NutT4y

Hey #PortfolioDay! I'm a 3D generalist who makes ideas move - from photoreal to stylized. Game cinematics, cars, robots, and pew pew. Open to commissions and hunting for full-time adventures! 🔊

when genAI bros play shooter games: Aimbot is the future, I just tell it I want to lock my crosshair onto the enemy’s head and click LMB, it will headshot for me. Why do you need to spend years mastering your aim while I can do it with one click? The pro players are gatekeeping!

@axinovium @JoeWilsonEQ1 Cool, your entire skill set as an AI bro in a 100% practical scenario: Walk into a restaurant, sit down, "I'll have the medium-rare pan-seared ribeye with a side of truffle mashed potatoes, and could I start with the classic Caesar salad, dressing on the side, please?" Happy?

@JoeWilsonEQ1 This is completely irrelevant. In what scenario do you expect all computers to suddenly explode? If you have to come up with a completely nonsensical hypothetical scenario to "be right" in, then you've already lost.

Skills have intrinsic value and are transferable. If all computers suddenly exploded, 3D modeling skills would apply to sculpture, pottery, carpentry, landscaping, and more fields. If your “skill” goes away when you lose your internet connection, it’s not a skill, it’s a crutch.

@realTedMcKenzie @andrewpprice Why would you continue giving this clown all the influences he wants? He's farming for views so the AI companies can pay him more. Shameless cu*t doesn't give a sh*t of being a laughingstock, he's actually grinding for it.

Is it fair to rename @andrewpprice from "the donut guy" into "the cone guy" yet? Imagine squandering your entire legacy and becoming a laughingstock in one week just to hop on a Next Big Thing™ bandwagon, what a dumbass

@andrewpprice Lmao you are such a clown🤡 yeah human made assets need all those pipeline works, but AI generated assets with dog sh*t topology and UV can be directly thrown into game engines without those processes, so no hidden cost? Did Ubi CFO tell you that LOL 🤣🤣🤣

Since everyone is dunking on this slide from 7 years ago; I estimated the end cost of an asset when it arrives in a final, AAA third-to-person game. This includes revisions, admin, vendor integration and all the other bs hidden costs and meetings that go into an asset. Then I guessed what was procedural, reusable or one off. I then showed this to two directors at two separate game studios who said it was a "very reasonable estimate". I don't know why the traffic cone seemingly got an extra zero for no reason. That's definitely wrong. But if anything, the rest of the estimates feel way too conservative. Like the CFO at Ubisoft is probably laughing at this for the opposite reason you are.

@3DMartelli @BryanNHolt ive worked as both a freelancer and for a studio for years. 90% of the time the so-called vision is completely from the decision makers. No one would ask an average artist's "vision", your task is to visualize their vision. Im just discussing facts, but thx for your input.

@NutT4y @BryanNHolt As a 3D artist you get a brief from a client and it’s your job to turn that into a vision that meets all the requirements. I know as I’ve been doing it for years Anyway it’s not all black and white as you make it to be, X is the wrong platform to have nuanced discussion

Andrew has spent this week getting buried under some of the ugliest commentary I've seen aimed at a creator in a while. I'm not a Blender user. I've been in VFX since 2012. And I think the Blender community is missing something important about what just happened. 🧵

@3DMartelli @BryanNHolt Youre mixing the concepts, the breif is the vision. Clients write you a brief, you create visuals. Andrew wrote the prompt, AI generated the visuals. In the AI workflow, Andrew is a waste of money from the clients perspective.

@3DMartelli @BryanNHolt irl projects, the vision is mostly from the decision makers (clients, directors, etc), they then give briefs to the artists, which is exactly how he gave blocking and prompt to genAI. The artists' jobs start from the visual part, which is done by genAI. See the problem?

@NutT4y @BryanNHolt There’s a vision in your head when you start a project. The process of an artist is to realize these thoughts & ideas into reality. I argue that you can use AI as a look dev tool in the process of researching. The final output should be done by craft of hard learnt 3D knowledge

@andrewpprice Lmao who paid that amateur car model for $5000? You were lucky to scam your client one time, that doesnt mean its worth that much. The genAI model might be fine as a background asset, but wait until AI companies raise their pricing, you know that will 100% happen right?

The idea that professional artists will be able to resist AI workflows forever - on someone else's dime - is quite frankly, foolish. Consider how likely you would be to hire a plumber at 10x the price because they refuse to use a snake camera? I still sketch for fun. I still model when I could download, for fun. But for work? I use whatever tool is best for the goals of the project, in the least time. It's always been this way. I get no pleasure from saying this. But refusing the more efficient tool rarely ends well for professionals. My first car model on the left from 2007. And a generated version on the right. For a hero asset, the left approach still wins. For a background asset, the right is perfectly fine. Use what works.

@Rmlambert_00 @EdonGuraziu genAI is even worse than what you just said - at least you know exactly where your destination is on the map to guide the self driving car, but genAI bros don't even know what the final image will look like in the end.

@NutT4y @EdonGuraziu So this is more akin to pressing a direction on a compass in self-driving car, but you don't know where it'll take you in that direction or where it'll stop, whether it'll hit a truck or park correctly is out of your control 🤣

Creativity and the act of creation is what I deeply love doing. I wake up every single day and get excited to design something new. It’s my true passion in life. Somewhere, I can understand their frustration, but I think this anti-AI stance is misguided at best. This runs much deeper. If something looks great, it is great, no matter how it was created. A creation is by definition something that can exist on its own. If an anti-AI person learns it was generated in full or with assistance of machine learning and his opinion suddenly changes, we know he never truly loved the “creation” in the first place. Instead, we learn his true value lies in the pain or suffering behind it. Therefore he should just start whipping his own back until it bleeds like those monks. His identity has been chained to his personal suffering (most likely), making his appreciation for aesthetic recognition conditional. Love cannot be conditional. This reveals the deeper hypocrisy: machine learning is already everywhere in “traditional” pipelines. Every liquid simulation, procedural tool for scattering particles, or physics-driven scatter falls in the same category. Basically black-box ML with zero granular control. Yet those are deemed fine because they wear the old romantic costume. People claim they value “control,” but the outrage is selective. They fetishize visible human struggle while the real ontology of art AKA "the sovereign artifact" remains untouched. Therefore they went against the very core of what it means to be creative or an artist. Would be pleased to engage on this down in the comments.

@3DMartelli @BryanNHolt Again, he literally had no visual idea before AI gave him renders. In the end, the final image is the same visual quality as the beginning. He showed you he controlled/refined almost nothing. If only blocking and prompt matter, clients would definitely do it without him.

@NutT4y @BryanNHolt I think you miss my point and we do kind of agree. Q. No, but I can see the value of testing AI in a pipeline to find the correct path. Clients would never except AI work as final. As a 3D artist you need to be in control of the whole scene, lighting, modeling, rendering etc

@3DMartelli @BryanNHolt He blocked some spheres and cubes, AI generated renders, he accepted, then after few steps of so-called "human control and refine", AI rendered again. So in the end, he got the same visual quality, layout just looks different. Whats the point?

@NutT4y @BryanNHolt Understand art, is first about shape, form and composition. Just as you would block a scene out, you don’t start with the final image. Rather look dev, which is a whole process. AI can help with this in that process as a useful tool, not final results ofc.

@3DMartelli @BryanNHolt He had no idea what the moon base looks like until AI gave him the first few visuals, the low poly blocking is his work, but the renders are definitely not his work. Ultimately clients dont need his vision in this workflow, they prompt and choose results, just like what he did.

@NutT4y @BryanNHolt I would say it’s ‘upscaling’ his vision & composition. You cannot argue that the work is not his. The technique is a useful workflow to decide in which direction to go. Ultimately making the final render with 3D tools using the reference that was a crossroad in the development.

@GloryofForthe @BryanNHolt Except in his example, he literally said he had no idea what it looks like without days of lookdev, but AI gave him visuals in minutes and he accepted those. It is AI visually directed you with its "brain and taste", you just accept the output.

@NutT4y @BryanNHolt Okay? eventually they will, whether or not you use AI. All roads lead to convenience and simplicity. The best thing a professional can do, at least for now, is wield their expertise to get the best outcomes, because you have a brain and taste, and AI is only raw power.

@EdonGuraziu I never said it's about purity, never said doing it with faster tools is wrong. I literally said it's totally fine as long as you and your clients happy. But what's morally wrong is that you claim credits on the parts of the job that isnt done by you.

That’s why in court you can’t hide behind technicalities. You can’t say to the judge, “I didn’t run over those people with the car, I only touched the pedal. It was the engine that accelerated.” If your input results in the outcome, you are held responsible. We can debate whether this framework is correct, but this is current reality. So I think it’s reasonable to use this logic precedent. A puristic stance does not work selectively only where we see fit. Otherwise people who use a bike are undermining the purity of our bipedal anatomy. Why use a bike if walking 5 km is more morally pure? It doesn’t make sense. We invent technology to decrease burden and suffering. Not to morally grandstand over how much we endured.

@EdonGuraziu in his lookdev example, do you think he controlled the art direction of the moon base just like how you control the direction of your car, precisely? Do you have to take a guess how fast your car will be moving like hes asking AI to guess what those habits can look like?

@NutT4y Vibecoding is no different than pressing the gas pedal in your car. You have no mechanistic control over the inner workings, yet you remain fully responsible for the outcome of both the car and the code.

@EdonGuraziu We are fully responsible for the driving while we have no idea whats going on inside the engine, never claim so. He had no idea what the moon base looks like without days of lookdev, AI gave him the visuals in minutes, he then claimed "I have ideas".

@EdonGuraziu 6/ there are clear boundaries on how we define things. It's totally fine to use AI to make everything if he and his clients are both happy. But it's morally wrong if he claimed thats his idea, creativity, and control. Unfortunately thats exactly what hes trying to do.

@EdonGuraziu 5/ we all love to see a disabled person being able to move again with bionic limbs, but we srsly doubt if a patient got a brain replacement. it's still called cooking if you bought raw food from the market, but it's not cooking if you ordered a meal from KFC.