SuperNovaStar comments on [Meta Discussion] How would people feel about requiring posters to tag games made with AI?

[Meta Discussion] How would people feel about requiring posters to tag games made with AI? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 3 days ago by SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/freegames@feddit.uk

112 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I see a lot of free games on here that are made with AI, and personally i'm not interested in AI generated content. If other people feel the same way, maybe we could start tagging posts accordingly?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 5 points 3 days ago (14 children)

What they're saying is, is that so many, if not all games and software will have been developed using AI in some capacity, that it'll make the tag pointless.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone [S] 2 points 3 days ago (13 children)

Well, then an AI-free tag for developers who proudly avoid it. I'm sure people will continue to care.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 2 points 3 days ago (12 children)

I posted this elsewhere but you should read it too:

Having a model run a code review isn’t lofty goal, it’s available right now and it’s very good. Anyone who’s done this will agree that it’s a tool to improve the quality of the code.

The only reason not to do it is ideological, and it’s not a hill worth dying on. We already use linters and so on.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone [S] 2 points 3 days ago (11 children)

Ideological hills are the only hills worth dying on. Otherwise you're dying over a random patch of earth.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 2 points 3 days ago (10 children)

What a silly thing to say. Ideologies are never worth worrying about because they are by definition unsupported by reason.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone [S] 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

It seems you've chosen your ideology poorly, then. My ideology attempts to be supported by reason as often as is possible. Of course, there are things reason alone can't tell you (see: the is-ought gap), but of course one ought to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if that evidence makes you uncomfortable.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 1 point 2 days ago (2 children)

I don't do arguments in semantics, but I will note that your definition of "ideology" seems very unusual.

In my view, there's significant evidence that AI tools are very proficient at supporting developers, and that very clearly makes you uncomfortable.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone [S] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

Did your "significant evidence" ignore the massive water use, land use, copyright infringement, and other ethical concerns?

It's not like i'm one of those people from Dune or whatever. I'm not against all machine learning - just these specific tools made by these companies and these specific massive environmental problems. (Among other big issues)

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 1 point 2 days ago

Yes I did ignore those issues.

Game devs certainly will.

Being a developer without using AI is becoming untenable. That's the reality that any developer will tell you. Theres posts here to that effect from career developers bemoaning the changes to the industry every day.

parent

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 1 point 2 days ago (5 children)

What do you think ideology means?

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 1 point 2 days ago (4 children)

I don't do arguments in semantics.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 1 point 2 days ago (3 children)

Insane reply just admit you thought it meant something else lmao

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 1 point 2 days ago (2 children)

Maybe look up a definition for me lmao

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

I mean sure I guess

of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based:

"socialist/capitalist ideology"

"The people are caught between two opposing ideologies."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ideology

There is colloquial use of the term to refer specifically to beliefs/principles held in contrast to what evidence supports, but I don't think you can make an argument for this overriding the general meaning of the term, especially when it comes to (hopefully) educated discussion.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 1 point 2 days ago

Great. Well done.

I don't believe that beliefs or principles (such as those supporting political parties) are hills worth dying on because they are, by definition, unsupported by reason.

parent