It's interesting to see software engineers realize that AI can be useful in the hands of competent engineers, but that LLMs tend to produce a mess in the hands of those with little software engineering knowledge. Then they're confused why generative AI asset creation doesn't look that good in the hands of people who have no art training.

I know someone creating a game, and she is using AI in asset creation. But she's also a highly skilled environment technical artist from the industry, and so the use of AI looks totally different than all these demos from non-artists: different types of narrow AI get injected into different little parts of the asset creation pipeline, and the result is a mix of traditional tools (Substance Designer + Painter, Blender, Maya) with AI support in moodboarding, geometry creation and some parts of texture creation. The result is a 2-5x speedup, but instead of looking like slop it looks like a stylistically distinctive, cohesive world with consistent art direction.

The common pattern is that people think AI will automate "other people," because they see its shortcomings in their own field. But because they don't understand the technical skill required in other fields, they assume AI will just "do it." Instead, it seems like AI can be a force multiplier for technically skilled people, but that it begins showing its weakness when asked to take over entire pipelines normally produced by technically skilled people, whether they be engineers or artists.