Video game support developer Keywords Studios tried to create a game solely using artificial intelligence but failed because the technology was "unable to replace talent".
The article doesn’t say much. So I checked the source for more information. It doesn’t say much more, but IMO in a much better way, in two concise paragraphs. In the sourced financial report, it is in the intro, two paragraphs:
An example R&D initiative, sponsored by the Innovation team was Project Ava, where a team, initially from Electric
Square Malta, attempted to create a 2D game solely using Gen AI. Over the six-month process, the team shared
their findings across the Group, highlighting where Gen AI has the potential to augment the game development
process, and where it lags behind. Whilst the project team started small, it identified over 400 tools, evaluating and
utilising those with the best potential. Despite this, we ultimately utilised bench resource from seven different game
development studios as part of the project, as the tooling was unable to replace talent.
One of the key learnings was that whilst Gen AI may simplify or accelerate certain processes, the best results and
quality needed can only be achieved by experts in their field utilising Gen AI as a new, powerful tool in their creative
process. As a research project, the game will not be released to the public, but has been an excellent initiative to
rapidly spread tangible learnings across the Group, provide insights to clients and it demonstrates the power and
level of cross-studio collaboration that currently exists. Alongside Project Ava, the team is undertaking a range of
Gen AI R&D projects, including around 3D assets, to ensure that we are able to provide current insights in an ever-
evolving part of the market
The central quote and conclusion being:
One of the key learnings was that whilst Gen AI may simplify or accelerate certain processes, the best results and
quality needed can only be achieved by experts in their field utilising Gen AI as a new, powerful tool in their creative
process.
Which is obvious and expected for anyone familiar with the technology. Of course, experiments and confirming expectations has value too. And I’m certain actually using tools and finding out which ones they can use where is very useful to them specifically.
Honestly it sounds extremely generous by saying the best results can be achieved by experts with GenAI. In my opinion the best results can be achieved without it entirely.
The article doesn’t say much. So I checked the source for more information. It doesn’t say much more, but IMO in a much better way, in two concise paragraphs. In the sourced financial report, it is in the intro, two paragraphs:
The central quote and conclusion being:
Which is obvious and expected for anyone familiar with the technology. Of course, experiments and confirming expectations has value too. And I’m certain actually using tools and finding out which ones they can use where is very useful to them specifically.
The overall point may be relatively obvious, but the details are not.
Which steps of which processes is it good at, and which not? What can be easily integrated into existing tooling? Where is is best completely skipped?
Yes, exactly. That’s what I was referring to in my last sentence.
Honestly it sounds extremely generous by saying the best results can be achieved by experts with GenAI. In my opinion the best results can be achieved without it entirely.