Embracer Group put out their plans for AI in game development

Quoting: pb

Quoting: Salvatos

QuoteIf in a game scenario you bargain, AI can remember this the next time.

Holy shit, they just invented persistent game states! Now I understand why everyone is hype about AI. Sign me up!

Imagine this: you buy an RPG game and the NPCs view and treat you depending on whether you bought it for a full price or on sale. If you bought it at -90%, your reputation is minimal and everyone sees you as a pariah. On the other hand, if your reputation is balanced, every cosmetic DLC you buy makes you more of a celebrity in the game's world.

An interesting/horrible idea. But it still wouldn't require AI in any way shape or form.

Let's be honest, anyone saying that AI won't kill jobs is either a blatant liar or really ignorant. Of course it will. It will kill a whole lot of jobs. And in all honesty, there is nothing wrong with it, as long as we find ways to transform our society to adapt to a "work is mostly optional" world and let go of the silly notion that people aren't valuable unless they earn an income.

About the less distant future: I think in 10 years, there will be two kinds of game studios. The ones that have adopted AI in their tool-chain, and the bankrupt ones. I cannot recall any instance in history where businesses thrived for overly long by refusing to adapt transformative technologies. And people should be very careful to dismiss AI as a hype because the current models produce buggy code or people with six fingers. They will not do that for too much longer.

Quoting: KimyrielleThey will not do that for too much longer.

This is the assumption I'm not sure about. We tend to think of these AI things as a disruptive new technology just at the beginning of a climb to amazingness. But in reality, as far as I can tell they're actually a technology that has been around for some time, which over many years was developed to the point where someone with seriously deep pockets felt it was worth putting the muscle in to get a really huge data set shoved into one. So rather than a disruptive newborn technology, it's more like a fairly mature technology which has now been brought to the full industrial scale.

So now we have them with the really huge data sets, and I think it's shown us some impressive things about this kind of "AI" technology, but also some limitations. They got what they got currently mainly by getting a bigger (data) hammer, and there aren't a lot of bigger hammers left to get, so I'm not convinced they'll go that much further. It's like the way self-driving cars looked so promising and then their capabilities kind of plateaued and now they don't get talked about that much and one of the pioneers of the field is now working on simplified self-driving for mining and other industrial site vehicles because he's decided the full consumer self-driving is not a problem solvable with the kind of technology current self-driving is based on.

I think they're also unusually difficult to improve. Normal technologies have known characteristics, which you can then tweak and build on. These "AI" technologies, including the self-driving cars, are about a kind of forced evolution process which results in black boxes. You can't really tweak and build on them because you don't understand what they do in the first place.

I'm not saying they're bad technology. Really, they'd be pretty cool if weren't for all the relentless grift and hype and the likelihood that anything useful they do will be used by really rich people to make everyone else's lives worse. I just think they're a lot closer to a plateau in terms of their capabilities than a lot of people expect.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 21 June 2024 at 8:12 pm UTC

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBut in reality, as far as I can tell they're actually a technology that has been around for some time, which over many years was developed to the point where someone with seriously deep pockets felt it was worth putting the muscle in to get a really huge data set shoved into one. So rather than a disruptive newborn technology, it's more like a fairly mature technology which has now been brought to the full industrial scale.

Yes, and no. The math has been there for a while, true. But only now we have the serious computing power to actually train these models to the degree they're useful. Can't train GPT-4 on a cluster of 386s, I guess. ;)

QuoteThey got what they got currently mainly by getting a bigger (data) hammer, and there aren't a lot of bigger hammers left to get, so I'm not convinced they'll go that much further.

I don't know about that? Looking at NVidia's AI chips, every new generation seems to be ridiculously more powerful than the last. I guess we will throw bigger hammers at the problem for a while longer, and we're already at a point where eliminating major issues with the tech is within reach. We will never be able to 100% eliminate hallucination, because that's not how the math works, but reducing it enough is sufficient. Humans hallucinate, too. The AI only needs to be as good as them, not perfect. We should be there soon enough.

QuoteI'm not saying they're bad technology. Really, they'd be pretty cool if weren't for all the relentless grift and hype and the likelihood that anything useful they do will be used by really rich people to make everyone else's lives worse. I just think they're a lot closer to a plateau in terms of their capabilities than a lot of people expect.

I keep reading papers on improvements and new approaches for existing tech on a daily basis. We're not even close to plateauing. And while I share your concern about AI being monopolized by Big Evil Tech, so far it hasn't happened. There are a lot of open source models around that can compete fairly ok with the closed-source cloud services.

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBut in reality, as far as I can tell they're actually a technology that has been around for some time, which over many years was developed to the point where someone with seriously deep pockets felt it was worth putting the muscle in to get a really huge data set shoved into one. So rather than a disruptive newborn technology, it's more like a fairly mature technology which has now been brought to the full industrial scale.

Yes, and no. The math has been there for a while, true. But only now we have the serious computing power to actually train these models to the degree they're useful. Can't train GPT-4 on a cluster of 386s, I guess. ;)

QuoteThey got what they got currently mainly by getting a bigger (data) hammer, and there aren't a lot of bigger hammers left to get, so I'm not convinced they'll go that much further.

I don't know about that? Looking at NVidia's AI chips, every new generation seems to be ridiculously more powerful than the last. I guess we will throw bigger hammers at the problem for a while longer, and we're already at a point where eliminating major issues with the tech is within reach. We will never be able to 100% eliminate hallucination, because that's not how the math works, but reducing it enough is sufficient. Humans hallucinate, too. The AI only needs to be as good as them, not perfect. We should be there soon enough.

QuoteI'm not saying they're bad technology. Really, they'd be pretty cool if weren't for all the relentless grift and hype and the likelihood that anything useful they do will be used by really rich people to make everyone else's lives worse. I just think they're a lot closer to a plateau in terms of their capabilities than a lot of people expect.

I keep reading papers on improvements and new approaches for existing tech on a daily basis. We're not even close to plateauing. And while I share your concern about AI being monopolized by Big Evil Tech, so far it hasn't happened. There are a lot of open source models around that can compete fairly ok with the closed-source cloud services.

Just to be clear, when I said bigger (data) hammer, I meant the amount of data being used to train the model, not processing power, which doesn't seem to be the limitation. The top ones currently have basically scraped the whole internet, so I'm not sure there's a whole lot more to scrape. If anything, going forward there may be less, as copyright holders block such uses and privacy models pay attention to the issue; as well as worse, as AI models increasingly scrape AI content.

When I say plateau, I don't mean to say nothing whatsoever will happen; plateaus aren't entirely flat. But there's a difference between the progress in aviation from the Wright Brothers to the 747, and the progress in aviation since then (not to mention regression; 737MAX anyone?). I'm saying that "AI" bursting on the scene all of a sudden makes us feel like this is the Wright Brothers time for this kind of technology, when it may instead be the 747 moment and the earlier part was just quiet. There will probably in the future be other kinds of "AI" based on different ideas that give results that are intelligence-like in more important ways, but I think it's likely they won't be souped-up ChatGPT.

Quoting: KimyrielleWe will never be able to 100% eliminate hallucination, because that's not how the math works, but reducing it enough is sufficient. Humans hallucinate, too. The AI only needs to be as good as them, not perfect.

I'll do you one better: if my field is any indication, the AI doesn't need to be as good as humans, just faster. Then companies can pay a fraction of the humans a fraction of their former salary to review and "adjust as needed" and deliver more output in a fraction of the time. That's a lot of money at stake for the people not actually producing anything.


Last edited by Salvatos on 21 June 2024 at 11:29 pm UTC

Quoting: JustinWoodThere's an absolutely delightful blog I read yesterday that I feel does a wonderful job about why the AI hype is just grifters overpromising on what generative AI can do. Recommend folks take a look at it! https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/i-will-fucking-piledrive-you-if-you-mention-ai-again/

That was a great read and a great laugh (I totally lost it at "Synergy Greg"! ) - many thanks for linking to it! Lots of common-sense in there, always nice to see (he even linked to this !).


Last edited by Pengling on 22 June 2024 at 3:04 am UTC

Quoting: DrMcCoyThe problem with Embracer is that they're not in the business of making games, making art. They're in the business of making money. They don't care how. They don't care the games apart from them being their current vehicle of making money.

That's every game company that is (or is owned by) a company on the stock market. They are happy about an inferior product as long as it improves the bottom line.

Quoting: DrMcCoyThe problem with Embracer is that they're not in the business of making games, making art. They're in the business of making money. They don't care how. They don't care the games apart from them being their current vehicle of making money.

That isn't true. It is true of Activision post Bobby "I want to take all the fun out of making games" Kotick. It wasn't even true of EA when they were still Electronic Arts, although it is true now.

Embracer is the built-up business of someone that started out selling second-hand comics. You could say that they aren't in the business of making games, but that's because getting a game over the finish line is hard, and they haven't demonstrated much efficiency at getting that done, rather than from lack of will. And they're currently in the business of getting out of a $2 billion hole; rather than firing people for S&Gs after a super profitable period like, say, Microsoft, or Ubisoft, or Take-Two, or any of the others that have done that exact thing.

Quoting: JustinWoodThere's an absolutely delightful blog I read yesterday that I feel does a wonderful job about why the AI hype is just grifters overpromising on what generative AI can do. Recommend folks take a look at it! https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/i-will-fucking-piledrive-you-if-you-mention-ai-again/

Thanks for this. I am in complete agreement with the author of this blog post. I wish people would stop using the term "AI" to describe this technology. LLM (Large Language Model) may be many things but it is not true artificial intelligence. As I see it, it is, at best, a large database parser, nothing more.

Can't wait to not buy it.

Quoting: dvd

Quoting: DrMcCoyThe problem with Embracer is that they're not in the business of making games, making art. They're in the business of making money. They don't care how. They don't care the games apart from them being their current vehicle of making money.

That's every game company that is (or is owned by) a company on the stock market. They are happy about an inferior product as long as it improves the bottom line.

This describes most publicly traded corporations. Their lifeblood is money. They don't care how they acquire it nor do they care about the non-financial costs incurred while doing so.

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: dvd

Quoting: DrMcCoyThe problem with Embracer is that they're not in the business of making games, making art. They're in the business of making money. They don't care how. They don't care the games apart from them being their current vehicle of making money.

That's every game company that is (or is owned by) a company on the stock market. They are happy about an inferior product as long as it improves the bottom line.

This describes most publicly traded corporations. Their lifeblood is money. They don't care how they acquire it nor do they care about the non-financial costs incurred while doing so.

And also most private companies, there is nothing in making it public that makes a company more or less greedy.

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: dvd

Quoting: DrMcCoyThe problem with Embracer is that they're not in the business of making games, making art. They're in the business of making money. They don't care how. They don't care the games apart from them being their current vehicle of making money.

That's every game company that is (or is owned by) a company on the stock market. They are happy about an inferior product as long as it improves the bottom line.

This describes most publicly traded corporations. Their lifeblood is money. They don't care how they acquire it nor do they care about the non-financial costs incurred while doing so.

And also most private companies, there is nothing in making it public that makes a company more or less greedy.

Well, not more greedy exactly . . . but more reliably greedy, and often more shortsightedly greedy. Activist shareholders tend to want returns NOW, this quarter. There's less room for personal or institutional style or for long range plans. Valve probably couldn't operate the way it does if it went public.
But it's certainly true that many private firms are just as bad. Some of the most destructive, short-term-oriented companies are the so-called "private equity" firms.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 23 June 2024 at 3:55 am UTC

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: dvd

Quoting: DrMcCoyThe problem with Embracer is that they're not in the business of making games, making art. They're in the business of making money. They don't care how. They don't care the games apart from them being their current vehicle of making money.

That's every game company that is (or is owned by) a company on the stock market. They are happy about an inferior product as long as it improves the bottom line.

This describes most publicly traded corporations. Their lifeblood is money. They don't care how they acquire it nor do they care about the non-financial costs incurred while doing so.

And also most private companies, there is nothing in making it public that makes a company more or less greedy.

PLG's response most eloquently described what I was trying to express when I wrote the post.

Many publicly held corporations tend to be plagued by indifferent shareholders / stock market investors whose only interest is in the financial returns on their investments. This is not to say that investors in privately held corporations are not motivated by greed but that some of them tend to have a vested interest in more than just the profit-generating aspect of the business. Perhaps it is a small-corp vs mega-corp thing?

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe top ones currently have basically scraped the whole internet, so I'm not sure there's a whole lot more to scrape.

Furthermore, output quality might not scale as well with training dataset size as AI proponents might hope. There's a Computerphile episode on this topic.

we'll get closer to somewhere once "the investors" realize "the" A.I. is a much more efficient CEO ...

shakesperean monkeys hitting lots of buttons at hyperspeed ... let me jot down the list of companies so i make sure i dont buy from them anymore lol , they're making it easy lately, no more warhammer , no more this, now another 150 not to buy from .. maybe i can upgrade my pc next year like this with all the money saved

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: dvd

Quoting: DrMcCoyThe problem with Embracer is that they're not in the business of making games, making art. They're in the business of making money. They don't care how. They don't care the games apart from them being their current vehicle of making money.

That's every game company that is (or is owned by) a company on the stock market. They are happy about an inferior product as long as it improves the bottom line.

This describes most publicly traded corporations. Their lifeblood is money. They don't care how they acquire it nor do they care about the non-financial costs incurred while doing so.

And also most private companies, there is nothing in making it public that makes a company more or less greedy.

Well, not more greedy exactly . . . but more reliably greedy, and often more shortsightedly greedy. Activist shareholders tend to want returns NOW, this quarter. There's less room for personal or institutional style or for long range plans. Valve probably couldn't operate the way it does if it went public.
But it's certainly true that many private firms are just as bad. Some of the most destructive, short-term-oriented companies are the so-called "private equity" firms.

Share holders only have a say if they can muster up a majority of the votes. So the risk is actually much higher that you get one greedy new person at a private company than you can gather enough greedy share holders to make a difference in how the company is run.

The man issue is that many companies goes public to use the shares for things (like Embracer that uses their shares to buy game studios) which means that they have an incentive to keep the share price high. But if you don't do that and instead use it for what it was intended for (aka to share the risk) then there are no such incentive.

Aka in the end it's the people that is greedy so we all loose by default :)

Quoting: Syntax Errorshakesperean monkeys hitting lots of buttons at hyperspeed

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: dvd

Quoting: DrMcCoyThe problem with Embracer is that they're not in the business of making games, making art. They're in the business of making money. They don't care how. They don't care the games apart from them being their current vehicle of making money.

That's every game company that is (or is owned by) a company on the stock market. They are happy about an inferior product as long as it improves the bottom line.

This describes most publicly traded corporations. Their lifeblood is money. They don't care how they acquire it nor do they care about the non-financial costs incurred while doing so.

And also most private companies, there is nothing in making it public that makes a company more or less greedy.

Well, not more greedy exactly . . . but more reliably greedy, and often more shortsightedly greedy. Activist shareholders tend to want returns NOW, this quarter. There's less room for personal or institutional style or for long range plans. Valve probably couldn't operate the way it does if it went public.
But it's certainly true that many private firms are just as bad. Some of the most destructive, short-term-oriented companies are the so-called "private equity" firms.

Share holders only have a say if they can muster up a majority of the votes. So the risk is actually much higher that you get one greedy new person at a private company than you can gather enough greedy share holders to make a difference in how the company is run.

The man issue is that many companies goes public to use the shares for things (like Embracer that uses their shares to buy game studios) which means that they have an incentive to keep the share price high. But if you don't do that and instead use it for what it was intended for (aka to share the risk) then there are no such incentive.

Aka in the end it's the people that is greedy so we all loose by default :)

Well, in theory perhaps, but I've definitely noticed a shift in corporate behaviour that has fairly closely tracked the "shareholder value" revolution, and which involves a whole lot of share buybacks replacing a whole lot of R&D and other longer term strategies.