In a statement, 11-Bit Studios confirms that an instance of AI-generated text appears in The Alters due to an “internal oversight”
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/11-bit-studios-acknowledges-the-use-of-ai-generated-text-in-the-alters
In a statement, 11-Bit Studios confirms that an instance of AI-generated text appears in The Alters due to an “internal oversight”
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/11-bit-studios-acknowledges-the-use-of-ai-generated-text-in-the-alters
What an insanely non-issue to clutch one’s pearls at… Between Luddites and Trumpites, this is the worst timeline…
Ah, the always welcome “and so what?” comment, with a side of name calling for some extra spice.
Don’t forget the obligatory smug response from somebody who feels they have moral superiority.
Gamers who get mad having to wait for company logos to show while games boot: They have to disclose every piece of software they use to make every game! I want my games 100% hand crafted and bespoke. I want to sense the life people spent meticulously crafting mudsplat_texture_1 - mudsplat_texture_500. Also no crunch (and no bugs, obviously)
Nice strawman Dorothy
It’s just reality. Selecting a bunch of textures nobody has seen before through AI but hand crafting the rest of the game would force them to wear the scarlet letters on their front, and open them up to brigading by the brainwashed NeoLuddite mob. That move by steam to appease the pitchfork masses is pretty heavy handed.
even if I accept your premise of a “brainwashed NeoLuddite mob,” you’re still wrong on the simple principle of arguing against a company properly labeling what their product is or how it was made.
When a company makes a product completely by hand, but uses AI for a few translations it gets the same label as a game pumped out of Grok and uploaded untouched. That label is misleading and punitive, not informative.
speaking about hypothetical events as if they were real is unhinged
you’re unhinged
Like I’m not the biggest fan of gen ai but a generic computer screen feels like a good use case for filler text.
Showing that even a small non-issue use of AI will be detected is a pretty strong incentive for other games to disclose that willingly. Otherwise, why would they admit to it if no one can tell? Morals??? 😂😂😂
Why should they “admit” to it when NeoLuddites with pitchforks and no ability to reason lurk around every corner?
A substantial part of the market not wanting AI in their products is actually a great reason for them to disclose when it is or isn’t used
Really appropriate example, actually.
Me and the boys being worried for our jobs as automation stretches onwards and just wanting some level of guarantee that good paying jobs will still be available 😭
For the record, the word as a general noun is widely recognized to mean what everybody thinks it means:
One of the weirder annoyances of the AI moral panic is how often you see this spiral of pedantry about the historical luddites whenever someone brings up the word as a pejorative.
I mean, fair rhetorical play, I suppose, in that it creates a very good incentive to not bring it up at all. If the goal was to avoid being called a luddite as an insult or as shorthand for dismissing AI criticism as outright technophobia I suppose that is mission accomplished, disingenuous as it is.
Someone disagreeing with you =/= moral panic
But does them disagreeing with you preclude a moral panic?
of course not
That is correct.
It is also correct that someone disagreeing with me can be doing so because of a moral panic. Our agreement is entirely disconnected to whether there is a moral panic at play or not.
For the record, I think “AI” is profoundly problematic in multiple ways.
This is also unrelated to whether there is a moral panic about it. Which there absolutely is.
long winded way to say your objections are logical and sound while everyone else is just having a panic, you little moralizer you.
Well, no, it’s a concise way to say some objections are logical and sound and some are stemming from a moral panic.
Whether I agree with the objections on each camp is, again, irrelevant.
I disagree with some of the non-moral panic objections, too, and I’m happy to have that conversation.
Four possible types of objections in this scenario, if you want to be “logical” about it:
I think there aren’t any in that last group, but there are certainly at least some objections in all other three.
It wouldn’t be lemmy if we weren’t always in a moral size measuring contest.
Thank you. At least some people on this abomination of an antisocial media still seem to use their brain.