Every creative industry is currently grappling with the question of what generative AI means for them. The step-change we have seen in the capacity of computer algorithms to generate imagery, audio, and text is a significant one in many ways.
Philosophically, it pushes back the boundaries of what computers can do into an area that makes many people uncomfortable, because this kind of "creativity" has so often been considered an inherent part of what separates humans from animals, let alone computers.
In more substantive terms, it opens up possibilities for productivity while also raising serious questions about the commercial sustainability of creative professions and businesses. Battle lines are being drawn, but a lot of people aren't sure which mast they want to pin their colours too, holding both hopes and fears for this new technology.
The games industry, thus far, has been relatively cautious about generative AI – there have been a fair few optimistic statements about the technology, but not a lot of cases where it seems to have been deployed to any particularly significant effect in a development process.
Major companies are taking a wait-and-see approach to some degree, and most of the noise about the use of generative AI (both in terms of eager adoption, and angry backlash) has been concentrated around unknown indie upstarts.
Nintendo, unusually, has become one of the first companies to actually come out and take a stance on generative AI – making comments in an investor Q&A to the effect that it doesn't have any intention to use generative AI in its development processes for now. Nintendo is careful to specify that it's talking about generative AI, noting that games companies have been at the forefront of using other kinds of AI in their products for years.
Its decision on generative AI isn't coming from some kind of luddite refusal of new technology – I have no doubt that there's a ton of work going on with other kinds of AI at Nintendo, especially the more
Read more on gamesindustry.biz