You must log in or register to comment.

it_cant_be_difficult t1_ixv5eyp wrote

All these leaps in text to image generation in the last few years has got to leave a lot of artists and creatives worried. The technology isn't there yet to get a precise enough result, but in the next 10 years surely it will reach a point wear the output is faster than a human and just as good? An artist's job will no longer be to make great art or animations, but to know how to write good prompts to get the AI to make good art, then just refining the output into a finished product.

Having said that, I'm sure people were saying the same when we moved from hand drawn animations to digital animations. Maybe even more creative jobs will be born out of this new technology instead.


Kittyionite t1_ixvzzl1 wrote

3D art student here: It's kinda worrying, but at the same time you need to understand that working in 3D isn't like working in 2D, where you are drawing it all by hand. The hardest part of working in 3D (at least in my opinion) is getting your computer to cooperate with you. Your job as a 3D artist is to basically work with a computer in various fashions to produce complex images. I think A.I. generated stuff is definitely going to shake things up a ton, but artists will just pivot to work with the new tech, as they have done many times.

The hard part of 3D stuff has always been getting a computer to understand what we as humans want out of it, and this just brings us closer.


SimiKusoni t1_ixwstma wrote

>artists will just pivot to work with the new tech

I think the point is not so much that it will completely replace artists, even with significant improvements you'd still need an actual artist to come and touch things up and make sure the output is desirable in the first place, but rather if you have 10 3D artists and this new tech makes them twice as productive you can hire half the number of staff.

It may not completely replace artists in anything other than extreme situations, like indie studios that don't mind if the models are a bit iffy or they have to do some work themselves, but it doesn't need to replace you entirely to devalue your work.

It's the same with most new technology. Automation lets you do the same amount of work with less staff, and typically with less skilled staff at that.


zizn t1_ixxwewe wrote

Would be nice to get some solid retopo ai models. But I think 3D will take a lot of necessary progress to kill off. That whole realm is such a behemoth with all kinds of intricacies and requirements. It’s definitely not been primed to allow for workflows to be as vague as “input thing, output result”.

That said, I don’t think career art is safe. One of my many unfortunate realizations is that career art is nothing all that different from a regular job, it just exploits creative technical ability. Unless you’re the 1%, start your own business, something like that. Definitely don’t think jobs like basic graphic design, modeling, rigging, roto, are particularly invulnerable, but they’re currently still needed. But if the tech gets there, I get the sense that industries will be eager to have the same work done for a fraction of the price, even if there are hurdles along the way. The good part is: perhaps art can get back to its roots and actually be about creative expression. Bad part is that it may become far less sustainable as a source of income. I would personally love to see people treading CG more like a traditional art form, but it absolutely does not pave the path to getting a job. Fast, clean, done, again is the mantra for jobs. Predictable, efficient, the type of thing that AI can improve upon.


Kryptosis t1_iy4r2oz wrote

Were Art Careers ever safe though? I see no real difference now. People buy the art they want. If they want AI they’ll get that easily but I imagine most people wont want to decorate their homes etc with AI generations.

A “reliable art career” doesn’t seem real to me. There would always be flux and uncertainty when your income depends on peoples emotional response to your creations.

Even in the most corporatized, rigidly enforced work environment an artist could be simply replaced by another artist who has a preferable or momentarily popular style.


Kryptosis t1_ixwn9nu wrote

It’s also no easy thing to just slap in a description and get consistent results across all your inputs. As you say figuring out how to get the AI to draw what you are asking it to is a wildly complex task that takes ages to practice and refine for EACH input. Weeks and months in some advanced cases.

That is an artistry. A modern technical artistry but art nonetheless.


Something_Sexy t1_ixv6t2d wrote

Artbreeder has been amazing for people who play ttrpg and need character designs without having to traditionally pay an artist to do it.


DukeBeefpunch t1_ixvbkb1 wrote

This is disgusting. AI is supposed to be this amazing thing but all I ever see it used for is to kill culture. As you just gave an example of, this is set to destroy the jobs starting artists need in order to grow. Artbreeder says on it's home page you can "craft" AI art like never before. That's a dangerous statement. It needs to be absolutely clear, if you are utilizing an AI in any artistic endeavor, your not crafting shit.


ozonejl t1_ixvhnr4 wrote

This sounds pretty much like any other old man yells at new technology moment throughout history. “Sampling isn’t real music” yadayadayada. If your visual art is innovative and has a strong point of view, you’re gonna be fine. If you do online commissions of shit like “Pikachu in the style of Gustav Klimt” your career might be in trouble, eventually.


DukeBeefpunch t1_ixvztkt wrote

Yea and every artist starts off innovative and strong, and there's plenty of room for more competition. I'd rather sound like an old man than someone who talks out their ass about things they don't understand.


ozonejl t1_ixwaz0e wrote

The thing is, AI is coming whether you like it or not. You can say “this art isn’t real art” because it’s made by AI and I can say “this car isn’t a real car” because it’s made by robots, but at the end of the day if it gets the job done and people can’t tell, it doesn’t matter. There will always be money for people with an artistic eye who can draw/paint. It’s just that you might have to develop another skill or two.


drixevel-dev t1_ixx3mfa wrote

People are gonna lose their minds once the singularity happens, I'll grab the popcorn.


VizDevBoston t1_ixwdnt0 wrote

Oh yeah clearly you’d never comment on something you know very little about.


Kryptosis t1_ixwmtuh wrote

Yeah mourn the lose of all the coal mining jobs and factory assembly jobs while your at it.

If people want handcrafted they can pay for it


Kinexity t1_ixvn4vn wrote

Yes, you are crafting. If you just generate an image and without anything else you say it's art then it's not because there was no artistic intent. But if you choose between images, tweak those generated, change parameters then the AI is just a tool which let's you express a vision you have in your mind. The effective image will be art because you had an artistic intent. Not everyone is manually skilled enough to be able to express their idea by their own hands. I can't draw for shit but I know how to use some simpler image editing software and can run Stable Diffusion so I can make art of my own. I will not claim it's comparable to works of normal artists but it is art nonetheless.


DukeBeefpunch t1_ixw1yyd wrote

Not everyone is manually skilled enough.....That's why you go through the process of learning! That applies to literally everything in life. If you want to express your idea in art than it should drive you to practice enough to do it and not to buy a shortcut to skill.


Kinexity t1_ixw39dh wrote

Tell engineers they should carve metal parts by hand instead of using CNC mills. Not everyone has time or skill to learn how to draw. Your comment is pure neo-luddism.


DukeBeefpunch t1_ixw4uds wrote

Tell me what engineering has to do with culture? That's mathematics. That's business. Business is not culture. We aren't talking about a product that needs efficiency and speed we are talking about art. Using a program to look at pre existing art for you, conceptualize for you, execute for you is essentially plagerism you just don't know who it is you've plagerized en masse so there's no guilt.


Kinexity t1_ixw6uhk wrote

Well, I just want to point out to you that you've just described most of non AI art that is being created today but you wouldn't say that an artist learning from works of other is plagiarizing, would you? AI isn't going to take away the ability to create from human artists - it's just going to give the ability to create to people not as talented. The final goal is to automate everything such that work is no longer neccesary. This will mean that there will be a period where many people will not be able to do the thing they want for profit but after that they'll get to do all that without worrying about being profitable - and that includes artists. Engineering has nothing do with culture just like making money has nothing to with creating art. Making money is bussiness and

>Business is not culture


zachster77 t1_ixw7jem wrote

You’re 100% right. People disagreeing with you don’t understand the creative generative process.

And the reality is that AI will be coming for many jobs that used to be considered creative. If humans had meaningful work lined up to replace those jobs, it’d be one thing. But all we have is low wage commoditized service jobs that can’t yet be automated.



blizardfires t1_ixxfnta wrote

These people all seem to think the gains of AI will be distributed equitably so we can all have better lives. That’s just not how free market capitalism works.


zachster77 t1_ixxg5co wrote

Definitely. Though we don’t really know how it would work in free market capitalism. We’re so caught up in crony capitalism we can’t even see the corruption.


blizardfires t1_iy0e99j wrote

>in crony capitalism we can’t even see the corruption.



nardev t1_ixvcj3m wrote

Don’t look at it like that. Try this: one artist will now be able to create game assets for the whole game in a matter of days. You still need to hand pick, curate, etc. Or: an artist will be able to make his own museum on his own with no help from 3D artists or programers. Or a thousands of other ways to look at it. It’s just technology. Art will remain art. AI (computers) just remove the mundane.


makse_djaole t1_ixwp4ax wrote

Thing about making your game in days, or making your own musem using AI is - nobody will care. Why would I or anyone else waste my time playing games somebody else made, or looking at someone else's art, when I can just make my own?


nardev t1_ixycu0e wrote

Well, then by that rationale art is superflous. Which it is not. So your point is somehow lacking. Something is off. This is just another tool. Someone still needs to use and direct it.


makse_djaole t1_ixyhe3m wrote

That's the thing, it's not just another tool, this is something completely new. Yes, you have to use AI and you have to direct it, but it doesn't take much time to learn how to do that, especially when compared how much time it takes to learn how to draw or model or code. And it's just going to get easier.


nardev t1_iy0apv3 wrote

And why is that a bad thing? I just can’t accept the argument that one should stick with old tools of the trade in order to…not sure what really. Even tools without AI have helper functions that curve lines for you automatically and proportionally, etc.


DukeBeefpunch t1_ixw0hmx wrote

Thinking your way, you just eliminated dozens of jobs, and what would you gain? A game comes out faster and shittier? More soulless?


nardev t1_ixw1cnp wrote

why would it be shittier? instead of spending time on mundane design choirs the artist can more quickly iterate over ideas and even finetune them by hand in default design tools. or the designer can always use the old tools of the trade as well from scratch. the people will always appreciate the better outcome, however it is done. and in this case it seems that the artist/designer will have more power and options, not less.


Tip_Odde t1_ixxtg87 wrote

Facts not feelings fam, get your emotions in check.


merkitt t1_ixvhj3m wrote

Once AIs put out of business the very artists whose work was used to train them, the models will begin to stagnate without new inputs. Feeding AI generated images back into the models will likely result in the artistic version of deformities. If this process takes longer than a generation, we may not have any artists left to pick up the pieces...


poobearcatbomber t1_ixvnzet wrote

People will still create when there is no financial reward — although much less. There still will be plenty of data to train on.

It will certainly limit the creative expression of the human race, but the profit machines that drive this innovation don't care about that. Human expression doesn't drive revenue.


Kinexity t1_ixvnip1 wrote

You need to allow yourself to dream bigger. At some point we will create models able to create new styles. Also it's a potential job for artists to be employed just to create things to teach AI on them.


EchoingSimplicity t1_iy08mri wrote

Nope. You can feed AI on a hand-picked database of the best of the best of generated images. I'll give an example: generate one hundred thousand images of hands, have one hundred people sort through all of these photos, doing one hundred images a day. Delete any hands that are outright anatomically incorrect. Then, feed this back into the AI until it learns to generate better hands. Repeat this process for anything.

In fact, this is already happening with Midjourney. They track which photos their users select, then they feed those photos right back into the model. Coincidentally, Midjourney v4 is currently regarded as the best image generation model available at the moment. It's considered to be far ahead of the competition at the moment. No points for guessing why.


PanderTuft t1_ixygvif wrote

I reprocess and sample past AI work for consistent new AI generations already.


poobearcatbomber t1_ixvojlp wrote

In 10 years, a lot more jobs than artists will be automated through AI. This problem will have to be addressed at a broad scale. Some of the most profitable professions right now could be automated — such as engineers and surgeons not to mention the lower paying jobs already in their way out like factory workers and customer service.


Cncfan84 t1_ixvxxtt wrote

I'm a 3d artist, this shit terrifies me. This will have me out of a job in the not so distant future. I'll be retraining next year.


Fleaslayer t1_ixx4vq7 wrote

I graduated with a computer science degree in 85, and at the time prior were working on auto code generation. The were articles saying programmers would become unnecessary. Nearly 40 years later and auto code has gotten much better but we need more programmers than ever.

I'm guessing you won't be replaced anytime soon, though your tools might change.


metekillot t1_ixxzg32 wrote

That's a good guess but also consider the breakthroughs we're making with quantum computing. I hardly understand a fucking thing about it but I've been reading that some theories behind the unique nature of consciousness are due to quantum mechanics, and if we're able to manipulate those mechanics we may be closer to creating truly conscious machines then we think.


Fleaslayer t1_ixy059w wrote

Not my field of expertise - I do real time control systems - but I don't think we're that close. I mean, there are really cool things getting done, especially with machine learning, but nothing in the vicinity of a conscious AI that I'm aware of. Not even the grand parent of one.


metekillot t1_ixy0bz1 wrote

10 years of advancement today would have been 40 or 50 years back in the day. Who knows what's over the next hill? Science rules.


Flaky_Bee_2599 t1_ixypqmg wrote

I'm not an AI expert, but I'm pretty sure general AI is thought of as a "decades away, if ever" sort of thing.


hvdzasaur t1_ixwtbql wrote

Look at what the actual output of that is, it's practically unusable. I've done work in this field, and while this is genuinely impressive and a step up from previous work. It doesn't really have any practical use beyond rapid exploration. Arguably the most impressive thing about this is the natural language processing to 3d synthesization, and the speed at which it does it. How this would be used is to quickly synthesize rough ideas, modify them, and then send them to outsourcing alongside concept art guidelines for final asset production.

Production of 3d assets these days is already largely outsourced, but art direction and dressing is still going to be needed. What will be truly revolutionary if an one could derive context, style and intent behind an existing scene or concept piece, and just feed you models or 3d elements that would best fit within the environment or character. Not even synthesization, just asset suggestion is already a gargantuan task. Promethean still largely works off natural language and meta data, but not from one shot image or geometric data, for now. But you still need a person to properly direct towards a desirable output.

We're still miles off from replacing actual artists.


Tip_Odde t1_ixxtdiy wrote



I work in tv, no we're not miles off. Go ask anyone who used to work in transcriptions.


hvdzasaur t1_ixyiiau wrote

Yes, because transcription is a form of artistic expression. /s

3D art involves a lot of different subtask and disciplines, and most of them involve some form of artistic direction, to varying degrees. We've long been automating aspects of the job, but it didn't result in a replacement of jobs, yet.

Ultimately this will end up being just another tool to do the job faster.


Tip_Odde t1_iy3pjlr wrote

The people who worked in it for decades would certainly say there was "an art to it" but I agree they are vastly different. Unfortunately for you, they got chopped about a decade ago and tech has been growing at an exponential rate since. The difference in tech is equally vast, if not more so.

Yes, they are tools that will make work faster but you're relying too much on stuff that hasn't happened specifically to you. You need to look at the bigger picture. Another example, editors. We used to have an editor and maybe two assistant editors per episode. Within a decade it will be one or two editors for the entire season running a team of "virtual" editors that do the basics. The people who are in their 30/40s at the top of their artistic fields arent going anywhere for decades and the number of jobs in these industries will be ever dwindling.


ixramuffin t1_ixympqg wrote

Your comment will not age well. Come back in 5 years.


hvdzasaur t1_ixz38je wrote

Yeah, it's not like I professionally worked in this research field and 3d art for the past few years. My job was literally to work with this tech and exploring ways to introduce this into production pipelines, both game development, and related industries.

3d has always been a field that moves fast, very fast, and continuously learning to use new tech is and will be a part of the job. Effectively using generative AI will become a part of the skillset moving forward.


HerrSchnabeltier t1_ixw1s8l wrote

Retraining to do something that will be equally displaced by these developments? ;-)

Don't be terrified, be open to whatever and however it will affect the craft, incorporate it or don't (there is space for both).

Change is constant and when there's nothing you can do about it, there's no need to worry. If there is something you can do about (or despite) it, there is no need to worry either.


Cncfan84 t1_ixw65j0 wrote

I'm thinking UX design, seems safer from AI. I suppose terrified isn't the correct word but it does worry me, I create photo real marketing lifestyle images to sell products and my days are numbered. I don't want to be jumping into a new career in a few years in my early 40s, competing with everyone else being forced to do the same thing. You can't fight change so I may as well just get on with it.


Kryptosis t1_ixwnp2o wrote

Or you could stay on top of trends and develop the skills to produce the AI images yourself? It’s not actually as easy as a simple google search if you’re doing professional level work. It takes skills and practice to get consistent results and your job will eventually condense and morph into that. As you say, just get in with it. Learning that is.


makse_djaole t1_ixwptlq wrote

It's not easy - now. It will be much easier next year. And even easier in ten years.

Another thing is that some people think it's not moral to claim something AI made as their own.


Kryptosis t1_ixwqcgy wrote

Eh I think there’s a bottom line for how easy it’s ever going to be. Even when we get the the point of brain chips producing art we imagine we’re going to need people educated in competition and lighting etc to imagine them in the first place.

We might get the the point where you just say “male on our bike in the woods” but it won’t be able to pick the best one for you. It’ll always need guidance. And that’s a job.


staffan_spins t1_ixvje5e wrote

I agree but there will still be room & surge for authenticity. Like why is film cameras still a thing? Why are there blacksmiths, shoemakers & painters using the exact same 500+ year old techniques when we have better, faster & cheaper alternatives? Jobs will be affected in great scale but the value of something human made / hand crafted will rise.

3D has always been superexpensive, borderline snobby & exclusive so personally, I’m welcoming this with open arms.


Fierydog t1_ixw8fqx wrote

It's like complaining about the invention of computers or machines.

A person today using a computer is many times more productive than before they were the norm. I'm sure a lot of people "lost" their jobs because a single person using computers and software can now do the same job in a day that used to take 20 people a week.

Machines everywhere are constantly automating task in every industry and "taking away" jobs.

The only way to stop it is to decide that we should never progress our technology.

It's inevitable.

I'm sure there will still be plenty of artist in the future and they will still be needed, but the concept of what they do might be different.


Gabo7 t1_ixwj1lp wrote

>but to know how to write good prompts to get the AI to make good art

That will be extremely short-lived.

If an AI can get to do art better than a human, then writting the best prompts possible will be way easier, and better than any human could.


Beaan t1_ixwc8w7 wrote

I dunno. I'm pretty skeptical honestly. If the past two decades have made me realize anything it's that how far we think AI and tech CAN go rarely ends being how far they actually go. No doubt these AIs are incredibly impressive right now but until they get to the point everyone is afraid of I'm not all that convinced they're gonna get there. I think it's just as likely the technology hits a wall where it isn't able to get any better and we aren't going to be able to figure out how to get it to get any better.


someguyfromtheuk t1_ixvx4vx wrote

Once the AI figures out how to draw furry porn artists are gonna go bankrupt


SatanLifeProTips t1_ixxcm6a wrote

5-10 years ago the ‘spoken story creation software’ in the last season of Westworld was pure fantasy.

Now it’s highly plausible within a decade.


dunyged t1_ixxr92p wrote

You won't even need to know how to write good prompts for the AI, it should eventually be able to take a look at your internet history and media and texting styles to extrapolate exactly what you want better than any human could.


Grantus89 t1_ixybvc7 wrote

It’s just the same issue as every other industry, everything will get automated. It’s just that the creative industries thought they wouldn’t be affected or at least thought they would be the last to go and it’s proving not to be the case.


craybest t1_ixyc0lm wrote

Se are worried indeed. But mostly about the ethics of it. Considering all these AI software are useless without actual artists. And it basically mixes and matches stuff taken without consent from artists. It's a really ugly thing to be honest. I hope we can reach a point where it's not as damaging to actual artists. For now we can try to adapt.


Atanakar t1_ixyopgp wrote

People give too much credit to AI. Sure the generated images sometimes look good from afar, but they often have these tiny details that just don't fit and that our brains so easily detect.

Also not as much creative power, meaning and emotion as human artists. Sure they compose from human art but some is lost.

The real improvement will be the human artist + AI tool combo. That's what's gonna bring masterpieces to the world. And it will still need a human.


poobearcatbomber t1_ixvnm22 wrote

Video games are about to become a lot less resource intensive


NeedsMoreSpaceships t1_ixvohmc wrote

The days of the bedroom coder might be coming back baby!

Until the AI can do that job too... Shit.

Maybe one day the derided 'idea man' (I have great idea for a game, all I need is someone to make it for me) and an AI will be the only all that's necessary to make a game. After that all games will be deeply shit.


GregsWorld t1_ixxb74m wrote

>generate 3d space exploration game, randomly generated planets, lots of spaceships, blue ui, ps6 & xbox720


youstillhavehope t1_ixy18dn wrote

Check out the Ghostwriter (AI code generator) demo using it to create a video game. 8 minutes.


jepvr t1_ixwqp2k wrote

  1. That's not what this is. The models would be generated ahead of time by artists and included in a game, just like a hand-built model would be. The amount of resources used in the game will be the same.
  2. For the generation part, it actually takes a lot MORE resources to get these AIs to generate models than it does for a human to build one by hand. That's because we don't count the human brain as a "resource".

vo0do0child t1_ixx64i6 wrote

I think the commenter meant the development of games.


jepvr t1_ixxaamo wrote

That's why I commented on both points. This won't make the development less resource intensive. It will make it more.


vo0do0child t1_ixyvg1d wrote

Unless by resources they mean artists working weeks to produce work, vs the speed of machine generated assets.


YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ixxst5s wrote

By “resource” people normally mean money, not human brains. Less money needed to produce video games = less resources.


jepvr t1_ixxv99u wrote

Yes, which is why I said "that's because we don't count the human brain as a 'resource'". What part of that is in need of your clarification?

But aside from that redundancy, it does require more resources. Have you ever looked into the hardware requirements for these AIs? They're fairly steep. Greatly steeper than normal game development. And you haven't taken the human out, because someone has to keep working on prompts.

All this is tangential, because we're not "about" to do anything. This will take at least a decade and more like two or three to get to the level of 3d art we have today. If they manage to get it that way at all. Look up the Pareto Principle. They've done the easy part. Now they have to do the hard part.


YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ixxvxsi wrote

You have to pay a salary to those brains, they're not free. If you don't need to pay them (because you use AI now), then you need fewer resources (as in money), ceteris paribus.

I'm not denying it might increase costs (as long as it increases productivity more), I'm simply pointing out that human brains are considered as resources - in business speak and economics at least, which is ultimately what matters.


jepvr t1_ixxw942 wrote

>By “resource” people normally mean money, not human brains.
>I'm simply pointing out that human brains are considered as resources

You're kind of doing a bad job of it. :D


YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ixxwksz wrote

Are you really not getting what I’m talking about?

Human brains by themselves are not resources, but the salaries to pay for them are… fewer brains, fewer salaries, fewer resources…


jepvr t1_ixxwruf wrote

Six of one, half dozen of the other. You're splitting hairs.

And as I pointed out, there's going to be much more hardware resources going on, plus the humans to run the AI. And on top of all that, the output is going to be shit for probably the next couple of decades. So all this is a moot discussion.


YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ixxxgaj wrote

I’m splitting hairs? That’s ironic for you to say. You’re the one pretending that resources are not financial resources at the foremost.

The transition will not happen as long as the added productivity is smaller than added costs or, keeping productivity similar, as long as the cost of adopting AI is greater than the cost of paying the salaries.


jepvr t1_ixy00c7 wrote

I was never pretending anything. Of course everything is ultimately financial. Such a statement is so obvious to not need stating unless you think the person you are talking to is a total moron (in which case why even bother trying to have an intellectual conversation?)

What I'm saying is that I do not believe the OP was talking about that sort of resource. Hell, they didn't even say development, and I think it very likely they were talking about runtime. Most people don't use the term to mean "resource intensive" when they're talking about "financially expensive." It's more typically used in the context of hardware resources. I think it's likely that's what the OP was meaning.


Big_Forever5759 t1_ixvhpzb wrote

Someone should invent a 3d printer that can replicate a graphics cards. I’m sure nvidia would come out with all sorts of copyright stuff.


Cyan-Eyed452 t1_ixx21j5 wrote

I imagine this sort of thing will need lots of manual work done to it to make it play nicely with anything that uses 3D assets.

Games and VR, training, pre-rendered CGI etc etc.

I've been a 3D artist for the last 5 years (in e-learning and training, using VR and AR specifically) and I just can't see this being able to spit out something useable without needing significant modifications. I hate to think the mess of geometry and polycounts this thing will spit out.


Sirisian t1_ixxahfn wrote

Yeah, the manual fixing part might be required for a while. For some applications like in film, NERF methods are looking interesting where the topology doesn't need to be perfect for hard surfaces. The new Corridor Digital video showed how fast that is progressing with a quick look at some applications of it so far.

It's not hard to imagine as graph neural networks become more advanced, and with enough training data, that a topology solver will exist. Even as an assistant tool rapidly fixing common issue. (These kind of force multipliers are important since they allow one artist to work at the pace of multiple). Another method is to start from an artistically created reference mesh (or something like MetaHuman) and mapping scans to it to import actors.

You mention using AR. A lot of comments view mainstream AR and its data collection ability to be a tipping point where various techniques become commonplace. Walking around with a headset and scanning the world at extremely fine detail with algorithms extracting objects and other algorithms extracting normal maps, lighting data, etc. In many game pipelines artists will (or did before large databases of assets) go out and collect photogrammetry scans with teams. This process will be much cheaper and faster later.

It's also interesting from a rendering perspective how some tools are dealing with larger polycount objects. (Other than simply simplifying them and baking normal maps). UE5 for instance can handle very unoptimized meshes with millions of polygons. Not super ideal and not viable for VR applications anytime soon, but engine pipelines might be able to magically handle things that artists used to do manually to increase performance.


ddnnuupp t1_iy3bh37 wrote

I hate that video, it's incredibly misleading.

You are right about the use cases though. What you're wrong about is it's lifespan. We'll be AI generating locations from a single photo within a year.

Applications for industry are weak though, because they need super accurate recreations of assets and locations as they exist, down to the cracks in the concrete. They cannot have any AI approximation, they need to be 1:1. So traditional 3D photogrammetry is safe for now. But all other 3D pursuits are about to change.


Simply_Epic t1_ixxuuyv wrote

Certainly. Though for now I imagine this is super useful for making background objects that don’t really need to look amazing or have good topology. Anything that’s not the main focus of a scene doesn’t really need that much effort. This will just let artists spend more of their time where it’s most impactful for the overall scene.


ddnnuupp t1_iy3b521 wrote

I've been a 3D artist for 15 years and I can tell you that it absolutely will be automated and likely within the next year.

The gains appear to be logarithmic.

My advice to others is to adopt these technologies into your workflow now.

Midjourney and stable diffusion coupled with 'Materialize' have already replaced the substance suite for me.

I'm not happy about it. I just want to see all of this tech reach its logical conclusion as fast as possible. I feel like the slow knife would be more dangerous than a sudden paradigm shift. So many people are going to lose their jobs, no matter how you spin it. It's tragic and the future looks so uncertain and weird.

Non-artists, it's coming after you next. All a lawyer or doctor does is collate relevant information and apply it to a question. They are next.

Helpdesk, retail, and, dare I say it, programmers.

Funnily enough it looks like tradesmen are pretty secure. And everyone thought they were most vulnerable a decade ago.


lughnasadh OP t1_ixuznad wrote

Submission Statement

Nvidia isn't the first to do this, DreamFusion got there first, but Nvidia's AI is a significant step up in quality. Professional grade 3D modeling software, like Blender, has a steep learning curve, so this will democratize 3D content creation. Apple is rumored to have VR glasses in the works for next year. If so, there is likely to be a big increase in 3D content creation.


koalazeus t1_ixvyd8w wrote

I need low resolution psx style 3d models that are rigged and animated. Get on it Nnnnvidya.


PIZT t1_ixwqeo3 wrote

As.long as the AI remains open source. The danger comes when one central entity controls the AI.


youstillhavehope t1_ixy1btb wrote

Microsoft just did a deal with Nvidia to buy tens of thousands (yup) GPUs for their AI training farm. Tens of thousands.


VizDevBoston t1_ixweev2 wrote

Damn this is gonna destroy the job of 3D modeling just like how sewing machines destroyed the jobs of everyone making clothing or cars destroyed the wagon repair industry. Amazing there are any jobs available at all anymore.


eduarbio15 t1_ixwutax wrote

I know a program that outputs 3D models out of text descriptions, its called openSCAD


Heavenly_Noodles t1_ixxk727 wrote

It looks like musicians might fare somewhat better in the face of the AI revolution than artists in other mediums. The one big advantage music has going for it is the performance aspect. People enjoy seeing musicians play their instruments and putting on a show; it's hard to make an entertaining spectacle of the act of 3D modeling or drawing pictures.


LevelWriting t1_iy255vf wrote

Lol you really think that ai won't be able to recreate realistic vocals or video? We're maybe a year or two away from that.


Heavenly_Noodles t1_iy2f7j3 wrote

I'm talking about live performance. Even in this day and age, people enjoy seeing their fellow humans perform. Of course AI will be able to produce convincing music and even video; it already can for the most part.


FuturologyBot t1_ixv4b0q wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:

Submission Statement

Nvidia isn't the first to do this, DreamFusion got there first, but Nvidia's AI is a significant step up in quality. Professional grade 3D modeling software, like Blender, has a steep learning curve, so this will democratize 3D content creation. Apple is rumored to have VR glasses in the works for next year. If so, there is likely to be a big increase in 3D content creation.

Please reply to OP's comment here:


therealseanski t1_ixwh3up wrote

yeah 8 years ago I remember my college professor telling me specialist trades will be overtaken by AI since it was already in it's infancy at the time- there will always be people who want human made art, but commissions will be all but non existent in like 10 years.


jepvr t1_ixwq9jo wrote

For some value of "high resolution."

I couldn't imagine using a single one of their example models in a game. I think it'll get there someday, but not today.


MattVanAndel t1_ixxaxwg wrote

I’d love to get my hands on this. It would really help with solo-developer indy game workflows. I need a sizable collection of bespoke props for my game, but I’m not made of money and there aren’t enough hours in the day to develop the talent and skills to model everything on my own.

Cleaning up a rough model or scan for Unreal or a 3D print is a lot easier than modeling and texturing something from scratch.


plankright37 t1_ixxvtn9 wrote

I’m wondering if that program can be hooked directly into a 3D printer to go from creation to form.


No-name-2611 t1_ixz4k73 wrote

I wonder, will these models be rigged?

It's the most difficult in 3D, to make a sophisticated rig.


Freds_Premium t1_iy047qz wrote

I dream of a day when someone can take their favorite video game, something like Fallout 76 for instance, and create their own expansions, recreate their own towns, or make a 1:1 reproduction of the entire state of WV for instance.

Or maybe games like Final Fantasy 7 Remake could take 2-3 years to produce instead of 8.


ddnnuupp t1_iy3cuos wrote

A lot of denial in these comments.

I'm not happy about it but it's happening. Humans have a hard time wrapping their minds around a logarithmic progression of technology. Which appears to be what is happening.

Look at the original Dall-E. Now look at the latest versions of Midjourney.

It has been months.