“2024 has been a pretty fucked up year for gaming, so I can say ‘fuck that shit’ on the count of three,” says Good Afternoon co-founder and executive producer Sarah Brin, opening an electric slalom of Hyper Talks at AMAZE Sheffield. Those in attendance duly surrendered.
Brin took the podium briefly (Hyper Talk speakers are only allowed five minutes to address a topic) to discuss why AI has contributed to the “clusterfuck” that the video game industry has become. She argues that the technology itself is not the problem, but rather the “exaggerated expectations” that have convinced studio heads that it can replace human creativity.
“First, I want to talk a little bit about creativity, and creativity, in case you didn't know, is not something you're born with or not,” Brin says. “Creativity isn't just about being good at art. It's a holistic skill set that I don't have time to explain to you, so I want to talk about a fundamental concept, which is the concept of theft.”
Brin refers specifically to the concept of theft as described by artist and writer Austin Kleonwhich explains that while “imitation is Not flattery. It is transformation this is flattery: taking what you have stolen and turning it into something new.”
“He explains that part of finding your voice as a creative is borrowing, sampling, and copying people you really admire. As he points out, here are some good things: honor, study, steal from many,” Brin says.[Then there’s] egregious theft: discrediting, plagiarism, and fraud. When it comes to AI, this is egregious theft. At least as it stands now, because there is no way to credit it.”
Providing some evidence, Brin points to the work of D&D artist Greg Rutkowski, whose work has been copied more than Picasso by AI tools like Midjourney without him ever receiving credit (more information here from BBC News).
“Because of the way the [Midjourney] LLM is set, there is no way to give credit to Rutkowski or get a monetary refund for the work that went into the model. So where does that leave the artist and game developers?,” he asks.
“I would say that a lot of entry-level positions in the games industry, as well as those at the top, are at risk because of cost-cutting measures. So what do we do? First of all, we need to start being responsible in how we put together data sets. We need more attribution mechanisms. So, the question I want to ask you today, rather than “can AI replace human creativity?”, is can AI create with humans in interesting ways as part of the creative process, not as a replacement for it?”
Getting a little philosophical, Brin leans into a game theory that emphasizes a “dialogue between audience and content,” and argues that we should emulate that dialogue when considering how to combine creative production, AI, and games.
“Creativity is an interaction between humans and their tools, but we need to protect people and workers. We want to build a strong, thriving economy where we can enjoy the work we love to do but also not live in a robot dystopia,” he continues. “How do we protect and promote human creativity? We organize.”
Brin points to ongoing efforts by unions across industries that are working to secure AI protections, preventing large companies from deploying the technology in unethical and debilitating ways. SAG–AFTRA recent strike decision in an attempt to protect video game players from AI tools is just one example of how this collective power can manifest itself.
“Our activism and protection of our creative practice and craft [isn’t just about what] that we do here together as a community. We need to actually go out and push for legislation and policy recommendations to protect our economic and social future,” he adds.
For Brin, it’s up to workers to “move the needle” as a collective and provide the protections that creative industries are clamoring for. “If you don’t already know or aren’t in a union, join one.” He closes by calling for a huge “hell yeah” for a better, brighter future for creativity in games. The roof, naturally enough, comes down.