Valve-Entwickler Ayi Sanchez widerspricht Forderungen, Steam-KI-Enthüllungen zu streichen, und sagt, es handele sich um eine „Technologie, die auf Kulturwäsche, Verletzung von geistigem Eigentum und Schlamperei beruht“.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam/ai-disclousres-debate-valve-dev-response
17 Kommentare
This a correct take.
The more people come out against AI, the quicker we can get done with this stupid fucking bubble. I’m tired of this forced inorganic AI growth. There’s nothing natural about any of this supposed „AI boom“, and all of it feels incredibly forced. I feel like I’m not the only one who has noticed.
Honestly, AI disclosures should be present on *anything* that uses LLMs to generate any part of the process. If people don’t like that, they’re more than likely part of the problem of slop.
A disclosure shouldn’t ruin a game – if it was made well and reviewed well then the AI tools were used well.
But it’s helpful information – like the article says – it’s like listing ingredients on a product.
Once again Valve demonstrates a culture where the consumers of said product are employees as well without seeking to enshittify everything to serve the public corporate law structure.
The law structure of pillage and loot, crazy how nice it is when a company isn’t hooked into this loop by the faustian bargain of being publicly traded.
Enabling creators instead of enabling parasites.
> This time, it was Epic Games CEO and Fortnite boss Tim Sweeney who created the latest spark, claiming that AI disclosures like the ones found on Steam store pages make „no sense,“
Sweeney was never good at reading the room, nor taking it gracefully when someone points out how wrong he or his pretenses are.
Just because he doesn’t care about it doesn’t mean that others don’t. This is just an attempt to hand wave away something on a major competitor’s storefront outlining something that isn’t palatable to a pretty significant portion of the market right now.
If you apply any bit of logic to being against AI disclosure it falls apart.
Either you think its as good or better than a humans work and therefore being marked as produced by AI is a neutral or good thing for a game or you know its bad and you want to hide it to charge as a superior human made version.
Valve dev cooking so hard he got promoted to head chef
If AI is soo good then why try to hide it
I do kinda get the logic to remove the AI branding even if most people refuse to.
On the one hand AI is still new, on the other hand we also don’t have ‚Made with IDE linters‘ warnings because those handle the job of the developer in segments.
When everyone uses it are we needing specific warnings about it? I can’t remember the last time I saw anyone whinging about their fav game using whichever new development feature skips a bunch of work on the development side, it’s just that AI is popular enough for people to care about for once.
And before someone comes along saying that we expect food ingredients on packaging, we don’t have that in games at all. There’s no SBOM or tech stack in games or Steam, I have to google what engine a thing is made with. Where’s my game ingredients list where I can see the engine and associated tech? I want to know if things are built with Nanite.
It feels weirdly specific to target AI like that if we’re not going to make the very rational expansion that the whole stack should be shown, not just things people throw a piss fit over.
Idk, it feels weirdly arbitrary.
Joke is: without proper labeling on everything training the next generations of AIs will result in inferior models due to model degradation (training on generated data yield progressively worse models).
What requires disclosure though ?
– I use AI to build my unit tests for my game code?
– what if my marketing team uses an AI product to help marketing tasks?
– what about if I use AI to help my CI/CD pipeline?
– what if I let AI create a character, then use that to make it in blender?
– what if I use an AI filter in screenshots I release ? What if those features are in game as a photo mode?
– what if I build 100 unique buildings and then let AI procedurally generate a map for me using my assets?
The list goes on. Where is the line of having to disclose it and not??
Based opinion.
What a dumb comment.
We (devs) use tab auto completion all the time. A line here or a variable there. It’s part of every decent devs workflow instinctively. We gonna add an AI badge for that now? Better mark every piece of software created in intellij, vscode or xcode as created with AI.
There’s so much nuance to this I’m so sick of these crazy justifications. If your product sucks and is AI slop let it fail. If it’s good and AI helped make it, why do we care?
They fear the power of well informed customers choosing to vote with their wallets
Also, I think it should be expanded so that it’s noted what broadly AI was used for. I do believe there is a difference between writing a small function using AI, or upscaling some textures vs making literally the entire game with AI
I want a big, obvious „this uses the trash, bitch made plagiarism machine“ like a goddamn ESRB warning on products. So big you can’t miss that shit.
Here’s another point, how much effort does it take for the author to add a disclosure, and what is the disclosure harming?
I can kinda see Sweenys point, but I also see the pros/cons and there’s very little cons to keeping it up, with basically zero cost for the devs to add the disclosure. Currently it’s adding benefit to the consumer for zero cost, so doesn’t make a lot of sense to scrap it right now.
Not to say that won’t change in the future, it might make more sense to scrap it eventually but I don’t think now is the time.