no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
68 comments in c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca view that post
[–] 61 points 1 week ago (6 children)

What about all the artists who were gatekept from being given recognition for their work that the AIs stole from?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -54 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Or the teachers who done teached to giving run on clauses in sentences which are used to form the basis of our point in writing the sentence for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Their sentence made perfect sense and wasn’t a run-on. I’m sorry you read at a third grade level but I just wanted you to know you are wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago*

    Are you sure? What work did AI steal from? How is an artist being "gatekept"? What does the amalgamation of disparate terms even mean? Who is handing out recognition? Why can't the artists who kept a gate have any?

    The sentence answered no questions, but raised many.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 1 week ago (22 children)

    Good. Make disclosure required but otherwise let the consumer decide.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (18 children)

    I do not understand why this is even controversial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    Because AI usage is complicated. AI has been in Photoshop for a long time, as an example. Where does the line get drawn? Everyone has different opinions on this, including consumers. So either Valve would have to make a clear definition, or they would let publishers decide for themselves, which is basically irrelevant to most consumers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (7 children)

    It’s not complicated. If you used a generative AI tool to make the game, it should require a label, period.

    In your example, there is a clear and obvious difference between using traditional drawing tools and using the AI features.

    Should there be distinguishing labels for different types of use (art vs code vs music vs writing etc)? Probably, but if you don’t want the label, get good and don’t use those tools. It’s not hard. Game devs were making amazing stuff before these tools became available.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago* (5 children)

    I guarantee if you ask artists and programmers across studios, even indie studios, they would also have very different definitions from you.

    No one has cared in the past if artists used Photoshop's content aware fill, which is a form of generative AI, and that has been out for a long time now, like 6 years or so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Content Aware Fill only started incorporating genai about a year ago. With that option on, it's much more effective at large-scale removal than before, but the use is pretty similar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I don't think it should be surprising that people started caring about it more after it got shoved in their faces for a few years and a ludicrous portion of the world's economy got tied up in it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I don't disagree. My original point still stands though, this is pretty nuanced. There are tons of hard-working skilled artists that use AI, even gen AI, to increase productivity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Steam doesn't do anything to stop devs explaining how and what they used in the disclosure. If it's "content-aware fill was used in the creation of skyboxes", they can say that

    But also, I think that the issue could be solved well enough by Steam just listing what counts. If it's a grey area and a line is to be drawn somewhere, so be it. Something like CAF potentially falling on the wrong side of it is nowhere near enough of a cost to justify just not informing buyers in my opinion

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago

    Or use the tools and simply ignore the labels. Nothing will stop you, and no one can prove you used the tools.

    Using the labels, at all, is literally self-volunteering to be targeted by a hate-mob. With no benefit whatsoever. It's hilarious anyone interacts with the labels at all right now, but it's only a matter of time before almost no one at all does.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    Slop is trained on the work of the people it is now able to drown out with cheap imitations. That is why it is controversial.

    Imagine AIs start winning the gaming tournaments and humans no longer are even in the running for prize money or placement on leaderboards. Would that be fucked up?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    I mean requiring AI labels should not be controversial. That seems like a no-brainer.

    Anyone arguing against transparency in advertising and consumer choice is always doing something sketchy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    No. It's because it's completely ineffective. There is no way to absolutely identify AI use, so all anyone has is accusations. Self labeling only serves to harm developers. They have zero incentive to comply, and every reason not to. Therefore it's a pointless system and should be abandoned.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    The labels aren’t harming their sales. It’s their use of AI. Bad developers blame the customer when they “make” shit no one wants to buy.

    Sure they could lie, and they might even get away with it sometimes, but an imperfect system is better than nothing at all. The fact that devs would even want to lie about it proves that they know it’s unpopular and they should be embarrassed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    If that were true then the labels wouldn't even be necessary. People could just tell. But they can't, hence the labels.

    Who said anything about lying? Just don't fill it out, and ignore any accusations. They don't do it because they're embarrassed, they do it because irrational people have prejudices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (2 children)

    Anti-AI prejudices are completely rational. These models were trained on stolen art, code, and writing. They use an incredible amount of energy and are the sole driver for the construction of dozens of new datacenters of unprecedented size and resources.

    The AI industry has completely taken over allocation for chip manufacturing, making prices for most consumer electronics soar out of reach for most of the people (including the ones trying to play these games in the first place).

    All the while the circular investing scheme of the industry has created a $3 trillion dollar bubble, which at best, will cause the stock market to fall hard and take a huge chunk out of a lot of retirement accounts overnight. At worst, combined with wars and other strains on the economy, will cause a full-blown recession.

    It’s also being heavily used by law enforcement to track people illegally without due process. And by the military for who knows what yet.

    This shit is just the basics. The AI industry has been toxic to our society, and on top of that, for all the harm it’s causing, the stuff it outputs is middling at best. Most of it is derivative garbage.

    So yeah, people should be ashamed for using it. If you can’t make it without AI, don’t bother. No one wants to see it.

    Lastly, lying by omission is still lying. Come on, now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child)

    I won't rehash that argument for the umpteenth time. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. Summed up, my retort is that if the AI "stole" content, then so did every artist who ever watched a Disney movie, and every author that read a book, and every programmer that looked at a repository. Theft inherently means something is gone, and the original owner no longer has it - nothing is gone, nothing was stolen.

    You listed off a bunch of reasons why data centers are rationally hated, and I agree with you on that. However AI is not a data center. My open weight models running on my consumer hardware, powered by solar energy isn't implicated by what data centers are guilty of. Yet you would apply the same labels to it, and it would draw the same irrational ire of people who only know "AI bad" because it's the popular sentiment right now, and probably will be for a decade.

    I'm not ashamed of my use of technology any more than you should be ashamed of using a computer - built in a factory, using rare earth minerals mined from our environment, likely utilizing dirty energy, potentially built by exploited labor, and statistically likely to be powered right now by dirty energy.

    Usually I would agree with you that omission is lying, but as I've said, admitting you used AI will earn you nothing but scorn, with absolutely no benefit for the admission. If an angry mob knocked on your door and asked if there are any vulnerable people in your home, you'd be justified in not answering them at all, and simply slamming the door shut, and locking it. Then ignoring when they keep knocking. This is the same concept. Sometimes "lying" by omission is the right choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • if the AI "stole" content, then so did every artist who ever watched a Disney movie, and every author that read a book, and every programmer that looked at a repository.

    This is a terrible argument. Training a model on someone’s work is not inspiration. You’re anthropomorphizing a machine learning model. It’s not inspired. It doesn’t have an internal experience that informs its creations.

    It’s generating output directly based on the statistical likelihood of its training set. That’s it. This is proven by the fact that many models can recreate styles and likenesses that would warrant litigation if a human did it. A machine learning model will always be definitionally derivative.

    Clearly you’re trying to justify your AI use, which I understand. Inferencing locally does help, but unless you’re training your own models, that’s what actually takes the majority of resources.

    Believe it or not, I’ve experimented with a lot of AI. I’ve learned the math of how they work. I’ve run Ollama on various infrastructure. I’ve trained my own small models. I given it an honest shot. At the end of the day, their output (especially “creative” stuff) is unreliable at best and complete garbage at worst.

    Many people don’t want to buy AI art, and in my opinion, they shouldn’t. Instead of blaming consumers, artists, developers, etc should do the work to learn how to actually make shit themselves and stop complaining that people don’t want slop.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    i feel like you could fix the worst of it by also upping the deposit required to submit a game. iirc, right now it's only 100, and you make it back after 1000 in sales. if you upped that to say...1k/10k, the risk/reward of ever seeing that $ again is much lower.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I didn't want to spend money on games that exploit the labor of others, so at the very least I want the ability to make informed purchases.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    If Tim Sweeney were here, ooohhh boy you betcha, he'd tell you to ask for what shampoo the devs used too, and what political party they are, cause you need to be informed.

    Why are rich people so fucking stupid?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Removing Greenlight was the beginning of the end. Now the floodgates are open, I don't think they can ever be closed. Curation was important for not just consumer protection but also partner protection. I'm meant to believe I'm a Steam Partner as a developer but I feel more like the subordinate in an abusive relationship. I can't leave Steam but I have no voice in the partnership whatsoever. I've attended Steam round tables at game expos to voice my opinion but 7 years later, only a baby step happened just this year. I suppose I should be grateful for anything but I'm mostly just bitter about the death of Greenlight destroying the discoverability and overall sustainability of my chosen career path of indie development.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (27 children)

    I don't want to buy slop so if they don't REQUIRE a slop identifier, I'm just not going to buy games from them anymore. It'll be GOG or the high seas!

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    They do make you disclose the usage.

    What they won't do is ban any games based on it

    This lets the consumers decide, when you can just filter out all have that use it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (22 children)

    Does GOG have required Ai disclosure?

    If not, will you buy games knowingly it could contain or have been made with Ai, or will you research before? If you research, why not do this with Steam games?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (21 children)

    Hadn't looked into it yet but if there's slop there then won't be buying, same goes for Itch.io or any other platform.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (20 children)

    I looked at pages on GOG games and couldn't find such disclosure. As far as I know, itchio doesn't have a policy to force Ai disclosure either. Right now, Steam is the only platform that forces this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (19 children)

    Steam has been the only platform I've really bought from since all this bullshit started, but if they drop the policy I'm dropping the platform as a customer. It shouldn't be on me to research the shit out of stuff to make sure it's a real product that someone actually made, that should absolutely be disclosed on every platform there is.

    Whatever slopped out jackass is downvoting this can get bent: I'm not paying for poorly plagiarized garbage, full stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    Where does this "dropping the Ai policy" come from?? There is no indication to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (10 children)

    From the article (though it doesn't explicitly say that) and from people (read: idiots like Tim Sweeney) criticizing the policy. There is very real pressure from a certain group of shitbags for Steam to abandon the warning labels or at least not make them mandatory, which is fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    Those aren't real source, these are just someone idea. There is absolutely no indication to Valve dropping the requirement for Ai disclosure, and I don't see any reason to why they would to. It's one of the quality features of Steam and something others don't do. It's just transparency, not forcing anything else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (7 children)

    They won't drop it, but developers will stop disclosing it. There's no benefit to doing so. Only downsides. It's only a matter of time until AI is so ubiquitous that no one can tell who is and who isn't using it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    developers will stop disclosing it. There’s no benefit to doing so.

    That would be against the rules of the platform. They risk to get banned or the game being removed from the store.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (5 children)

    How would someone prove, definitively, that they used AI, if they don't claim they did? I see no risk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Sometimes this comes out and can be proven. Not always. It's still a risk. And yes, there will be liars out there, but at least there is a policy in place how to handle the situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    can be proven.

    I don't believe it ever can be proven. It's simply hearsay - unless someone was recording the developers machine during development and then release a screen recording. Otherwise it's the developers word versus the accuser's, with Valve having to act as arbiter. You let me know if that ever happens, please, because I sincerely believe the scenario is an ant-AI pipe dream. A veneer of protection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Never read the news where game devs got caught of using Ai, then suddenly they sorry and said it will never happen again, removing the content?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Those were mistakes on the part of the developer. If they had never admitted it, then they never "got caught" since there's no way to prove the accusation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    If you can't tell, then it literally doesn't matter. If it's information that is invisible to you, and if someone lied about it you would still never know, then it shouldn't inform your decision-making. At all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (5 children)

    The hell it doesn't! What an absurd response.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (4 children)

    Yours is the absurd response.

    You: "It's so poorly plagiarized, and so slop quality that I need them to tell me so, otherwise I don't actually know. So make them tell me!"

    Asinine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    Yes, I agree: everything you've said so far is pretty asinine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Says the person who wants to be told when they're "playing slop" because if no one tells them, they can't tell. Yet demands they be told.

    I think, for people like you, they should just have a random number generator - 0 Steam say it's not slop, 1 they say it's slop. It would make you happy, yes? Since you're basing your entire decision on something you can't actually discern.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child)

    You're making all sorts of stupid fucking assumptions and then throwing a half baked, bullshit argument on top of it, but the fact of the matter is: Slop that is not immediately apparent can be thrown into a game and by the time it's apparent, the player can be past the return window.

    There are all sorts of other flaws in your garbage-ass argument but I'm past out of patience with you: Now go troll somebody else you fucking dipshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    I've made zero assumptions. Your comment is slop, and I'm done arguing with you. Now go demand someone else give you a thumbs up or thumbs down on arbitrary determinations, you petulant child.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    There is AI slop in both the Windows and Linux kernel now, so you’re complicit either way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • There is 100% AI slop in Windows.

    In Linux, as far as I can tell, AI was used in certain ways, but I wouldn't call it slop in this instance because it's not janky garbage and there was still plenty of human oversight. I'm not a fan of calling LLMs "AI" at all, but it's still an important distinction.

    That said, AI use should still be always disclosed including how it was used and it should be 100% mandatory in everything from games to operating systems to drug synthesis.

  • source
  • parent
  • What's next, are they going to remove the DRM and EULA disclosure?

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    They need to make AI generated code also part of what needs to be disclosed. I've seen way too many people putting up games with no disclosure that has AI generated code and when confronted they say "well all the player facing stuff like dialogue and art assets are human made which are the only things Steam requires be disclosed if those were made with AI". Just recently saw some MMO called Spirit Crossing do it.

    Edit: since I'm getting downvoted, I figure I should share specifically what I have a problem with using Spirit Crossing as an example. Just read through this thread.

    https://steamcommunity.com/app/2321960/discussions/0/565913463540734197/?ctp=4

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment