employees in an industry where getting a job right now is extremely difficult, at a studio which is notoriously difficult to get a job at — have you considered that maybe they're not raising a stink about this to you because they're afraid of rocking the boat and potentially being replaced by someone who doesn't?
Using genAI as "exploration" is unnecessary and limits creativity
Your last point I think makes a lot of sense. The guys on the Aftermath Hours podcast were talking about this story, and they pointed out that what they're talking about using AI for, like composition, doesn't require AI at all. They've seen amazing art come from an art director drawing on a post it with stick figures to get across what they're going for, and the concept artist can turn that into exactly what they need. And if you're communicating at that base of a level, then you have an actual person (the concept artist) making the creative decisions, rather than the AI making the creative "decisions" that come between that stick-figure idea and the output that then becomes the concept artist's input. And by giving up those creative decisions to AI you're limiting the scope of creativity to what AI can do.