False.  that entire statement is false and narrow minded.  They absolutely will need people to buy their products, and they can't have the entire population being poor.  The USSR collapsed, in large part due to their currency being devalued, thus the dollar can devalue with everyone being poor, which would make them poor.  Not to mention rich people need the general populous to invest in the stock market, which requires money. 

Economics isn't what you think it is.    

I think what this will lead to is eventually a work flow where game's graphics are actually very basic, like maybe even PS2 or PS3 quality (if even that?) ... and then the bulk of processing spend is going to be to get the generative AI to quickly manipulate the image up to look like whatever photo/video reference it has. What DLSS5 is showing is it's effectively possible to do this in real time. 

I have no idea where a company like Nintendo will sit on this in the long term, but theoretically it's possible to imagine a setup where it terms of raw compute, a Switch 3 for example is not really much more powerful than a Switch 2 on the compute side, maybe even less so, but all the "new" aspect of the hardware is a ton of added Tensor cores that handle the "image manipulation" (AI filter basically). Basically the silicon will be just a ton of Tensor cores dedicated to making the AI filter super fast and be able to extrapolate from some photo reference data it's been fed (trained on), the actual "real rendering" side of the chip is likely to be gimped because it won't be needed. 

Because really why even bother with heavy native rendering when you can just focus the hardware towards basically becoming a AI filter machine. AI image manipulation doesn't care if you ask it to make something photoreal versus hyper cartoony versus hyper detailed or not detailed really. It's just manipulating pixels on a 2D image and then outputting it. Looks like it basically just needs to know from vector data which way things in the scene are moving and it can create a new image that "looks better" just from that. 

But what that will do is basically ice artists out of the gaming process. Why pay an artist when the final frame is generated by an AI. It will eventually devalue graphics because who cares about graphics when its just an AI algo spitting out a 2D image filter basically, does anyone get really excited when they see more advanced AI filters that are more photorealistic going forward? I doubt it, it was neat maybe the first few times you saw it, now it's just a "whatever" or even annoying. 

Since the discussion in this thread has shifted to AI use cases generally I guess I'll take the bait. 

Here are some non-trivial use-cases of AI in my personal life: 

1. I am a Machine Learning Engineer, but I mostly train very lightweight decision tree models that aren't deep learning models. One application of AI I have used very recently is that different teams in the organization I work for need insights to help with customer experience initiatives (customers being doctors, nurses, recipients of medicaid, etc.) The individuals servicing them work in call centers. If they provide a better customer experience and work more efficiently then health-care costs decrease and people who need and use Medicaid have a better experience. Anyway, we have data on task-times of the call center workers. Years ago I wrote code that reports on the distribution and performs hypothesis tests of these task times and helps us know if we should split the tasks into different categories with different, more normal distributions, or if the task is fine as is.

The results of this help optimize workflows and provide a better experience for everyone, including the workers. The issue was that this was only consumable to other technical people.

More recently, we've used small LLM's to summarize the various outputs of this analysis and give an easier to understand, correct, conclusion of what is seen in the data and what should be the actions taken by directors and senior managers to reorganize how tasking is done. This is a value add, because it makes servicing customers more efficient and the service to the end-users better. It is a positive for the workforce because the tasking is based on objective measurements and not management whim. 

2. A college roommate of mine, who just got his Physics PhD works for a company that uses AI and the math formalization language Lean. He is extending Lean to quantum mechanics, so that the AI can be used to further expedite the formalization. The direct result of this is that the formalizations in Lean will be used for research in photonic computing. That's where the funding comes from. But the implications are much greater than that. Quantum Mechanics affects many technologies we take advantage of. 

3. I am building a personal project that requires the creation of 3D material assets. I have been taking pictures of various pieces of nature outdoors, and then using the photos with Adobe Substance Sampler to get a first rough draft of the materials within seconds. Then I manually edit the material properties to better match my artistic vision. The AI part is a very minimal part of the workflow, but it speeds up thr workflow considerably and it helps me with my 3D-world simulation project. Without it, I would probably just be using ugly free marketplace assets that would be disjointed when mixed. 

4. I was looking the other day for a physics research paper I had read about 7 years ago. I couldn't remember thr name of the paper but I could remember the content. I described the content to Gemini, and it was able to retrieve it a lot faster than Google Scholar would have and also provide some othe references on extended research since I last read that paper.

I can see the argument that the value isn't worth the negatives, but to argue there is no value for regular people at all is just blatantly false. I am not a billionaire and I have gained value from AI use cases. And yes, it is hyped, there probably is an overvaluation, and as with any technology there are negative use-cases, but there are valuable use-cases of these tools too. 

Then how do they expect us to have income when all the jobs are being taken by AI?

If the measure of "AI filter" is that it works on 2D image data + buffer data, then all DLSS with the exception of Ray Reconstruction are "AI filters."

Personally I think having access to buffer data is a very important difference between this and the "AI filters."

I also think that the final release version probably will end up having G-buffer data in its training set and inference to solve some of the criticisms we've been seeing, if it doesn't already (that is still ambiguous.) 

I think Nvidia's idea was that neural shaders would be responsible for pre-processing of materials and lighting, then DLSS5 would be a final touch up, but they really should just merge the technologies. If DLSS RR can be a DLSS (brand-wise) despite not being purely post-processed, then so can neural shaders. 

Or maybe it is time for DLSS to be abandoned as a brand and just go back to describing their super-sampler? 

The significant difference being that the final image is really no longer something an artist who worked on that game can say is their art work really. 

It's a different image, now Nvidia is being clever and knowing that this will be controversial so they're keeping the image manipulation to look fairly close to the original image for now and trying BS like saying "it's just a lighting filter" (when its not), but likely there's no real limit to how far this could be pushed, it just comes down to which image data set you feed the AI algorithm. If you wanted for example to make the main character look just like a photo real Megan Fox and gave the AI algorithm enough image data, that likely is possible for example. The generative AI doesn't care, it just has its 2D input (image) and then will create from its dataset something it deems "looks better". 

At some point then why even hire a full art staff. What art staff's will become is basically a small handful of people that are there probably just to create reference images for the generative AI to understand roughly what the art style/look of the game should be and then it takes over. And even that at some point probably you're not even going to hire reference artists as generative AI will understand basically every kind of art style there is. 

Same way people still had jobs after the industrial revolution.  Same way people had jobs after robotics.  Same way people had jobs after the internet.  The world adjusts.  

This

(well said)

Says who? There has never been technology like AI that effectively replaces human intelligence and need for human labour in virtually every industry. 

There's no magic rule that says "the world will adjust just fine". Just because you had a good day on Monday doesn't mean you're guaranteed to have a great day on Friday. You could get hit by a bus on Friday. The world doesn't give a shit about maintaining some kind of feel good equilibrium for everyone or anyone for that matter.