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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

I think its an insult to the industrial revolution and the internet to compare AI to it. I think AI is the mask and the danger behind the mask is overfinancialization, slopification and enshitification.

I think its an insult to the industrial revolution and the internet to compare AI to it. I think AI is the mask and the danger behind the mask is overfinancialization, slopification and enshitification.

That sounds bad to me because how can you control your art design and direction? Are you just gonna let an AI bot determine it for you? How will you ensure consistency?

The AI basically decides based on whatever prompt criteria you've likely outlined (ie: "make this look moar real"). I suppose you can make it more specific by saying like "here's image data of an actor/actress, make the main model look more like that". That type of thing. But yes, essentially you are ceding control over your final image to an AI algo to essentially "decide" what the image should look like. 

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.