RE: https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@yurisizov/116240441023829664

Your reminder that realism is not a universal creative goal. In fact, realism is rarely the most important art goal, even when it hits the list.

Anyone telling you a machine’s realism matters more than human agency and human choices in creation doesn’t understand what they’re working (read: fucking) with.

This is soul crushing.

@moss Most movies are also photorealistic, but still have their own look and feel. Also there are people in film taking care of lighting even though it usually already there in some form. I agree realism should not be a goal in of itself, but those games in the demo didn‘t look realistic in the sense you could mistaken them for reality. They may be could be mistaken for shots in a movie, but that‘s also an art form which is not better or worse than games and people dedicate their lifes to make them look as they do. On other hand AI is consuming a lot of resources and is biild on top of stolen art.

@JulianWgs I'm not sure I follow you entirely? I have a BFA in lighting design so I understand the importance of light in film for contributing to cinematography.

A key diff in your comparison (if I'm understanding) is film choices are made by the team of skilled creative & technical professionals working on them. This is a computer company editing things w/o consent.

I agree on the last point, I'm very anti-AI as theft from creatives, resource drain, and its harm on the humans who work on it.

@moss Thanks for your response. My argument is that there already was a lighting artist creating the lighting of the original image and setting the tone. The AI merely makes it more photorealistic (like in a movie). I don’t think a badly lit game with no artistic direction will really improve with this technique.
I didn‘t follow the announcement, but usually Nvidia does not develop things without the game developers being involved, but I might be wrong here.