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.
What about all the artists who were gatekept from being given recognition for their work that the AIs stole from?
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.
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.
You take the marketing of “intelligence” and “learning” far too literally if you think those two concepts are in any way the same.
Clearly not one of your teachers.
Good. Make disclosure required but otherwise let the consumer decide.
I do not understand why this is even controversial.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because people that can’t do the job for real think AI doing it for them is the same thing, and they don’t want to feel bad about their lack of skill.
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!
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
There is AI slop in both the Windows and Linux kernel now, so you’re complicit either way.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Where does this “dropping the Ai policy” come from?? There is no indication to.
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.
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.
