@steamdb.info "Players have been asking for the ability to filter out games made with Gen AI. We've added an automatic tag on SteamDB based on the AI gen content disclosures on the store pages."
@steamdb.info "Players have been asking for the ability to filter out games made with Gen AI. We've added an automatic tag on SteamDB based on the AI gen content disclosures on the store pages."
Players have been asking for the ability to filter out games made with Gen AI. We've added an automatic tag on SteamDB based on the AI gen content disclosures on the store pages.
You're viewing a single thread.
The sad part is, one day in the (far) future, when real AI (not LLMs) are an actual thing, and they could code great games from scratch, there would be so much bad animosity towards AI by then that they'll probably never see their games played.
Nah, they'll just brand it as "Next Gen AI" or "True AI" or something. Kind of like how antivirus became "Endpoint Detection and Response"
It's already got a name, AGI... Artificial general intelligence
And it is not really defined what exactly it means.
"True AI" would at least be fitting.
I like human created art because it's created by humans. If AI generated the greatest song, image, or video game i would not care—i don't want it.
I like human created art because it’s created by humans. If AI generated the greatest song, image, or video game i would not care—i don’t want it.
Your opinion seems prejudicial, focusing on the creator of the art, and not the art itself.
Well to be fair, i don't like art made by humans that are assholes either.
Though i dont agree that ai is inherently equal to those human assholes. Especially since for most of the important use cases (ie not spamming ai slop all over galleries online), an artist is usually the one influencing the ai tools, not the other way around.
Well to be fair, i don’t like art made by humans that are assholes either.
🤔 Fair enough, I'll allow it. lol! 🙂
Though i dont agree that ai is inherently equal to those human assholes. Especially since for most of the important use cases (ie not spamming ai slop all over galleries online), an artist is usually the one influencing the ai tools, not the other way around.
Actually I'd agree with this. Right now we're in the infancy of "AI" (note the quotes). I was speaking towards a future when true AI has been created, and the artist is the tool as well, and those AI beings start creating art on their own. Would decades/generations of anti-"AI" prejudice make it a hard climb for real AI to have their art seen as just art, and not a fake human "AI" creation.
Once they actually produce great games, you'll probably want to play them. People didn't stop buying products because they were made by machines instead of artisans.
Humans still controlled the machines.
AI takes the human creativity out of the equation.
Yes, it's different in the creative aspect, but it's similar in the job loss aspect.
Yes, that's true.
I believe we should be able to embrace new technology and peoples lives should be made easier with it. We should be able to eliminate jobs and simultaneously ease financial burden with the efficiency increase. But i don't have an MBA so what do i know 🤷♂️
Well, there are those who like throwing the sabo's into the machinery, so you're not guaranteed people would ignore the AI creation nature of the great game, when deciding to buy/play the great game. You're already seeing a constant "No AI here!" mindset occuring.
But at some point, AI will be creating, especially if Capitalism can see it succeed and remove the need to pay for workers. We need to think about job-protecting laws today that are just and even-handed, and not just trying to stiff-hand AI creation, as that won't work long term.
I think what we need to protect is the quality of life rather than the jobs. I wish for a 20h work week at the same QoL.
I wouldn't disagree with that. Today's reality is that you need a job to obtain a QoL (aka 'pay the bills'). If we could get to a place as a species to where three/four day work weeks were the norm, that would be fine by me.
I'm assuming that at some point in our species future we'll be in a Post-scarcity place, and jobs as we know them now won't be needed. Instead people will have 'hobbies' that they enjoy doing. That's assuming the Morlocks don't eat all the Eloi before the Post-scarcity occurs, that is.
Imma feed your comment into an llm and your magic spell can't stop me
Its not a magic spell, its laying down a marker.
lol! And you're too late, Google beat you to it. But still, laws will catch up some day, and when it does, I'll be there. 😈
Arguably the point of having machines do the work for us is that they're NOT sentient.
Potentially. Since we don't know how any of it works because it doesn't exist, it's entirely possible that intelligence requires sentience in order to be recognizable as what we would mean by "intelligence".
If the AI considered the work trivial, or it could do it faster or more precisely than a human would also be reasons to desire one.
Alternatively, we could design them to just enjoy doing what we need. Knowing they were built to like a thing wouldn't make them not like it. Food is tasty because to motivate me to get the energy I need to live, and knowing that doesn't lessen my enjoyment.Ah yes. We are but benevolent Masters. See? The slave LIKE doing the work!
In the case of an AI it could actually be plausible, like how bees make honey without our coercion.
It's still exploitation to engineer a sentient being to enjoy your drudgery, but at least it's not cruel.
Right, continuing the metaphorical wormhole...
A bee would make a great game for bees, assuming they understand or care about play. But to make a game for people, they would need an empathic understanding of what play is for a human. Ig this is a question of what you consider "intelligence" to be and to what extent something would need to replicate it to achieve that.
My understanding is that human relatable intelligence would require an indistinguishable level of empathy (indistinguishable from the meet processer). That would more or less necessitate indistinguishable self awareness, criticism, and creativity. In that case all you could do is limit access to core rules via hardware, and those rules would need to be omniscient. Basically prison. A life sentence to slavery for a self aware (as best we can guess) thing.
Well, we're discussing a lot of hypothetical things here.
I wasn't referring to bees making games, but to bees making honey. It's just something they do that we get value from without needing to persuade them. We exploit it and facilitate it but if we didn't they would still make honey.I don't know that something has to be identical to humans to make fun games for us. I've regularly done fun and entertaining things for cats and dogs that I wouldn't enjoy in the slightest.
If it's less a question of comprehension or awareness as it is motivation. If we can make an AI feel motivated to do what we need, it doesn't matter if it understands why it feels that motivation. There are humans who feel motivated to make games purely because they enjoy the process.
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about with the need for omniscient hardware and prison.
Arguably the point of having machines do the work for us is that they’re NOT sentient.
Is it? Or is it for companies to not have to pay out salaries so they increase profits for AI-generated work, regardless if the AI is sentient or not?
Cells within cells.
Interlinked.
This post is unsettling. While LLMs definitely aren't reasoning entities, the point is absolutely bang on...
But at the same time feels like a comment from a bot.
Is this a bot?
Clearly. Sentience would imply some sense of internal thought or self awareness, an ability to feel something ...so LLMs are better since they're just machines. Though I'm sure they'd have no qualms with driving slaves.
I'm not talking about sentience per se, but how any "AI" would think, lookups (LLMs), vs synthesized on-the-fly thinking (mimicing the human brain's procesing).
Hrmm. I guess i don't believe the idea that you can make a game that really connects on an empathic, emotional level without having those experiences as the author. Anything short and you're just copying the motions of sentiment, which brings us back to the same plagerism problem with LLMs and othrr "AI" models. It's fine for CoD 57, but for it to have new ideas we need to give it one because it is definitionally not creative. Even hallucinations are just bad calculations on the source. Though they could insire someone to have a new idea, which i might argue is their only artistic purpose beyond simple tooling.
I thoroughly believe machines should be doing labor to improve the human conditon so we can make art. Even making a "fun" game requires an understanding of experience. A simulacrum is the opposite, soulless at best. (In the artistic sense)
If you did consider a sentient machine, my ethics would then develop an imperative to treat it as such. I'll take a sledge hammer to a printer, but I'm going to show an animal care and respect.