r/technology • u/marketrent • 17d ago
Artificial Intelligence The economy has spoken. Stuff that’s AI-generated has almost zero value — “Buyers are voting with their wallets, and AI-generated content is struggling to compete.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/economy-spoken-stuff-ai-generated-142732314.html861
u/Sea-Woodpecker-610 17d ago edited 17d ago
I’m somewhat confused. Are you telling me something that is in abundance with a nearly unlimited ability to create more of with little to no cost has little to no value to people?
It’s unfortunate there isn’t some sort of economic policy we could assign to this excessive supply and apparent lack of demand.
84
u/Brougham 17d ago
“ Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich. [...]
"But we have also," continued the management consultant, "run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying on ship's peanut." [...]
"So in order to obviate this problem," he continued, "and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and...er, burn down all the forests. I think you'll all agree that's a sensible move under the circumstances.”
3
u/Keeppforgetting 16d ago
It’s ridiculous how applicable this is.
And it’s even more ridiculous considering the source material haha
→ More replies (2)162
u/Hades_Mercedes 17d ago
I'd explain it to you but you clearly just don't understand how, like, pff... the future works and shit. /s
67
u/Sea-Woodpecker-610 17d ago
It’s fine, if you don’t know the answer I’m sure you could just ChatGPT some bullshit.
→ More replies (1)104
→ More replies (12)24
u/Tyfyter2002 17d ago
Well this is actually an interesting case, because it's not entirely that a massive increase in supply with stagnant demand reduced the price;
The massive increase in supply actually reduced demand because the consumers themselves became supply of equal quality to some of the market supply, and some demand actively moved away to places which didn't experience such an influx of low-quality supply.
It's pretty interesting that GenAI has managed to go beyond just sabotaging its users' quick bucks by not being their own private money printer, and has split existing groups of consumers into two groups who are both less willing to consume AI content than before.
1.4k
u/Hrekires 17d ago
All you need to know is that everyone who's making consumer-facing products with AI, whether it's images or stories or music, tries their hardest to hide the fact that they're doing so.
598
u/soupkitchen69 17d ago
And they get so mad when the platform they upload it to has rules about disclosing ai use. Valve for example is making some publishers furious with that rule, but it's no secret gamers are rejecting ai use across the board.
→ More replies (31)148
u/MidLifeDIY 17d ago
Decisions like this are why I (and assume others) use Steam. Even as a fully digital platform (no physical) its just the best. They hate Gaben because they ain't Gaben.
88
u/Yuzumi 17d ago
There are certainly some issues with Valve/Steam, but compared to literally everyone else they are saints. Like the one big gaming company that is customer focused, and like one of 3 companies in general that are remotely customer focused.
38
u/International_Host71 17d ago
I Dread the day Gaben either dies or retires from leading it. Steam ain't perfect, but I'm sure there are hordes of venture capitalists and other ghouls literally salivating at enshittifying Steam to make a quick buck.
22
u/Quantum_Aurora 17d ago
Realistically the future of Steam will likely be determined by Gabe's two sons.
I'm sure every tech and gaming giant along with every private equity firm would love to buy up Valve, and all of those would end up enshitifying Steam in the process. Unless his sons are willing to sell, it doesn't matter.
I know when they were kids they were both big gamers, but I don't know if they are anymore. I figure they'll be super-wealthy either way tho so probably not so likely to sell.
18
u/ThatRandomGamerYT 17d ago
I hope his family doesnt sell Valve/Steam. They are already filthy rich and Steam basically prints free money already. Gabe is already worth billions. Why fuck that up when you inherit billions and the money printer. Just sit and earn money, keep it going as it has been and enjoy life or whatever.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)10
u/RadarSmith 17d ago
Valve seems like one of the few companies left that can imagine making more bucks longterm than a quick buck this quarter.
They don't burn their golden goose so that some MBAs can show a quick quarterly profit.
→ More replies (8)6
u/TDVapermann 17d ago
Valve/Gaben's simple policy of don't be shitty to the consumer allows them to win.
77
39
u/slickwombat 17d ago
There's an odd exception: nobody seems to feel this way about software, even when it's arts and entertainment related like videogames. I've seen people get upset if there's AI-created assets in games, but not if the entire interface or functionality was vibe-coded.
13
u/Facehugger_35 17d ago
I don't think the exception is that odd.
Think back to FEAR back in 2004. Gamers thought it had the best AI ever, and the game was absolutely amazing at selling the idea that the replica soldiers were special forces reacting to your activity. They seemed to work together to flank you and flush you out, they fell back to lure you into ambushes, they just felt smart in a way few other video game AI opponents did.
Under the hood, it was almost entirely smoke and mirrors with very carefully crafted audio cues, smart encounter design, and only a little actual AI advancement. In comparison Crysis AI was way more advanced and intelligent, but it didn't feel that way because it largely didn't get to show off in Crysis' giant open maps, so now Crysis is mostly known for system requirement jokes.
That is to say, gamers don't care about the specifics of how their experience is coded under the hood, they care about the output and the experience they have.
AI art assets tend to be mediocre, and that harms the experience, so gamers don't like AI art, but they're okay with vibecode as long as it doesn't have bugs and shit, because games were never about the code.
→ More replies (1)27
u/choopietrash 17d ago
I know some programmers who don't want vibe-coded AI and lament the issues born from it. Though I will note that programming, moreso than images or writing, is more likely to borrow from templates and stuff. If an artist is discovered tracing over someone else's work, that can be a career-killer for them. Pasting something from stack overflow is just being "resourceful."
14
u/worthwhilewrongdoing 17d ago edited 17d ago
I think it just comes down to what we expect to be artisanal and what we don't. You'd get pissed if a baker you hired used box cake mix, but nobody's expecting that same baker to get out in the fields and go grow and harvest wheat to grind their own flour. That would be insane.
I think the same goes for programming - most people don't see it as an art but rather as a means to an end to make something else, so the expectations are a little different and a little less exacting.
ETA the "something else" part - this wasn't clear without it.
7
u/vips7L 17d ago
Programming is an art though. It takes serious talent to produce GOOD, beautiful code. Code that doesn’t have correctness issues. Code that is easy to read. Code that is easy to maintain and adapt to new use cases.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Djonso 17d ago
Building houses is an art too. Takes serious tallent to build a good, beautiful house. House that has no structural issues. House that is good to life in. House that is easy to maintain or adapt to new needs.
Or you know, also called good engineering. Not everything that needs skills is an art.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)3
u/levi_goulet 17d ago
I'm a member of a few different discord servers dedicated to modding games, and it seems like mod authors and players alike very much DO care and push back against vibe-coded mods. They tend to run like shit and the authors usually can't provide support or troubleshoot problems people run into.
→ More replies (1)17
u/dust4ngel 17d ago
i keep seeing this one hilarious ad on instagram that's like "our company uses AI and we're not ashamed!" this is the wildest, wildest attempt at a flex.
→ More replies (9)24
u/randotd152 17d ago
Yeah. It’s literally everywhere in everything and people don’t even realize it.
I think everyone has this false impression that professional use is like home use - tell an engine to go do something and receive a finished product.
It’s not. Real people use AI to do 80% of the legwork, and then they spend the remaining 20% tweaking, cleaning up, and making it generally no longer look/feel like an AI product.
Consumers may recognize 100% AI slop, but they’re clueless about 80% slop.
9
→ More replies (1)12
u/lexymon 17d ago
But is it still AI slop then? To me, that sounds more like usage of AI as a tool.
→ More replies (2)3
u/randotd152 16d ago
Sure, but that’s largely how it’s already being used, so if you’re cool with that, then there’s not much need to worry about AI. 100% AI is a big boogeyman that produces garbage no major company wants.
The jobs won’t be killed because people are 100% replaced with AI, the jobs will be killed because AI makes people 3x as productive.
→ More replies (1)
121
u/Low-Salary-2128 17d ago
Supply and demand. AI can be made by literally anyone so the supply far exceeds demand.
Take for example an AI image on a shirt, why pay someone else to sell you an AI design when you can just do it yourself.
→ More replies (18)
619
u/TriMiksEntuzijasta 17d ago
I love reading good news before bed!
50
→ More replies (5)44
u/digiorno 17d ago
Is it though? The market for graphic designers isn’t coming back.
While people might not value AI generated art very highly they will still use it over paying a real artist. The real artist has value to them because their product couldn’t be made for free, but now it can.
23
u/ReadyAimTranspire 17d ago
True, the bottom and some of the mid market for graphic design is going to largely go away. If someone can iterate on an AI design and get something close to what they need, they will do that for almost zero cost rather than pay a designer even if the result is...not so great.
Tech does that though. A similar thing happened to the studio recording business in the 00's. As cheap prosumer digital recording gear became available, recording studios, especially mid-market ($50-80 /hr), took a massive hit as people either opted to book the cheaper home studio operations that started popping up for $20/hr or, if sufficiently ambitious, bought their own gear and learned how to do it themselves.
As a mid market studio owner that decided to leave the business in 2010, I know how it feels. That's just how job markets are these days, you have to be able to pivot and adapt. It's a pain in the ass but it's the reality of our situation.
68
u/Confident-Sky2614 17d ago
Except it circles back to people voting with their wallets and not buying things that use AI art.
So at the end of the day artists do have value, and a lot of power too.
5
u/fell-off-the-spiral 17d ago
How long does it take for this circle to come back though? Graphic designers have bills to pay and families to support.
I haven’t seen any indication of this ‘power’.
3
u/Confident-Sky2614 17d ago
Already has.
People are exceedingly skeptical of AI and many will downright refuse to buy your merchandise, commission, music or video games if they use AI art.
Big brands is another thing entirely, but that's not where most artists earn their money anyways.
29
u/blueberrywalrus 17d ago
And people are voting that they don't care when it comes to the majority of commercial art applications.
Every major brand is integrating AI art into graphic design and when they get negative press the result is that people keep buying Coca Cola, Spotify, Kraft, etc.
The article we're commenting on is a completely different dynamic - where developers are choosing to either 1) buy hand crafted art or 2) not buy ai art but instead generate the AI art themselves.
3
u/Confident-Sky2614 17d ago
Big brands isn't how the vast majority of artists make their living though.
People will continue to be skeptical of AI when it comes to things like merch, video games, music, commissions..
7
u/Fyren-1131 17d ago
Incorrect. People absolutely choose artists over AI. Just not everyone does. Just check Fiverr as an example, freelancers without AI usage thrive.
→ More replies (1)23
u/parkinthepark 17d ago
An AI-generated sign/logo is an instant no-go for me for a local business. If you can’t be bothered to spend a couple hundred bucks on your graphic design, you’re definitely going to cheap out on my HVAC install.
Eventually that sentiment is going to spread, and businesses will be back in the market for designers.
20
u/unluckylighter 17d ago
I mean I hope I'm wrong but I think that's just wishful thinking. I think the market has changed forever, how much it goes back is debatable.
I kind of look at this in the same way that most people aren't willing to buy locally made goods when there's an alternative that's cheaper. Of course there are some that beat the drum of buying local but the vast majority of us struggle with finances as it is and frequently choose something made overseas because it's cheaper. It's sad but I think a lot of this is here to stay.
And sure a lot of people will still want a human-made object, but I worry that energy won't last. Let's see if people have the same energy for flock cameras as they do for the next iteration of alpr cameras from someone like axon. Same shit different day.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)12
u/SutekhThrowingSuckIt 17d ago
Boomers don’t care because they see it just as “more computer”, Gen Alpha will grow up with it and not care and see Gen Z + Millennial criticism of their use the same way we saw boomers criticizing our phone use (which was more right than we realized tbqh).
6
u/stormdelta 17d ago
In terms of using it at all, maybe.
But enshittification of tech generally is also creating a lot of push towards less digital and lower tech solutions too that I think is being missed by people who only ever hang out in tech spaces or online.
What I've been seeing IRL is more complicated, and it's a bit too early to call any cultural shifts just yet IMO.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)3
u/Dinara293 17d ago
Whatever AI is doing with graphic design, real people can do better, more personalised, higher quality, definitely not copied from something else. And now with the rise of credentials of images posted on various platforms being displayed, AI generated slop stands out like a sore thumb. Everybody will know that your poster required zero effort.
315
u/boowax 17d ago
If you didn’t bother writing it, why would I bother reading it?
61
u/NotAllOwled 17d ago
"ChatGPT, take whatever this is and incorporate anything that seems like material I'd enjoy in the next example of this sort of thing that I ask you to output for me. Creativity is so exhilarating!"
→ More replies (11)21
u/WittyCombination6 17d ago
Yeah like couldn't I just ask my own chat gpt to do the exact same thing.
It's like someone bought a burger from McDonald's and tried to sell it to me for more.
170
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
113
u/lietajucaPonorka 17d ago
I mean. If you fired all your artists and writers and coders... To make a cheap game, why the hell would I still pay the same money as I did for a real game by real humans? Why doesn't it cost 5$ now? You even bragged how much you are saving by firing all the people, how the productivity increased ... So why isn't it reflected in the price?
If you used to make luxury mahogany wood tables, and now you switched to plastic tables, why would you expect people to pay the same price.
→ More replies (2)41
u/kielbasa330 17d ago
Its like the flight of the Conchords said
"They're turning kids into slaves
Just to make cheaper sneakers
But what's the real cost?
'Cause the sneakers don't seem that much cheaper
Why are we still paying so much for sneakers ?
When you got them made by little slaves kids?
What are your overheads?"
→ More replies (2)29
u/fauxRealzy 17d ago
It’s not even just the ability to spot the difference. People don’t like talking to customer service or drive-through bots for the same reason they don’t like learning that some photograph or video was AI-generated. They don’t like being deceived.
22
u/thegoatmenace 17d ago
Digital assistants on the phone are also just a worse experience for the caller. Same as AI art. It’s bad and looks bad regardless of any moral issues people have with it.
→ More replies (1)8
u/FATPIGEONHATE 17d ago
Before Google forced me into Gemini, when I told the Google Assistant alarm 1 it would set an alarm for the next 1:00, am or pm, with no hesitation.
The first time I tried to use the Gemini assistant, it asked me what I wanted alarm 1:00 to do.
I just turned it off and just set my alarms manually now.
63
u/monetarydread 17d ago edited 17d ago
There was a similar report coming out of Steam last week, (edit: it was a month ago). Either way, AI slop games aren't making money unless it's named Call of Duty.
15
82
u/marketrent 17d ago
Opening paras. by Victor Tangermann, quoting 404’s Emanuel Maiberg:
Online marketplaces are being flooded with AI slop — but is anybody willing to actually pay for it?
In the case of CGTrader, a long-established online marketplace for 3D assets used by video game developers, film editors, and 3D printing nerds, users are sending a clear message.
As 404 Media reports, the marketplace is being flooded by AI-generated assets, representing one in six models — but they only account for only $1 out of every $90 in revenue.
In other words, virtually nobody’s willing to shell out for AI slop, meaning it’s economically almost valueless.
“Buyers are voting with their wallets, and AI-generated content is struggling to compete,” the company noted in a press release about its most recent 2026 market trends report, as quoted by 404.
The trend suggests there’s a growing “gap that undercuts the assumption that AI-made content is repricing the market.”
“The upload numbers alone would suggest a takeover,” the company noted. “The revenue numbers say otherwise, and buyers refusing to pay for AI-generated models is saying something bigger than no thanks: it is a signal of how far they trust AI generation itself.”
“Which leaves the question the industry has been avoiding: an AI model may be cheaper to produce, but what is it actually worth?”
56
u/sarcasmsosubtle 17d ago
The biggest problem isn't just that the output is basically valueless, it's that it's also being flooded out so quickly that it is destroying the ability to find content that has value in any marketplace that it infects. Your marketplace can have the best, highest quality goods for sale, but you're not going to sell any of them if your customers have to spend hours trying to fish them out of a swimming pool filled with raw sewage. Once there is a pipeline established from AI output to your digital marketplace, you can try to moderate it like Spotify and PlayStation Store, but it's going to replicate faster than you can moderate. You eventually have to excuse it entirely or it will overwhelm you. It's not just valueless, it becomes actively cancerous.
10
u/stagedgames 17d ago
I don't know any way to signal boost this more, but that's an absolutely incredible metaphor. well said.
→ More replies (3)3
u/unethicalpigeon 17d ago
The other problem specific to trying to monetize content created by AI is the fact that the people most likely to buy content created by AI are the exact same people that like using AI. So why would someone who likes to use AI pay you for something you used AI to generate when they can just see what you did, think it was cool, and do it themselves?
Now I'm not saying that generating decent stuff takes 15 seconds of prompting the way some people are. That's ridiculous. Anyone who's tried to do anything even remotely worthwhile with AI realizes this. But it's a hell of a lot easier than learning how to do the thing manually and doing it. Especially if someone already did it. Because while it might be really harder than people realize to get AI to output something you want it to, these LLMs are actually REALLY good at seeing something else made by AI, analyzing it, and figuring out how to replicate it. So there's literally no reason to buy something generated by AI when you can just show AI the page selling the thing and it can probably figure out how to replicate it.
42
u/PatchyWhiskers 17d ago
AI 3D models are painfully bad right now, unusable without knowing how to edit them.
7
u/Aternal 17d ago
That's the thing about 3D models in general, AI or not. Bad ones consume more of your time than they save, and even good ones require skill to use, rig, modify, and optimize. Using this specific technology as a barometer for "the economy's position on AI generated content" is dumb as fuck. It's like saying the economy is speaking out against microwave ovens because nobody wants to buy microwaved porterhouse steaks that are dry, tough, overcooked, and raw at the same time.
4
u/we_are_sex_bobomb 17d ago
And if you know enough about modeling to clean up an AI model, you quickly realize you can make it faster and better by hand than it would take to fix the janky ass rat king of meshes and textures that AI vomits out.
→ More replies (13)23
u/FredFredrickson 17d ago
I can't see this not being the case almost indefinitely.
First, almost every 3D model is created with an intention behind it and not for general use, which dictates how exactly it actually gets made, and the slop machine (and the people who use it) simply don't get that.
Second, I sort of doubt that there's enough good, publicly available models for training. Most examples of really good topology, rigging, etc. are propriety and aren't going to be fed into a publicly available AI.
→ More replies (6)14
u/PatchyWhiskers 17d ago
That's the issue. All the good 3D models are locked up in the vaults of movie and video game companies. If the AI companies want to train on them, they will need to pony up serious cash.
No doubt they are currently training on what is available on the web, which is mostly amateur stuff, student work, and not enough of it.
→ More replies (3)
41
u/fedexyourheadinabox 17d ago
Zero effort garbage, instantly forgettable and wholly disposable, on par with day old sundried dogshit.
13
u/muscleLAMP 17d ago
Yeah, but sun dried dogshit doesn’t steal jobs and wreck the environment.
→ More replies (1)
148
u/vickism61 17d ago
It's all inferior crap.
112
u/fascistno1hater 17d ago
AI is for stupid and non creative people to feel smart and artistic. It's just the next grift for Techbros because NFTs, the metaverse, and crypto never really took off. It has no profit model other than using money from Tech Corporations and taxpayers.
17
u/MeusRex 17d ago
I think the endgame is to become too big to fail. Once enough companies are entangled and an entire generation of students slopped their way through their education, the likes of altman will point at that and screech that the economy will come crashing down if they aren't propped up by the government and allowed to fail.
Elon became the richest man in the world thanks to government handouts.
3
u/fascistno1hater 17d ago edited 17d ago
I 100 percent agree to you assessment. These companies are trash and they know they are trash. So they are doing exactly what the banks, air lines and the auto manufacturers did to the taxpayers. Get us to bail them out from their BS.
→ More replies (9)53
u/therealchadius 17d ago
It's also for non creatives to get rich because they want to get to "Step 3: Profit" as soon as possible. Their heads explode when they learn artists are making music or writing stories because it's fun. Do enough to pay the bills and then it's party time.
38
u/CautionarySnail 17d ago
This. So much this.
As someone who dabbles in art, especially jewelry making - the non-stop push we get from friends and family is to monetize hobbies.
Nothing drains the joy out of a hobby faster than placing it into a pressure cooker of needing to feed your family with it. Suddenly everything is about cutting costs to make your hourly labor profitable - and it’s still never going to compete against AliExpress prices that people are used to for things.
Add to that our current economic pressures - layoffs, jobs that don’t quite pay enough in raises for the modest lifestyle you were living last year. Building skillsets takes years. AI promises near instant returns by taking those supposedly bad practice and learning years out of the equation.
I sympathize with them. The cultural message here is deafening: become your own boss or all poverty you experience has only you to blame! Passive streams of income! Gotta get that grindset mindset!
But they don’t realize that it’s mostly victim blaming propaganda. We were robbed a penny at a time. Wealth moves out of our layer of the economy and we were left in a sucking vacuum of its departure. And the best our politicians had to offer us were bootstraps and a blame game.
4
u/theLoneliestAardvark 17d ago
It’s crazy when people who mostly buy fast fashion gush about how talented people are for their hobbies and suggest you sell stuff without realizing how expensive handcrafted items are if you charge a reasonable rate for your skills and time. People might love hand knitted socks made with the nice yarn but they aren’t paying $50 for a pair and people who will pay that much are buying from luxury brands as a status symbol, not going to craft fairs.
→ More replies (3)5
u/raygundan 17d ago
The problem is twofold, though. If suddenly the stuff it generates is not crap, who would pay for it if they can just generate exactly what they want themselves? There’s no world where “somebody else’s AI output” sells. Today, it’s crap. Later, maybe it’s good….but nobody will buy that either.
32
u/Current-Brain-1983 17d ago
I just flew international. The music on the flight entertainment system had genres filled with artists and tracks I had never heard of. I couldn't listen to any of it.
All AI slop I believe. That means the airline pays no royalties and the employees to manage content and royalty payments is no longer needed.
Absolute garbage, worthless content.
→ More replies (5)
17
u/lookmeat 17d ago
That's the thing, AI isn't killing artists, executives. Execs who assume that what makes an artist good is their skill on making drawings, and not understanding that it's knowing how to make good drawings that matters more than skill sometimes (so many stick-man comics and videos show it to be the case). They assumed that since AI could draw well enough, it would do as good as their artists, throwing away the thing that actually was valuable.
And then they never did the math either way. Yeah for a hot second pumping out AI content could let you give quality-enough spam at a rate fast enough that you'd get a surprising level of success for the effort. But AI is neither cheap, and it's not good: literally anyone can prompt it to spam away, therefore using AI is literally the bottom level tier mediocre. It's you and a million more "geniuses who have a great idea", as if that was ever what decided.
8
u/Tokenside 16d ago
I'm a book designer, and I do a fair share of typesetting. I did a couple of barely edited AI-written books, especially during the most acute phase of the hype.
I do not read a whole book during typesetting, but I work with a written text which leaves an impression. A rhythm, which consists of an average sentence and paragraph length plus variations. Words and comma/period/ellipsis/semicolon usage. I read a paragraph when I remove a widow or an orphan line. When a written text is good and lively it's quite enjoyable process, typesetting.
Working with AI-written text very fast becomes a fucking monotonous bore, like chewing tasteless plastic. A text feels like a lifeless dull drone, or a limp cadaver which is just awkward to handle.
Nobody would fucking read that.
→ More replies (1)3
21
u/cuntmong 17d ago
I didn't bother spending the time to make this but you should still pay for it with your hard earned money
7
u/jolard 17d ago
Honestly AI is not improving lives beyond some superficial ways, like easier searching for information.
No one wants corporations to make more money by cutting back on workers/creatives etc. What they want is for AI to improve efficiencies so that goods and services are CHEAPER, not so shareholders get richer. If we could cut our cost of living in half because of AI designed efficiencies for example, then we would all be cheering. Or they want to work less for the same money and take that as a benefit of the AI revolution. But the gatekeepers and owners of AI keep that dangled out as the carrot while in reality they are just making most people poorer.
We need to demand better. We need to demand that the efficiencies benefit everyone, not just a handful of shareholders. But in places like the United States that is almost impossible because of the deep seated hostility to public benefit when it conflicts with private profit.
→ More replies (8)3
u/AdminsLoveGenocide 17d ago
Google, etc, were far better a decade or two ago. They deliberately made them worse to make more money on advertising.
There was no need for LLMs to make search engines better.
13
u/bikes_bucees 17d ago
There are a few things AI signals that kills a brand. However, a huge issue is that it lets people with zero creative skill ship half-assed ideas in quick succession. No more pesky questions or push back from the creative team.
→ More replies (1)
20
u/thegoatmenace 17d ago
It seems like the only consumer facing use case for AI that people seem to like is coding. Generative AI art just produces crap that no one wants to engage with.
→ More replies (22)
17
9
u/Jijonbreaker1 17d ago
This has been coming for a while now.
People are so obsessed with money and laws that they forget they don't actually mean anything. There is no substance there. All they are is paper and ink.
They only have meaning and value when people agree that they have value. And when people stop respecting them, they stop meaning anything.
8
u/CastorVT 17d ago
my personal favorite are the AI artists who get mad when you go "why the fuck would I pay for you when I could just use the thing your using and get it without a middleman?" and they got no response.
like I pay artists cause they do something.
I can type shit into a glorified search engine too, AI champ.
11
u/_steve_rogers_ 17d ago
It’s hilarious seeing people on subreddits like Suno bend over backwards trying to justify how typing in a prompt makes them true musicians/ artists like anyone else. The level of delusion is insane
→ More replies (1)
10
u/MimiNuyasaka 17d ago
This is why people like Tim Sweeney are pissed Steam is labeling AI content. The rich don't want us to know things are AI, because they know we won't buy it.
I'd have much less of an issue with AI use in games if it wasn't almost exclusively rich companies just cutting corners; companies that can absolutely afford to pay artists and hire designers.
→ More replies (5)3
u/daddywookie 17d ago
Have a look around the various AI game dev communities on Reddit and you’ll see plenty of solo developers using it to make games that were far beyond their reach previously. The AAA studios are trying to cut corners as is required by their revenue models. For the Indy scene though it could enable far more creatives than it ruins.
10
u/draganArmanskij 17d ago
They really need to rise their prices in AI if they want to make it profitable. But if one would pay a substantial amount to make lets say a 3d asset. They might think a person to create is more efficient to make something than generating something dozens of times until you have something that resembles what you actually wanted in the first place.
10
8
7
7
u/we_are_sex_bobomb 17d ago
I work in video games.
If you wanted to create a videogame where all the art is clip art and you’d rather pay liscensing fees to Shutterstock than hire artists, you can absolutely and that, and people will look at your clip art game and say “I’m not buying that cheap low effort cash grab shovelware.”
AI is really no different in the consumer’s mind. It doesn’t even matter what it looks like; it projects a sense of low effort/low quality, and there’s no way of disassociating the word from that. Even if you’re using LLMs to do something really cool that took a lot of work, it will be perceived as a cheap counterfeit.
There’s no meaningful gains to be had.
→ More replies (2)4
8
u/RedofPaw 17d ago
Of course it has zero value. Obviously.
Why would I pay you to prompt something for me? I can do so myself.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/TDVapermann 17d ago
What's awful is how many thousands of AI based companies have popped up over the last few months trying to convince you that 'you' need ai and are nothing without it, your business will fail with out it, you will fail without it.
Nobody wants that trash.
7
u/teraflux 17d ago
They're objectively worse from my experience.
I've actually done 3d modeling with AI, and it's one of the things AI is very poor at. LLM's at least, have very poor understanding of spatial awareness, and it produces very poor quality compared to other tasks you can give an LLM.
Once they come up with an AI trained specifically on 3d models, that might be work much better (if there isn't already one), but your standard claude / codex / gemini is utter trash at 3d models.
7
u/acart005 17d ago
That exists. Meshy is probably the most popular.
Its not making a flawless Space Marine any time soon - but it can give you a not terrible place to start messing with Blender.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/chargingwookie 17d ago
You didn’t write it, I’m not reading it. You didn’t create it, I’m not buying it. simple as.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/GotSomeUpdogOnUrFace 17d ago
Remember when these were those pieces of shit were all in on nfts and how it was going to change the world.
3
3
u/MR_Se7en 17d ago
Human made items will forever bring more value - this was a history lesson we have already learned.
3
u/funkiestj 17d ago
IMO, this is just the early days of the AI revolution. In the dotcom bubble we had "internet everything" and so many of the startup ideas were just bad.
There will be good uses of AI helping skilled content generators create amazing things.
Photoshop and digital video production drove the cost of creating content that met a certain bar way down. AI will drive it down more. You still need good storytellers to create compelling stories. E.g. I trust the folks at Larian to use AI in ways that will give us a kick ass new Divinity game.
3
u/Secure_Enthusiasm354 17d ago
Ai bros are doing the same thing that NFT bros did back then: trying to convince everyone to invest into it and that it is the next biggest fad when it provides nothing of value
3
u/affordable_luxury 17d ago
My work has nothing to do with anything creative but I am an average user of GIMP, and a few years back management discovered that I can adapt an image for a presentation pretty quickly. After a few months where everybody was generating low-quality AI images, now I'm having more requests than ever to edit pictures so management can boast of non-AI presentation.
Mind you, this is not my job, but people in my company are happy and I get some perks thanks to this extra ability I have.
3
u/totallyrealname 17d ago
Giving NFT vibes. But also, to be fair, this example is about CGTrader and 3D assets. Those are basically completely useless in any actual CG pipeline as it takes more work to retopo them and fix the mistakes than it would to just build it from scratch or download from an actual human artist. I don't know how well this translates to stuff like video and stock images, but then again why would anyone bother buying those assets from a website instead of just generating it themselves? Either way, I hope these idiots who have been jumping on every bandwagon like it's a get rich quick scheme eventually give up and we can at least go back down to a manageable level of slop.
3
u/GonzoKata 17d ago
what wallets? What Money?? They aren't paying us shit now! I fucking hate this take about how the consumer are to blame for not spending enough money for X
If they want us to spend money on anything they have to fucking pay us more.
3
u/OriginalZash 16d ago
Please don't let this headline lul people into thinking "Well most people are fighting back, so it's okay if I keep using it..."
4
6
4.4k
u/fmcortez 17d ago
When the cost of generating content drops to literal zero, the market value drops right along with it. Nobody wants to pay for something anyone can prompt in five seconds.