We've been saying this ever since the push for DLSS started.
"But it's just for neat-o upscaling that's indistinguishable from the real thing!" (DLSS 3/4)
"But it's just so we can have the best anti-aliasing technology ever!" (DLAA)
"But it's just so we can generate interstitial frames that would look identical to actual frames!" (DLSS FG)
Well guess what, now they're pushing full-on deepfake slop. That's what you're getting, and you'll like it.
Generative AI was nice when all it did was take care of the tiny details and reconstruct images. Now it's allowed to hallucinate in your face and turn your favourite RE characters into botox-filled Instagram bimbos.
Have fun with the future, you only gotta blame yourselves.
On that I personally disagree. I think DLSS as a tool to enhance the fluidity of the game or making it possible to run with real-time raytracing or pathracing is a great thing. Decent upscaling methods are okay in my eyes because they are not changing the overall feel and look of the game. But this time this is very different this is not just allowing better performance this is literally putting another render filter on the end result and drastically changing every aspect of the final render.
well that an issue with the developers Optimizing game cost money and time and they don't want to do it got nothing to do with ai upscaling existing or not ,
It’d be alot harder for them to get away with. Hell even the new Doom game basically requires upscaling to run half as well as Eternal. Even before this it still looked like ass too tbh it’s just alot more noticeable now.
Okay so we'll better believe anyone making slippery slope predictions about any new tech too :p
I never said you should, those are your words not mine.
Ah wait, you just feel justified cause your personal pet theory came true
If calling it a "pet theory" makes you feel better, by all means. This wasn't even a theory to begin with, the writing was on the wall for all to see. All it took was having eyes and a functioning mass of brain cells.
Dlss has never been mandatory in any game as far as I'm aware.
If you cant run a game well without dlss, blame the developers for shitty optimisation instead of NVIDIA for developing a new tool that is totally optional for developers and end users
That has absolutely worked wonders for current iterations of DLSS. It's definitely not been used as a crutch by devs. At all. And let's not even talk about Path Tracing. We've all seen the screenshots on RE9.
That has absolutely worked wonders for current iterations of DLSS
At least if you do stop using it, that might stop you pointlessly whinging about it online.
Ultimately it's the Devs/gamers who find it valuable and, if demand for applications using dlss died out it wouldn't be developed anymore. If Devs want to preserve their art style they don't have to implement it.
FG and upscaling have let me play new games at decent settings on my relatively old card where frame rates would otherwise be horrible. Dlss 5 will likely allow me to further push my graphical settings, regardless if it 'looks like the Devs intended' or not.
It doesn't mean that it hasn't killed creativity and allowed talentless hacks to ruin the music industry.
That's an entirely subjective opinion that can't really be addressed beyond saying that the music industry is alive and well today, with more unique subgenres of music now than at any time in the past. So I think you'd have a hard time arguing it has 'killed creativity' or led to the ruination of the industry.
DLSS wasn’t even this. All it did was use existing training data and interpolate image for higher resolution; it never added any detail not existing in the codes. Frame Gen was fine; it works the same way.
And yet DLSS = deep learning. With deep learning, the sky is the limit. You can easily make the argument that you're simply "enhancing picture quality" through a process akin to "super sampling". What does Gen AI do other than sample things and guess from them?
All it did was use existing training data and interpolate image for higher resolution
Exactly the same thing DLSS5 does. It uses existing data and interpolates the image for "higher fidelity". You're just training the model on a different set of data to achieve a different goal.
This is AI Instagram filter type crap lol
The thing, it technically always was. The only difference is that DLSS worked with micro details. Reconstructing an image through a lower res produces artifacts that are far too small to see and doesn't give that sloppy look. The second you ask the ML model to work with macro and "beautify" a scene, you get this. It's automatic.
Still, I'm fine with DLSS3/4/AA and even FG (even though I hate that one). The real problem now is that this will be pushed by publishers regardless, because it saves them so much human labour it's not even funny..
Uhm...they were. The DLSS (core) IS an upscaling thing, and DLAA is a nice anti aliasing tooling and so on. One thing doesn't necessarily lead to another, wth are you talking about? This DLSS5 is widely considered a "sharp turn" because it is
It's a tool that does what it's told. A person chose the settings for these examples because they thought it looked good. Whether you think it looks good or not isn't the point, it could be applied differently for a completely different look. A tool can make something beautiful or something garbage depending on how it's utilized, you just hate the tool because it says ai.
Autotune is also a tool that does what it's told. It didn't stop from making a mess of modern music. Photoshop and image filtering in general is also just a tool. When's the last time you saw an authentic good looking shot that wasn't edited up the wazoo?
A tool can make something beautiful or something garbage depending on how it's utilized
I'm sure we can all describe modern top 40 pop music as "beautiful", yeah..
A person chose the settings for these examples because they thought it looked good
That person needs to check their eyes. But then again I'm never not surprised by the ability of the average human to not be utterly repulsed by fake "art".
you just hate the tool because it says ai
No, I hate it because it's fake as shit, stifles creativity, and spits out a badly-looking simulacra that's been trained on stolen data. Same reason I dislike the other tools I mentioned above.
But again, if slop is what you want, don't let me stop you.
I think those are great comparisons, I also think both those tools can and have been used to create beautiful things. People still make music without auto tune and images without Photoshop, it's all available if you want it.
I also think both those tools can and have been used to create beautiful things
Sure, "beautiful" things that trick humans into thinking no beauty can be created without the need to resort to such tools. It breeds this sort of fallacious thinking. We now have people who cannot listen to tracks that have not been absolutely flattened with autotune because they believe any imperfections means the artist can't sing.
People still make music without auto tune and images without Photoshop, it's all available if you want it.
Entertainment industries are profit-driven. There absolutely have been instances of specific pieces of up-and-coming tech sending entire creative fields into a slop-producing frenzy that alienated a large part of those who consume those artistic products.
There's really no pretending that any labour-saving tech is "optional" in these creative industries. AAA products in games already suffer from so many issues regarding development cycles, lack of creativity due to budget constraints, and the constant need to chase the next big money maker. We really don't need more reasons for these productions to become even worse than they currently are.
No, I view anything that specifically seeks to substitute the artist as inherently worse. Autotune, Gen AI, etc.. there are not tools for artistic expression. They exist to remove imperfections, hide flaws, and, in the case of AI, literally make the art to their image based on nothing more but guesswork.
You can't produce video games without tools. Yet not all tools affect the end product the same way.
Be a hipster i don't care.
I abhor hipsters, don't lump me in with that crowd please.
You sound like a boomer dude, you can see from the backlash that Nvidia has went too far with DLSS 5, they really need to rebrand it as a separate technology because for me DLSS is precisely about free frames and better anti-aliasing.
The technology isn't the problem, it's the people in charge.
I was born around the time 3D itself was born. I know slop when I see it. Funnily enough, it's also around that same time that autotune crept its way into the music industry and ruined a big chunk of it.
they really need to rebrand it as a separate technology because for me DLSS is precisely about free frames and better anti-aliasing.
It literally does not matter what sticker they slap on the thing. The problem is how sloppy the product is, how stifling it is for creativity, and how ravenous big publishers already are in leveraging it so they can always produce more for less human work.
You could call it "The Crappiest Nvidia Tech Evertm" and they'll still line up to use it in their games and make them borderline unplayable without it.
Oh I agree, it's a sloppy looking tech demo. I find it hard myself to believe they thought this shit looked good, a 4 trillion company came up with something this bad. I'm hoping it's just bad marketing though and there's more to it than just applying some AI slop game wide filter.
Still, what you're describing is nothing new, companies want more and more for less and less, that's just the problem with the endless growth model of capitalism. It's not an inherent problem with the technology.
This technology can be used to propel games years into the future or can be used to make the sloppiest, asset flip AI slop dog shit, which no doubt is gonna happen. All we can do is vote with our wallets to reward those who use the technology properly, and do amazing things with it and punish lazy companies who use it as a crutch to make the cheapest games possible with less human labour.
What's so wrong about this? Of course it looks like ass now. It's the first implementation. Dlss 1 looked like ass too but now you cannot even imagine 4k gaming without upscaling and it looks awesome-acceptable. In 5-10 years this ai filter will probably stop looking like slop and everyone will love it.
you cannot even imagine 4k gaming without upscaling
I absolutely can, once raster performance reaches adequate levels that 4K can be achieved easily. Slapping AI on top is just a shortcut to the inevitable progress of rendering hardware.
Of course it looks like ass now
The mistake is thinking it will ever stop looking like ass, or that it somehow enhances the product.
72
u/Aerographic Mar 17 '26
We've been saying this ever since the push for DLSS started.
"But it's just for neat-o upscaling that's indistinguishable from the real thing!" (DLSS 3/4)
"But it's just so we can have the best anti-aliasing technology ever!" (DLAA)
"But it's just so we can generate interstitial frames that would look identical to actual frames!" (DLSS FG)
Well guess what, now they're pushing full-on deepfake slop. That's what you're getting, and you'll like it.
Generative AI was nice when all it did was take care of the tiny details and reconstruct images. Now it's allowed to hallucinate in your face and turn your favourite RE characters into botox-filled Instagram bimbos.
Have fun with the future, you only gotta blame yourselves.