They need to add filters though. Then people who don’t want games made with LLMs don’t have to spend as much time sifting through games.
Honestly, that would have done a lot to fix this past Next Fest and the threats that devs have been getting about someone else using LLM’s to clone their games before release
They were already doing that anyway. What I want to see is a stop to the flood of AI-generated games, and for all the AI-generated clones to get pulled.
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.
I don’t think it should be surprising that people started caring about it more after it got shoved in their faces for a few years and a ludicrous portion of the world’s economy got tied up in it
I don’t disagree. My original point still stands though, this is pretty nuanced. There are tons of hard-working skilled artists that use AI, even gen AI, to increase productivity.
Steam doesn’t do anything to stop devs explaining how and what they used in the disclosure. If it’s “content-aware fill was used in the creation of skyboxes”, they can say that
But also, I think that the issue could be solved well enough by Steam just listing what counts. If it’s a grey area and a line is to be drawn somewhere, so be it. Something like CAF potentially falling on the wrong side of it is nowhere near enough of a cost to justify just not informing buyers in my opinion
Content Aware Fill only started incorporating genai about a year ago. With that option on, it’s much more effective at large-scale removal than before, but the use is pretty similar.
Or use the tools and simply ignore the labels. Nothing will stop you, and no one can prove you used the tools.
Using the labels, at all, is literally self-volunteering to be targeted by a hate-mob. With no benefit whatsoever. It’s hilarious anyone interacts with the labels at all right now, but it’s only a matter of time before almost no one at all does.
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?
No. It’s because it’s completely ineffective. There is no way to absolutely identify AI use, so all anyone has is accusations. Self labeling only serves to harm developers. They have zero incentive to comply, and every reason not to. Therefore it’s a pointless system and should be abandoned.
i feel like you could fix the worst of it by also upping the deposit required to submit a game. iirc, right now it’s only 100, and you make it back after 1000 in sales. if you upped that to say…1k/10k, the risk/reward of ever seeing that $ again is much lower.
Good. Make disclosure required but otherwise let the consumer decide.
They need to add filters though. Then people who don’t want games made with LLMs don’t have to spend as much time sifting through games.
Honestly, that would have done a lot to fix this past Next Fest and the threats that devs have been getting about someone else using LLM’s to clone their games before release
They were already doing that anyway. What I want to see is a stop to the flood of AI-generated games, and for all the AI-generated clones to get pulled.
I do not understand why this is even controversial.
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.
I don’t think it should be surprising that people started caring about it more after it got shoved in their faces for a few years and a ludicrous portion of the world’s economy got tied up in it
I don’t disagree. My original point still stands though, this is pretty nuanced. There are tons of hard-working skilled artists that use AI, even gen AI, to increase productivity.
Steam doesn’t do anything to stop devs explaining how and what they used in the disclosure. If it’s “content-aware fill was used in the creation of skyboxes”, they can say that
But also, I think that the issue could be solved well enough by Steam just listing what counts. If it’s a grey area and a line is to be drawn somewhere, so be it. Something like CAF potentially falling on the wrong side of it is nowhere near enough of a cost to justify just not informing buyers in my opinion
Content Aware Fill only started incorporating genai about a year ago. With that option on, it’s much more effective at large-scale removal than before, but the use is pretty similar.
Exactly my point. It’s nuanced, because it doesn’t really make sense to draw the line based on what the underlying tech is.
Or use the tools and simply ignore the labels. Nothing will stop you, and no one can prove you used the tools.
Using the labels, at all, is literally self-volunteering to be targeted by a hate-mob. With no benefit whatsoever. It’s hilarious anyone interacts with the labels at all right now, but it’s only a matter of time before almost no one at all does.
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.
No. It’s because it’s completely ineffective. There is no way to absolutely identify AI use, so all anyone has is accusations. Self labeling only serves to harm developers. They have zero incentive to comply, and every reason not to. Therefore it’s a pointless system and should be abandoned.
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 feel like you could fix the worst of it by also upping the deposit required to submit a game. iirc, right now it’s only 100, and you make it back after 1000 in sales. if you upped that to say…1k/10k, the risk/reward of ever seeing that $ again is much lower.
That’s the same thinking that was used a few decades ago to make sure the poors and PoC couldn’t apply for housing in specific areas.
Only the haves are allowed to make games here, harrumph.