Even if automation takes all the jerbs away, there's nothing stopping you from making game art.
The industry has always been passion driven, making money off doing what you love was the bonus part.
Especially as we're quickly moving into a world where game production can be achieved by anyone in their bedrooms via free 3D software and game engines, instead of requiring a bulky studio staffed by hundreds of developers. Once intelligent robots enter the mix, the industry landscape will look very different in the next 10 or 20 years.
Even if automation takes all the jerbs away, there's nothing stopping you from making game art.
The industry has always been passion driven, making money off doing what you love was the bonus part.
Especially as we're quickly moving into a world where game production can be achieved by anyone in their bedrooms via free 3D software and game engines, instead of requiring a bulky studio staffed by hundreds of developers. Once intelligent robots enter the mix, the industry landscape will look very different in the next 10 or 20 years.
Passion may drive individuals, but there's one thing driving any industry at large. Money.
Even if automation takes all the jerbs away, there's nothing stopping you from making game art.
The industry has always been passion driven, making money off doing what you love was the bonus part.
Especially as we're quickly moving into a world where game production can be achieved by anyone in their bedrooms via free 3D software and game engines, instead of requiring a bulky studio staffed by hundreds of developers. Once intelligent robots enter the mix, the industry landscape will look very different in the next 10 or 20 years.
Passion may drive individuals, but there's one thing driving any industry at large. Money.
The arms race for realer and realer graphics has always meant something was going to give. I don't doubt money is a factor, but I don't see proportional compensation for the heavy amount of crunch, layoffs, abuse from toxic fans of games, and lack of unionization. Some people I've talked to say they get paid more for doing other computer jobs then they did in games.
I don't hold this against the industry though. A lot of jobs today exploit workers to work far more hours and input more labor than necessary while seeing little from the company's complete profits.
This is where automation will become both a force for good and for evil. Humans will no longer have to put themselves through slave like conditions just to get a paycheque. But on the flipside, robots freeing us from this might create a whole new social strata where hard work won't be enough to get higher on the corporate ladder.
Even if automation takes all the jerbs away, there's nothing stopping you from making game art.
The industry has always been passion driven, making money off doing what you love was the bonus part.
Especially as we're quickly moving into a world where game production can be achieved by anyone in their bedrooms via free 3D software and game engines, instead of requiring a bulky studio staffed by hundreds of developers. Once intelligent robots enter the mix, the industry landscape will look very different in the next 10 or 20 years.
Passion may drive individuals, but there's one thing driving any industry at large. Money.
The arms race for realer and realer graphics has always meant something was going to give. I don't doubt money is a factor, but I don't see proportional compensation for the heavy amount of crunch, layoffs, abuse from toxic fans of games, and lack of unionization. Some people I've talked to say they get paid more for doing other computer jobs then they did in games.
I don't hold this against the industry though. A lot of jobs today exploit workers to work far more hours and input more labor than necessary while seeing little from the company's complete profits.
This is where automation will become both a force for good and for evil. Humans will no longer have to put themselves through slave like conditions just to get a paycheque. But on the flipside, robots freeing us from this might create a whole new social strata where hard work won't be enough to get higher on the corporate ladder.
Human brain will be focused on things that will be needed, to get a job. We might be the robots' assistants! there will be plenty of ways we will think to make ourselves usefull. Don't forget that marketing yourself to other humans is what gives you a job as well, not just your skills. We are totally capable of creating a "need" to the market so that we can work, even when there's none
I don't think machine learning will ever out compete humans in most jobs.
I'm huge fan of tech but, I can't say I have a lot of faith in AI to do anything other than recommend me nice email reply suggestions and Youtube videos, even then it fails most of the time.
At most it might make our jobs easier,maybe in the way of some god like retopology algorithm or something.
It will come but artist will also develop. As always. When photography was invented, art had to be redefined. The result is what we call modern art. That is todays task as well. But in a much wider field and much faster. Not all will be able to follow, a bunch of unnecessary work will not be needed anymore. Recreation of reality, retopology, rigging ,weighting, will be obsolete. Just in a few years. But the real innovative fancy stuff not.
But it will be not easy to tell if this is original artwork, or just a reprojection of existing stuff. Neural network will come to 3D as well. What we do today with those apps like prisma will be done in 3D. Reprojecting one art to another and create new "art"
Well, it won't be easy and the question is quite old, like: "Is a good DJ an artist?"
I still trying to believe that the humans always will be necessary to refine the automation process.. These videos are painfull to watch hehehe, now i have that news informations on my mind, after reading and watching this videos, the seed was planted !
Re: the idea that we could be useful to AI and robots of the future, as assistants: do you guys really think creatures that think and move this fast need will need *our* help? :P
@Larry yep, that will definitely help as well. Im not sure if it will decrease dramatically, but it will definitely be smaller. here is an interesting video about it btw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348
this video might have logic, but they do not take into consideration "automation". With the way things are, currently, people are able to have children and live a normal life, because they do a job. Even if it is not paying them well enough, it is still manageable to survive. In a future where automation takes over those jobs, it can easily reach numbers like 70% of the worldwide jobs being done by robots. Robots do not require salary, they do not get tired, and even if their cost is HUGE, it might be more benefitial than humans in the long run. If you put this variable into the futuristic "stabilised" population growth, it will have a huge impact on the decline of human species, because if people barely have money or no money at all to survive, how are they going to make it while having children?
I'm late to this party but like... what would the purpose of automation be if over 50% of the population is unemployed? I don't see how our society would function as it does today and unless an entire new world order begins after all of this automation I don't understand it happening the way that we seem to fear.
If every car on the road is automated, creative jobs are automated, doctors are automated, there's no employees in the grocery store because it's automated, etc... who's driving the economy thus driving the need for automation to increase profits/efficiency? Would people even want a world where if they step outside robots are literally doing everything? If most people aren't working and bringing in income then to what end are these enterprises employing automation in the first place? Who's consuming these automated goods and with what money?
So after automation takes over is that the end of job = money = spending = economy? Because that's the only way I can think of automation taking over literally everything. I don't see how capitalism would work in that model. Though I can totally see it working in some sort of Star Trek type world though, which.... actually sounds pretty cool. But somehow I doubt it would end up that way.
@Larry yep, that will definitely help as well. Im not sure if it will decrease dramatically, but it will definitely be smaller. here is an interesting video about it btw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348
this video might have logic, but they do not take into consideration "automation". With the way things are, currently, people are able to have children and live a normal life, because they do a job. Even if it is not paying them well enough, it is still manageable to survive. In a future where automation takes over those jobs, it can easily reach numbers like 70% of the worldwide jobs being done by robots. Robots do not require salary, they do not get tired, and even if their cost is HUGE, it might be more benefitial than humans in the long run. If you put this variable into the futuristic "stabilised" population growth, it will have a huge impact on the decline of human species, because if people barely have money or no money at all to survive, how are they going to make it while having children?
I'm late to this party but like... what would the purpose of automation be if over 50% of the population is unemployed? I don't see how our society would function as it does today and unless an entire new world order begins after all of this automation I don't understand it happening the way that we seem to fear.
If every car on the road is automated, creative jobs are automated, doctors are automated, there's no employees in the grocery store because it's automated, etc... who's driving the economy thus driving the need for automation to increase profits/efficiency? Would people even want a world where if they step outside robots are literally doing everything? If most people aren't working and bringing in income then to what end are these enterprises employing automation in the first place? Who's consuming these automated goods and with what money?
So after automation takes over is that the end of job = money = spending = economy? Because that's the only way I can think of automation taking over literally everything. I don't see how capitalism would work in that model. Though I can totally see it working in some sort of Star Trek type world though, which.... actually sounds pretty cool. But somehow I doubt it would end up that way.
yep, thats exactly why its an interesting but also really scary situation.
Automation isnt a bad thing, I'm pro basic income but it could mean making a No Man's Sky-like scale or something on the level of Star Citizen becomes more accessible to more people. Then we'll need the time of course to enjoy everyone's work which is already hard enough with steam backlogs etc
It's all about humans being able to share the benefits of a world where less work done by man is needed, and it has been going on for a long time, AI or no AI less people will need to work, the systems and thinking that they have in the US for example is not really a good fit for this, since wealthy people will have an even easier time to get richer with better automated software and machines and because it's scale able and reliable, manual unskilled labor won't be needed and not everyone can start their own companies or make their own products, so some people will just not be able to work.
Basic income will be a given in the future, or you let around 80% of the human population die out. So in the future, at least for social democratic countries you will have a big chunk of people just living their lives, ordinary good lives without work, but you will also have those that want more, that start their own companies and create new products and services.
Basic Income is far from a good thing. It invokes slavery by the masses.
I'm sure anyone with an open mind would be more then happy to hear about other solutions. but the countries closest to it is far from enslaved, so please elaborate.
Basic Income is far from a good thing. It invokes slavery by the masses.
I'm sure anyone with an open mind would be more then happy to hear about other solutions. but the countries closest to it is far from enslaved, so please elaborate.
It's a progression, if basic income were to become the norm which it won't; once everyone requires a basic income to survive then the government has a monopoly over whether you eat or not based on notions you must believe which the government tells it's citizens. I know there doing it or rather testing it in some European countries, as well; in Canada they tested basic income in Manitoba in the 1970's and it was a failed project.
Basic Income is far from a good thing. It invokes slavery by the masses.
I'm sure anyone with an open mind would be more then happy to hear about other solutions. but the countries closest to it is far from enslaved, so please elaborate.
It's a progression, if basic income were to become the norm which it won't; once everyone requires a basic income to survive then the government has a monopoly over whether you eat or not based on notions you must believe which the government tells it's citizens. I know there doing it or rather testing it in some European countries, as well; in Canada they tested basic income in Manitoba in the 1970's and it was a failed project.
As you say " once everyone requires a basic income to survive " it's an outcome of something that has nothing to do with basic income and will happen whether or not our solution is basic income or not, also no one have monopoly on whether you eat or not, if you have a job nothing changes for you, and people that would otherwise starve would be able to survive.
The outcome you talk about above is more possible with a country ruled by companies and a top of rich people, where you vote with your money rather then one person one vote.
Of course this depends on the country and who you choose to be at the wheel, sadly the flaw of democracy is that the mayority of people are either not that smart or lack knowledge or will to read up on the people they vote into office.
As for the anti government people, I think the cabin in the woods lifestyle will still be possible in the future as well.
[quote]also no one have monopoly on whether you eat or not, if you have a job
nothing changes for you, and people that would otherwise starve would be
able to survive[/quote] You can't have a job and be on basic income, from what I've read.
No Government at this point and into the future, is controlling the wheel, whether you like side A or B; mostly there are only two sides politically in most countries. Cabin in the woods people are not per se Anti-Government; they choose not to have Government know whom they are and they can survive without what has been told to us is "modern" when in reality we are all just slaves whether you like it or not.
The idea about basic income is that all people get a base income no matter what you do, work or not. if it's only about getting money when you can't find work or can't work then you basically already have that system in Scandinavian countries, as long as you are actively searching for a job you can get money to survive.
The problem about actually having a basic income for everyone right now is that we still need a big % of people to work, so we don't want people to lose motivation to work, so I think such a system will work best when 50% of our current work force is not needed anymore.
Well I guess I try to stay positive, but if you give up and say the rich and powerful have all the power anyway then go over to their side and hope for money to trickle down, then you have your enslaved scenario.
The funny thing is; the rich and powerful do have all the power, they control the governments; whether you agree or not. What you are referring too is a safety net, but; and there is a big but. One can't tell those on the safety net to find work; if there is no work. And one can shout all the statistics but those are mostly altered figures, not reality. Which is why you can't classify "bobby" whom is on the safety net the same as "susan" whom also is on the safety net.
There is capitalism and communism. Are the two co-existing to a degree at present, yes.
It's not about agreeing or not, money will always be able to give someone power but there are ways to partly protect the system through law and public opinion, some countries do it better then others, If you normalize taking hand outs from big cooperations to pass bills it will just become even more common, in some countries even if it was legal they just wouldn't do it because they know they wouldn't be able to live a normal life if they were found out.
Think you lost me on the other points but we should probably end our debate here, think I forgot what the topic was originally about hehe.
@CreativeSheep Communism does not exist. At their core,every leader of a communist group wants to get power and money for themselves, and the rest of the world can share equally. @Jonas Ronnegard I like the fact that you try to be positive, and i hope you are right, but unfortunately history has shown that there is no survival and no remorse for those who are not needed. Norway and Switzerland pay everyone money,whether they work or not, and it is a bit better than the starting salary in those countries (so if you do NOT work you get more money than if you start working) but that can only be achieved in a low scale, at a time where these countries have money that they do not know what to do. Economy has its ups and downs, and there will certainly be a time when that paying everyone will stop there as well. Imagine the whole world getting paid.What is the purpose of money then? I would agree better to a scenario that everyone in the world gets free products to survive, like food water clothes.And even that will grow our numbers exponentially and can result to even more problems. And if such a future exists, i mostly see it working in a monarchy system rather than democracy
Some very good points on both sides, Im worried about the control basic income can give people of power as well.
BUT a thing to remember is we are not talking about adding basic income or a version of communism into current society, we are talking about a potential reality where 50-75% (or even more) of the worlds population doesn't have a job. That is a completely different world, and personally I have no idea how we could solve it in any other way.
also worth noting, if you look at it from a more sci-fi or dystopian point of view, we might not even have a human government at that point.
On a more positive note, there's a possibility AI can actually be used to help game development.
For example, there's a video series of of a person teaching AI how to play video games. This type of research could be used for better understanding QA, or even creating games that have a biological basis for being hard or easy to people.
Look at his latest video, it's all being played by a Robot. There is no human involved.
Replies
The industry has always been passion driven, making money off doing what you love was the bonus part.
Especially as we're quickly moving into a world where game production can be achieved by anyone in their bedrooms via free 3D software and game engines, instead of requiring a bulky studio staffed by hundreds of developers. Once intelligent robots enter the mix, the industry landscape will look very different in the next 10 or 20 years.
"they took my game art job! the machines must be stopped!"
I don't hold this against the industry though. A lot of jobs today exploit workers to work far more hours and input more labor than necessary while seeing little from the company's complete profits.
This is where automation will become both a force for good and for evil. Humans will no longer have to put themselves through slave like conditions just to get a paycheque. But on the flipside, robots freeing us from this might create a whole new social strata where hard work won't be enough to get higher on the corporate ladder.
We are totally capable of creating a "need" to the market so that we can work, even when there's none
I don't think machine learning will ever out compete humans in most jobs.
I'm huge fan of tech but, I can't say I have a lot of faith in AI to do anything other than recommend me nice email reply suggestions and Youtube videos, even then it fails most of the time.
At most it might make our jobs easier,maybe in the way of some god like retopology algorithm or something.
As always.
When photography was invented, art had to be redefined.
The result is what we call modern art.
That is todays task as well.
But in a much wider field and much faster.
Not all will be able to follow, a bunch of unnecessary work will not be needed anymore.
Recreation of reality, retopology, rigging ,weighting, will be obsolete. Just in a few years.
But the real innovative fancy stuff not.
But it will be not easy to tell if this is original artwork, or just a reprojection of existing stuff.
Neural network will come to 3D as well.
What we do today with those apps like prisma will be done in 3D.
Reprojecting one art to another and create new "art"
Well, it won't be easy and the question is quite old, like:
"Is a good DJ an artist?"
These videos are painfull to watch hehehe, now i have that news informations on my mind, after reading and watching this videos, the seed was planted !
More info and videos here, including in the comments: https://boingboing.net/2017/11/27/fighting-robots-as-fast-as-th.html
Prof Stephen Hawking's pessimistic thoughts on AI (at 4:30 in)
I'm late to this party but like... what would the purpose of automation be if over 50% of the population is unemployed? I don't see how our society would function as it does today and unless an entire new world order begins after all of this automation I don't understand it happening the way that we seem to fear.
If every car on the road is automated, creative jobs are automated, doctors are automated, there's no employees in the grocery store because it's automated, etc... who's driving the economy thus driving the need for automation to increase profits/efficiency? Would people even want a world where if they step outside robots are literally doing everything? If most people aren't working and bringing in income then to what end are these enterprises employing automation in the first place? Who's consuming these automated goods and with what money?
So after automation takes over is that the end of job = money = spending = economy? Because that's the only way I can think of automation taking over literally everything. I don't see how capitalism would work in that model. Though I can totally see it working in some sort of Star Trek type world though, which.... actually sounds pretty cool. But somehow I doubt it would end up that way.
Basic income will be a given in the future, or you let around 80% of the human population die out.
So in the future, at least for social democratic countries you will have a big chunk of people just living their lives, ordinary good lives
without work, but you will also have those that want more, that start their own companies and create new products and services.
but the countries closest to it is far from enslaved, so please elaborate.
I know there doing it or rather testing it in some European countries, as well; in Canada they tested basic income in Manitoba in the 1970's and it was a failed project.
The outcome you talk about above is more possible with a country ruled by companies and a top of rich people, where you vote with your money rather then one person one vote.
Of course this depends on the country and who you choose to be at the wheel, sadly the flaw of democracy is that the mayority of people are either not that smart or lack knowledge or will to read up on the people they vote into office.
As for the anti government people, I think the cabin in the woods lifestyle will still be possible in the future as well.
You can't have a job and be on basic income, from what I've read.
No Government at this point and into the future, is controlling the wheel, whether you like side A or B; mostly there are only two sides politically in most countries.
Cabin in the woods people are not per se Anti-Government; they choose not to have Government know whom they are and they can survive without what has been told to us is "modern" when in reality we are all just slaves whether you like it or not.
The problem about actually having a basic income for everyone right now is that we still need a big % of people to work, so we don't want people to lose motivation to work, so I think such a system will work best when 50% of our current work force is not needed anymore.
Well I guess I try to stay positive, but if you give up and say the rich and powerful have all the power anyway then go over to their side and hope for money to trickle down, then you have your enslaved scenario.
There is capitalism and communism. Are the two co-existing to a degree at present, yes.
Think you lost me on the other points but we should probably end our debate here, think I forgot what the topic was originally about hehe.
Communism does not exist. At their core,every leader of a communist group wants to get power and money for themselves, and the rest of the world can share equally.
@Jonas Ronnegard
I like the fact that you try to be positive, and i hope you are right, but unfortunately history has shown that there is no survival and no remorse for those who are not needed. Norway and Switzerland pay everyone money,whether they work or not, and it is a bit better than the starting salary in those countries (so if you do NOT work you get more money than if you start working) but that can only be achieved in a low scale, at a time where these countries have money that they do not know what to do. Economy has its ups and downs, and there will certainly be a time when that paying everyone will stop there as well. Imagine the whole world getting paid.What is the purpose of money then? I would agree better to a scenario that everyone in the world gets free products to survive, like food water clothes.And even that will grow our numbers exponentially and can result to even more problems. And if such a future exists, i mostly see it working in a monarchy system rather than democracy
BUT a thing to remember is we are not talking about adding basic income or a version of communism into current society, we are talking about a potential reality where 50-75% (or even more) of the worlds population doesn't have a job. That is a completely different world, and personally I have no idea how we could solve it in any other way.
also worth noting, if you look at it from a more sci-fi or dystopian point of view, we might not even have a human government at that point.
For example, there's a video series of of a person teaching AI how to play video games. This type of research could be used for better understanding QA, or even creating games that have a biological basis for being hard or easy to people.
Look at his latest video, it's all being played by a Robot. There is no human involved.