Damn, guess I'm writing a whole response anyway Nope. Procedural generation requires a lot of creative and technical input on the part of the developer. It's not used to offload creative or intellectual work, it *creates* creative and intellectual work. The intellectual work is something I forgot to mention in that reply, but the loss of that effort is almost as important as the loss of the creative work. Let's compare the topic of this discussion with the game I'm currently playing, Kerbal Space Program. Contracts in Kerbal Space Program's career mode are (for the most part) procedurally generated. There are a few mission types, usually asking the player to bring a part or set of parts to a particular location and perform some action with them. Attach a part to a satellite in orbit around Duna, take pressure readings in flight over Kerbin, plant a flag on the Mun, etc. This is not offloading creativity onto the machine, this is using procedural generation to provide the player with an endless variety of objectives. Producing this system of procedurally generated missions required creativity and forethought from the developers. I don't work at Squad, but I imagine it took a number of manhours to set all of the parameters and limitations for the system, and to test it to make sure it works, and that it doesn't generate any missions that are impossible to complete. Contrast that with the AI generated text that is the topic of this discussion. The creative input for that text up there was something along the lines of generate some sci-fi technobabble that would fit in a starship's event log" and "do it again, but don't talk about the ship, just talk about astronomical data." They could have gotten a freelance sci-fi author to write these few bits of text, or even just sat down for 10 minutes and wrote it themselves. It would cost them nearly nothing, and in exchange they would have a piece of text that fits within the world and was written by a human. Instead, they *offloaded* that creative work onto a machine. They didn't make more work for themselves like a developer that uses procedural generation, they made *less* work for themselves by asking a machine to do it instead. I could make a similar contrast between this and basically any procedurally generated system in games. Minecraft, Daggerfall, Borderlands, FTL: Faster than Light, Slay the Spire, Dead Cells, all of these games use procedural generation to *complement* the creative and technical work they put into the games, not to avoid having to do that work in the first place.

Ngl I stopped reading your comments after you equated generative AI to slavery and revealed that you are a troll arguing in bad faith

You're expecting it to be used responsibly when we ourselves in general are very lacking in that department. This here is a very good example of the actual use that will happen. A rush job to meet unrealistic deadlines. And that's what *will* happen as is the norm.

Damn, I was looking forward to playing this. Glad I read this first

They could have used Google translate for these short last minute additions, and not a single fuck would probably notice. I hate this stupid overconfidence in AI.

I have done translations and even for my own language I often use an LLM. It's the one thing they are actually amazing at. It's also probably not about "anybody noticing". It can very much be a single developer doing it on their own ChatGPT account and the QA didn't notice it. I really don't care about this stuff though. The AI label should be for gen AI and not revising some text or translation imo.

Boycotting because someone made a mistake? Ok

Boycotting because they used generative AI to make their game instead of hiring writers. Even if this was the only part of the game they used it on (if you believe that, l have a bridge to seII you), I'm not going to give someone money if they couldn't even be fucked to hire some sci-fi writer off of fiverr to write their fill text with it. I personally know artists and writers who are having to get jobs at fucking Walmart because of this shit. I'll be less irate about generative AI once we have universal basic income so that real artists can continue to generate real art alongside these soulless husks.

So they shouldn’t even use it as placeholder assets, instead of Lorem Ipsum?

Google Translate also uses an AI model.

We don‘t know the cause in this case. Not replacing placeholder assets was a common mistake even before ai tools.

Correct! If you're not going to support artists and writers, the *least* you can do is not support the industry that's actively destroying thr fields of art and writing.

We don‘t know the cause in this case. Not replacing placeholder assets was a common mistake even before ai tools.

So do you just not play video games at all? Because the way you've just presented yourself you're not against using AI in games, you're against any use of AI. How can you be sure that in any game AI wasn't used to generate some sort of an internal document or asset that would never be in the final product but was integral to the creation of the final product? Clearly you don't write every dev and ask if they use AI in any capacity, so what do you do? My point is that I think you're taking a stance where you're unwilling to compromise on the use of AI, but only if you're aware that AI was used.

There's a number of reasons, not least of which being that generative AI works by processing vast amounts of prior work (without their creators' consent) to make a facsimile of it, while procedural generation only manipulates assets the developer creates. Procedural generation isn't putting artists and writers out of business. Also, procedural generation isn't making Idiocracy a reality, with fucking English majors unable to read Dickens without asking OpenAI to interpret the text for them. "They do similar things" doesn't mean they're equivalent.

>How can you be sure that in any game AI wasn't used to generate some sort of an internal document or asset that would never be in the final product but was integral to the creation of the final product? I never claimed to be omniscient. I simply don't support a company after I find out that they have unethical business practices. It isn't that hard go figure out.

Correct! If you're not going to support artists and writers, the *least* you can do is not support the industry that's actively destroying thr fields of art and writing.

According to the article as cited in [this](https://sh.itjust.works/comment/19484136) comment, we do know the reason and a rush job to meet a deadline is precisely why.

Got it, you're fine with AI usage as long as you don't know about it.

That's kinda the problem. We're already careless with the things we do ourselves. It can't be helped, nobody's perfect. But once we start delegating tasks, we lose the direct experience. Priorities shift, attention moves to something else and the chance of carelessness rises because it's no longer a problem we have to concern ourselves with. Meanwhile, the LLM "learns". What it "learns", nobody knows because it does so mechanically. There's zero understanding. It keeps "learning" every time it's fed something, so you don't have a static program that does what it's told. Instead it's a "living" program that applies what it "learns". And that makes it unpredictable in the long run. This turns the user into a glorified middle manager who has to hover over their employee and make sure they did their job as they should have. And how many middle managers do you know with that kind of dedication, that isn't spiteful at its core? The push against this is that the people depending on it to do the work become less dependable themselves. And unless you're an independent developer without a profit driven publisher breathing down your neck, this will be used in all the wrong ways as a standard instead of it being the exception.