Bruh. (Gaming)

by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, March 31, 2026, 16:02 (8 hours, 16 minutes ago) @ Coaxkez

As long as there are people, creatives will find ways to break through with authentic art, even in a field crowded with mediocre knock-offs. Your argument seems to be that once AI slop becomes common, there will be no more bandwidth. I disagree. There may be a fallow period, but identifiably human creation will find expression because the need for it is part of who we are. To paraphrase a fictional mathematician, art created by humans will find a way.

I think the issue is less the death of the human creative impulse and more the death of the ability to earn any money from being creative. In a capitalist society, money drives progress. No money, no progress.

Thanks, Coaxkez, but I would tweak that to change the causal direction. In a capitalist society, innovation is rewarded. One could add the disclaimer "in theory" to both of our statements, but that's a broader argument beyond our scope.

About rewards, I've always believed that art could be both great and popular (that is, lucrative)--the Beatles, STAR WARS, Shakespeare, for example. I don't think AI changes that. Yes, AI makes it easier to make derivative art, and the latter has always been good enough for many people, but I believe the really great stuff can rise to the top. Can AI make the really great stuff? I'm not convinced. It's like Steve Martin says, be so good they can't ignore you. I think there will always be people who strive for that. And that output will stand out. Let's bring it back to this forum and subjects of interest here. I think that Marathon's art style is truly great (one employee's much-publicized mistake aside). It's fresh and interesting. It fits the lore in that almost every object is 3-D printed. Maybe Bungie will fail and that would support your thesis, but I bet this game will be talked about for a long time, regardless. What's good is good.

There seems to be a thread in some of this discussion that all-powerful forces are behind everything that happens, and they can decide what becomes popular. There is a long history of people who have wanted to decide what becomes popular, but that doesn't mean they can. Payola might have been able to buy radio airtime, but it couldn't guarantee a hit. Decca rejected the Beatles. Lucas's peers thought a rough cut of STAR WARS was an embarrassment. Andy Weir had to self-publish THE MARTIAN. There is more content than ever and more people to consume it (ever read this? A thousand fans may be all you need). The model for monetization has been busted many times over, and I think new models will rise to replace them. I concede that I can't describe these models in detail, but crowdfunding is an example.

And, as others have said, there is a great concern that genAI will lead to a scenario in which human-crafted art is indistinguishable from machine output. If that scenario were to become a reality, I would imagine that creativity will move increasingly into the live performance space, where the impact of genAI will be felt to a lesser degree. (But it will still be felt.)

I agree. We value what we know is human. Maybe, like an infinite number of monkeys, AI can come up with Shakespeare, but I'll believe it when I see it. I think it's possible that there is a new equilibrium, that as people become more exposed to AI creations they become more attuned to other signals, and reward accordingly. An example is CGI, which used to be enough to get people into the theater. Now we want more.

There's a very healthy discussion going on here, but I'm too busy right now to get into the weeds of this topic (not to mention too laconic in general). Honestly, it depresses me and I try not to think about it too much either.

I've enjoyed it because I find the subject fascinating. There is plenty to get depressed about, and I feel that, too, especially when I spend too much time online, where hype and hate are the battling gods.