I like the tag so I can tell the Steam app to automatically hide games with it. Cuts down on the slop.
Blaster_M@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Look, I don’t mind the tag, because it helps woth categorization. If someone makes a good game woth ai assets, I’m not opposed to it. But O do know that it will be an easy “sea of mucus” filtrr to eliminate most of the low effort games that get published.
Dettweiler42@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 hours ago
mrmaplebar@fedia.io 14 hours ago
As someone who has an ethical problem with how generative AI has been trained on the exploited labor of other people, I do feel like I have a right to know who is and isn't leveraging it.
echodot@feddit.uk 7 hours ago
Sure you are, and that’s what the tag is for. I think it’s like problem is everyone has a slightly different definition of what “used AI” means.
For example there are some indie games being developed now where the assets are human made but much of the code was AI written. Artists had an idea for a game but they didn’t know how to code so they got the AI to do that part. Historically the way this would have been dealt with would be that they would have simply developed the game in something simple, like game maker. AI just give them another option.
Now the question becomes should that be labeled as AI? Yes AI was used, but no one’s lost their job because of it, so is it quite the same thing?
I don’t think Valve makes the distinction, and that’s what a lot of people don’t like about the tag, it is ambiguous. Of course Tim here is just whining about the thing in general, and isn’t usefully contributing to the discussion at all, as per.
mrmaplebar@fedia.io 7 hours ago
Whether it's art or code is basically a difference without a distinction to me personally. I'm not sure what makes it different.
Like, in my view, if you're using a generative AI model that was trained without license, compensation or even so much as basic consent from the people who created the original training data, then I feel that is an unpaid exploitation of other people's intellectual labor. You are taking advantage of someone else's work, and in most cases doing so regardless of any kinds of copyright, license, or other agreement. And, considering a former top AI executive at Microsoft called what they were doing "the largest theft of labor in human history", I think I'm not alone in looking at it that was.
As a person, I've always been something of a "jack of all trades"--I like making art and playing music, but I also like computers, programming, FOSS and game dev. I'd be lying to you if I sad that I wasn't pretty sad and disappointed to be living through a time of mass fraudulence and exploitation, when human skills and creativity are instantly punished by theft and exploitation on an unprecedented scale, by those with the most money and compute power in the name of short term profit and "the ends justify the means" thinking.
echodot@feddit.uk 2 hours ago
But that’s my point, not everyone agrees with that assessment.
You’re the problem is there’s things like code completers that predate AI and no one ever had a problem with those even though presumably they were also taking work from other people. So how much AI can be used before AI becomes unacceptable. You can set the bar at zero but then you start getting problems of defining what even constitutes AI.
Before we can have a conversation about whether or not AI should be used in game development or anything else we should first have a discussion about what it is. No one seems to want to have that discussion.
HK65@sopuli.xyz 7 hours ago
Okay, but then that argument could also be used to say that it’s fine to just AI generate all the art as long as you write all the code.
You could say “just buy assets” but that’s the same as saying “just pay a programmer”
echodot@feddit.uk 2 hours ago
Yeah I know that’s why I’m asking