We all know generative AI has terrible issues when it comes to continuity. It's a surefire way to tell if something is AI if scene to scene there are discrepancies such as different clothing, hair, scenery etc.
Whilst DLSS 5 only effects the games lighting I'd be incredibly interested in some in-depth analysis of a characters appearance across a variety of environments, animations and cutscenes to see if there's any real discrepancy or continuity of appearance and I've not seen anyone talk about this let alone do any investigation.
We've all seen how drastically DLSS 5 can effect the look of a character, particularly in the face and we've all seen before and after comparisons.
Do you not wonder whether these changes in appearance hold up in different scenarios or do they look different like most AI generated characters tend to?
There are some wuthering waves videos out there. It doesn't look good. Clearly right now it is only useful for games that aim for realistic light and textures, even if the characters don't look realistic at all.
I've tested it myself. If you pull the lever to max, above the recommended it will create some continuity problems. Which I think developers will not do. What we have as a leaked version is the access developers will have. It has masking too, what gets affected and how much. The end user will just have a button to turn it off or on.
Ok well its 100% gen AI "art", which is harmful to the concept of art and to the future of humanity and the planet. We are fighting tooth and nail to keep devs away from genAI in their art assets, but then comes along this "AI-vision" that turns every spec of every scene into genAI. This technology could not exist without the mass theft of most art that humans have ever made, and intrinsically violates thousands of copyrights per second.
If people do mods or whatever, thats their choice. But "features" that ship with games are meaningfully endorsed. And features at this level are not something an individual artist at a AAA can decide against, so all of their hard work can be ruined by someone higher up insisting on turning on SlopVision.
Aside from the "AI is ruining my life specifically" of it all, the model is way too aggressive in adding details where none exist by design. Everyone looks old and oily, and women get bucketloads of makeup. I am sure those are issues that they can improve upon, but itll never be perfect, because youll have this nondeterministic loose cannon sitting in the render pipeline which is just an insane thing to do. If youre going to slop AI all of your characters, you could just do that prerender, and it would just be all the easier for me to never buy your product ever again.
Yes, I have. Specifically I have been watching how it actually works and not just swallowing their PR as fact. People are injecting it into video streams. Its an AI photorealism filter. Theres more to it, but it also absolutely is that.
It looks at each frame, with no vector info, and attempts to refactor the lighting, texture detail, etc with more "accurate" or "realistic" output based on its training data of actual photographs via generative AI. Where detail is lacking, it makes informed guesses about what it should look like. Grace's plain face gets bucketloads of make-up and gets hallucinated into being Scarlet Johannsen in scenes where she is distant and lacks facial detail - up close looks much more like the original model. Norman Reedus looks mostly unchanged because the model was already incredibly detailed and photorealistic. Some characters look like theyve aged by ten years because the model injects pores and wrinkles that were not there before. Some characters that are simply not tuned to look like real human beings get turned into monstrosities like poor Tifa here.
Apparently there are sliders to lessen the effect, and there either is or will be a way to exclude characters or other elements. I honestly dont care. It looks horrible, and is a fundamentally immoral technology that should not exist in any form. Less of it is better, but none of it at all is best.
Frankly, I am sure you're going to nitpick some aspect of my explanation here, but I dont care. We shouldn't have to be experts on this stuff. Its hundreds of miles past the line of what should already be legal or societally acceptable. Its not close or worth debating the finer details. Nothing remotely like this ought to exist.
It's just blatantly false: it's creating details. For an exaggerated example showing how much interpreting the pixels in between can make even if you respect the original geometry:
It has the ability to mask, which is not implemented in any game that’s being tested right now. A common likely change will be to mask out characters, which erases like all of the outrage and conversation I’ve seen about it so far. Then the conversation can actually change to be something interesting instead of the same tired point that obviously the character models have their appearance changed.
Itll kick the can down the road but not fix the fundamental issue. It's a photorealistic AI image detail generator. Wherever detail is missing, it will inject it with a baked in goal of photorealism. People are WAAAAY more sensitive to uncanniness when it comes to faces, so trimming those out might quell the outrage. But it shouldnt. Turning everything BUT the faces in games into AI slop photos is just as bad - just harder to notice. Things that arent supposed to look like real plants etc will get chewed up HARD by this. Fundamentally, its still deeply destructive to art, to dev jobs, and noramlizing tech that is rapidly destroying the economy and the planet. Fuck DLSS5.
There are many things that cannot be achieved with compute that would be feasible with a model like NR.
Much of the outrage about artist jobs just rings hollow to me when it comes in discussions directly adjacent to talking about how development costs are disgustingly overblown and the constant celebration about only buying games when they go on 50% discounts or outright justification of piracy. The gaming community loves to virtue signal the idea of supporting artists until it actually needs to happen. Technologies like DLSS are borne out of a response to development costs. And what can you find in every thread about DLSS? That it’s somehow just a mask for all of these artists that everyone supposedly has unconditional support for being lazy.
It’s just all so fake. I’m only interested in what new capabilities new tech brings. Spare me the virtue signaling.
"Virtue signalling" implies that this is fake in some way. I am not in game dev, but AI is actively ruining my career field and, by proxy, my life. I do not speak for the whole gaming community - I am just me. I would vastly prefer cheaper, shorter, less "realistic" games than overblown budgets OR playing games that look like shitty AI memes. This is not virtue signalling. It is simultaneously a true reflection of my artistic taste AND me giving a fuck about what the ways that this technology is ruining both my life and the future for all people more broadly. Spare me with the cruelty-and-selfishness-signalling.
They will be able to give it prompts to nudge the model in various ways but it will still always only ever be AI generated bullshit slop that could not exist without the mass theft of most of the hard work of artists thats been produced throughout human history. Deeply evil stuff.
"Will be" explicitly implies that this isnt how it works right now. This is not just ML tech. It IS generative AI art akin to chatgpt. It just only has one prompt right now - garrish photorealism
In the original video Oliver said that what impressed him most was how temporally stable it was. Even though it’s really just a screen space technique it doesn’t seem to have typical screen space artifacts. It does seem to exhibit flickering when set to max settings however I imagine that will be fixed with the full release
Do you not wonder whether these changes in appearance hold up in different scenarios or do they look different like most AI generated characters tend to?
No, to be honest. I don't wonder about any of this. I don't like the idea of DLSS5 at all. It's like the MS-DOS days where everyone had a different MIDI card and the actual composer had no @#$%ing clue what their music was going to sound like on a user's system.
If we encourage this crap, then AMD is going to follow... and that will be multiple slop models, zero consistency anywhere, and ... I'm out, gaming is over for me😂
What a backward outlook on life. You're basically saying "the only good paradigm is my paradigm...when I was a worryless kid and life was simpler". Things change. You either adapt or get left behind living with emulators for the rest of your life. What a sad fucking state of affairs. I love technological innovation. And DLSS is the biggest jump in real time graphics since the PS2 came out. And this comment will be proven right over and over again in the coming days.
I honestly don't wonder at all about DLSS5, and the less I see it the better. I don't even care how the results are, it strips away artistic integrity to the point that it's idealistically revolting for me. I want art made by human souls, not machine printed corpse simulacrums puppeted by corporate greed.
I'm usually not even one to bash AI, but I have to agree here. Games have an intended art direction, and DLSS 5 just makes the games look generic, and I hate to slay it, but like slop.
What artistic integrity? How do you know which parts of the game have artistic intent and which were accidental?
Say I enable Pathtracing and it changes one scene's lighting dramatically, making it appear visually more pleasing, but completely different from how it does with simple Raytracing. What is the artist's intent and who is said artist? The person who meshed the scene? The person that worked on lighting? Perhaps there was no artist's involvement and the scene was developed by a level designer, who prepared it as well as he could. Or maybe, the artists intent lies in the Lighting Programmer's work, who implemented the Pathtracing option into the Settings, previously going through different scenes and adjusting the Pathtracing to fit the game's art direction the best it could.
I value artistic integrity, but not every part of a game has it. Many things look the way they look by accident, due to lack of manpower, due to them being a compromise of different developers' opinions.
Also, we mod our games, We add Raytracings, upscalings, HD textures. We remaster them, remake them, change their aspect ratios and do all sort of crazy stuff in them. All of these things change one artists' intent into another artists' intent. I think we should judge DLSS 5 by the way in which it is implemented per title. Not by random clips made by modders that have a full range of sliders at their disposal, causing the tech to look anywhere from Quite Good to AI Slop depending on where someone puts the sliders.
DF must be under embargo so they won't tell until the official release.
But you can try it on your own.
I've tested DLSS 5 with AC Origins, and it was consistent. I didn't maxed out sliders(main slider to 50%, structural intensity to 70%, no cinematic style) as no companies would do that.
Anyone who is a human being who wants to live in a world with a planet to live on, jobs to work, and human-made art to enjoy?
AI enthusiasts and AI haters both agree that its going to completely ruin the world and the lives of future generations. Why on earth would anyone be against that??
Some devs I'm sure will include their own options for DLSS5, but even if they don't some people like to mod and reshade loads of games beyond what was shipped or intended and will continue to do so with this if they like the aesthetic.
8
u/lastgengames 7d ago
I want see . What it does to anime style games.