Are u calling this person a liar, then?
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/at_least_this_banner_isnt_ai_tooright/post49/?staff=yes

Im not saying this new year banner isnt ai, I dont know enough to be 100% sure, and neither do u or anyone else here.
Be careful guys b4 u just acuse ppl of this and that without proof. Even when they come out and say its not ai and its made by them personally, some of u are still so keen on putting everything and everyone in the same box.
And I dont think thats ok.

You accused that person of having made AI crap, which the person made a post about saying it was him/herself that made it and that it wasnt made by AI.
You called that artists' work 'crap' and didnt even have the decency to apologise for being wrong.
And thats actually also not ok.

But its easier to just keep spewing all this hate left and right all the time because of whatever grudge u all seem to have against GOG.

I dont like AI, not saying this one isnt or many other havent been, or future ones wont be.
But some of u ppl are getting too comfortable with accusations without proof around here imo..

And yes I did say this because there is this handful of what I personally call the 'GOG grumpy boys club', where almost every post and comment is a copy paste, and its frankly getting a little tired to behold.
Over and out grrr.
:)

Yes.

There are certain things expected of modern sites and storefronts. It's probably best if GOG meets those expectations. That said, these expectations don't involve custom art created for every single sale. And if it is created, which is already an extra, then being Ai generated is perfectly alright.

But GOG isn't Apple or Google. They are a niche vendor for 3.5 stubborn nerds who care about not having DRM. And we - the stubborn nerds - don't have anywhere else to go, so ...

That's actually a good point against your entire argument. Other people bust their asses working on these sites, and GG still gets the sales. Plus all these sites are kinda ugly and none of them have any art at all, be it AI-generated or hand-painted.

I actually audibly laughed at this statement.

And thats an insane thing to say.
Not to mention rude and respectless to whoever made it.
If someone claim its made by them, it should be taken for truth, not shot down for personal grudges and beliefs and called crap.
If u make a mistake u own up to it, take accountability, anything else for ur age is just immature pride tbh.
And continuing to shit on someone elses real work, that in that case turned out to not be made by ai, is something else entirely.

You appear to be casting pearls...

Patrons thing make more sense now that they were being sold off. GOG did know about this way before we even heard about it. Let's face it, no DD store can survive nowadays unless it has lots of money. Look at all the other stores like GOG, they sell mostly indie games or barely any games at all. ZP is 10 years old, and they have fewer than 900 games. Because they barely make any money.

They had a winter sale for three days because they couldn't afford to have it longer. I'm not blaming ZP but look at how they struggle just to survive.

What's happening to all the new CS grads who can't get jobs because their entry-level work and all these tech layoffs from the majors right now caused by AI, offshoring, and poor job markets?

You can use this site to monitor and track where AIs are a cited reason for restructuring efforts - https://www.trueup.io/layoffs

Don't you mean Bluesky? Also, I hear McDonalds is hiring. Witchcraft sloppa bad, must smash!
Also this: They're going to alientate a small fraction of neo luddites? Oh the horror!

"That's not a bug, it's a feature!"

I think it comes down to personal priorities. For me, sales banners aren't more important than ongoing forum issues, like the post I just made that didn't show up, which isn't a new problem. It's been happening since at least December, and a month later it's still not fixed.
Anyway, it seems GOG is running on a tight budget, but that doesn't mean I'll project personal fears, like automatically assuming AI = bad

Yes. It's absolutely horrible. Nobody hires people for having a pulse and starts them at six figures anymore. Back in 1999 or in 2016, or even in 2022 all you had to do was attend a two-to-six months course and you got recruiters lining up to fellate you. It is no longer the case. You could see it as a catastrophic fall. Or you could see it as a return to sanity and normality.

Those people, by the way, the ones who got hired in 1999 all got fired in the dot com crash. Not because of any AI, but because they were incompetent. The software engineering field didn't die, in fact it grew, but it took a moment to breathe and realized that it shouldn't be hiring the clueless. Then it forgot ... rinse ... repeat, 2024/2025.

I got my first programming job in 1998 while still in high school. Three days a week I left school at 1 PM to go work for this small company. My first full time job in a software company was in 2000. Since then, I've seen it all — from startups to giant multinational corporations. There is ALWAYS, and I mean ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS a demand for competent engineers. Every friend I have across dozens of companies is complaining about it being impossible to hire someone. Hell, my team is trying to hire a couple of engineers right now.

And yes, we use AI. I use Cursor to help me code. It's something of an advanced autocomplete and search all in one. I'd be crazy to let to make architectural decisions, but it sure helps cut down on the tedious parts. Still, nobody is getting laid off because of it. Again, we are hiring. And we are paying well. People do get laid off at some companies, sure, but AI is an excuse rather than the reason. Execs always have and always will have stupid ideas every so often, which they bet on and then find out. Open office layouts, stack ranking, etc. If you want a laugh at how the tech industry's hype cycle works, here's a good article: https://www.bitecode.dev/p/hype-cycles

I'm not sure there was a better time to be a software engineer than right now. Because of AI, those who actually wish to learn have such an easier time learning. Back in my day you went to a store, bought a book, and prayed to Babbage that the book was good, because you couldn't return it once unsealed. Now, you can actually learn without wasting infinite time and effort on finding a decent (and not horribly outdated book) or subject yourself you vile cretins from Stack Overflow.

Of course, if one doesn't want to learn but instead wants the AI to do their work for them, that person will be replaced by AI because they bring no value in addition to what AI already brings. Or, rather, they won't be replaced by AI, they'll be replaced by a competent engineer who uses AI to help them. I'm ok with losing these people, though.

If the claims are to be believed the monies from the Patron program was never meant to go towards hiring people to make bespoke banners for the store. It's meant to be pumped into the Preservation Program. Full stop.

This is basically an oxymoron.
AI creates visual slop (no matter what you think).
The time and money spent to create the initial slop PLUS the time to tidy it up (and even figure out what the idiot that fed it the "brief" was trying to get at) is more than somebody just doing a good job themselves in the first place - nevermind any ethical factors etc that are in play.

As to what I said prior in this thread - at no point did i say the current banner was AI generated, just that it was slop.
Badly done, unprofessional slop I could outdo in a few minutes for a fraction of the cost, but people would rather waste time on this "tool" and complain art / design is "hard" and "expensive" than face up to the facts.

Comically it won't be me losing my job to said "tool".

Maybe you could explain it to me so that I can understand your vehement rejection of this. I like to figure things out, and maybe you'll be able to open my eyes as to why you think the way you do. Many artists are using AI tools to better their work and make it easier to make their ideas come to life. Just like photoshop, it often gives them help whether it's creating a base image to modify, or modifying their own image to make it different.

On straw men, you never said the image was AI, I never said art/design is too hard or expensive.

There's nothing comical here. I have seen people start to do some amazing things with AI tools, generative AI and the like. If you're willing to share, I'd like to know what makes you so resistant to the thing.

You've basically just copy /pasted what you wrote earlier - which i have specifically answered in my post - and what followed is the most hollow codshit I have had the misfortune of reading from you. Again repeating bleat lines.

ONCE MORE FOR THE IGNORANT: I DID NOT MENTION AI EARLIER - BUT YOU DID!

[redacted]

[modded by ponczo_ - please refrain from using offensive language]

Ok.