The following week, the debate over AI heated up again. Inspired by Eurogamer’s fascinating and polarizing review of Arc Raiders (written by PC Gamer contributor Rick Lane), Arrowhead CEO Shams Jorjani offered his thoughts on the use of AI in games, the wider debate surrounding this technology, and its relevance to Helldivers 2.
Speaking at The Game Business Show, Jorjani said he’s trying to find a middle ground, even though Helldivers 2 doesn’t use generative AI or machine learning.
“We’re waiting for the courts to decide what’s fair use and what’s not,” he says. “There may be some similarities to the whole black-and-white view of ‘it’s over, it’s back’, and we find that AI-related discussions in the games industry end up being on opposite ends of the spectrum.
“Square Enix executives are also talking about 77%.” [the actual number it gave was 70%] Some developers feel that QA is automated or threatens their livelihoods and very existence. Therefore, all AI is bad AI. Maybe the reality lies somewhere in between? ”
Jorjani also drew a comparison between AI and traditional middleware that “automates loads and other assets that were previously created manually,” noting that it did not spark a mass outcry. Although he admits that it wasn’t on the same scale as the use of AI.
Regarding Arc Raiders in particular, Jorjani believes that “this is an interesting use case that actually makes the game better.” Jorjani notes that Ark Raiders uses AI to generate raider voices for players who don’t want to use their voices in melee chat, but most of the criticism leveled at Ark Raiders has been directed at its use of AI in generating NPC voice lines.
Discussion of Ark Raiders’ use of AI is also inherently ambiguous, as Embark’s statements about how AI is implemented frequently contradict and confuse the developer himself.
As someone who distrusts AI, or at least the way it’s used to circumvent creatives and scrape the internet for art, I especially agree with Jorjani that this is a good use for AI. “I’m Swedish, so I don’t do voice acting in games,” he says. “It can be very scary to communicate directly with people you don’t know. You don’t want your voice to come out through accents or anything like that. I think this will allow more people to connect with each other, which is ultimately good for the game.”
I don’t think many people would disagree, especially considering how toxic the video game community is. For example, if you have a feminine voice, you are more likely to respond to harassment just by existing. Yes, that’s a good thing, but that’s not why people are criticizing Ark Raiders, including the Eurogamer review.
Jorjani added: “Let’s make sure people get paid for their work.” “There’s certainly a compromise here. Come on.”
The discussion then turns to cost. This applies not only in terms of the human cost of AI and how it puts creators out of work, but also in terms of the cost of game development and how studios can save money by implementing AI tools.
“Wouldn’t it have been better if Ark Raiders had failed and not used AI?” Jorjani asks. “That may be a false comparison, but on some level… progress is progress.” He also pushes back against the idea that some developers are completely opposed to AI. “Like anyone working in production at any level, we’re always thinking about ways to be more efficient, do less of what we don’t want to do, and do more of what we want to do.”
The problem with the AI debate is that people often come to it from very different ideas about what AI is. When I criticize AI, it’s often about things like generating art or replicating audio, rather than paying artists and performers. Because not only does it insult creators and put their jobs at risk, but it’s usually pretty bad. The voice acting is shaky and the art is full of mistakes and hallucinations. The same goes for AI-generated articles. It ends up being nonsense.
This is very different from what we traditionally call AI in games. AI first started out as enemy and NPC AI, but has since grown to include things like AI upscaling, which has been used for years by both modders and developers (with varying success). We also use AI to transcribe interviews. This is good enough for now because it saves me time and the AI can do it better than me. But I’m still doing interviews, it’s my questions, and I’m writing articles where the quotes are featured.
“That nuance has been lost,” Jorjani argues. “In some cases, we don’t come to the conclusion, ‘Let’s remove things that no one wants to do,’ and instead say, ‘All AI is bad AI.’ And we have a very similar approach. We don’t have AI in the game, but if we can create receipts with AI, that would make it more Helldiver for everyone.”
Jorjani is approaching straw man territory here. Because I’ve never seen anyone in this industry seriously suggest that all uses of AI are bad. No one wants to take Jorjani’s accounting software away from him.
Either way, this is an interesting chat, even if it just goes to show that we still don’t really understand how to discuss AI. It means so many different things, so many of them completely unrelated, that there is no obvious way to discuss the use of AI without filling the discussion with countless caveats.
At least everything will be resolved once the AI bubble bursts.
