A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Fans slam The Alters after discovering evidence of undisclosed gen AI in images, text, and translation
-
I feel like it does. theunknownmuncher thinks it's somehow inconsistent to be against generative AI while being ok with procedural generation, which implies that they think they're equivalent in some wayboth are used to produce more content with less effort. There's your equivalence. What would actually add value to the conversation is discussing why a particular criticism of one may or may not apply to the other. I actually disagree with the original premise, and explained why in another comment.
-
There’s more than one argument against AI being used in games, and they don’t all apply to proc gen content. It’s an apples to oranges comparison in most cases.And yet you couldn't describe one aspect of the differences
-
If you don't know the difference between procedural generation and generative AI, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the subjectLOL care to educate me on why one is acceptable and the other is not, then? I'll wait.
(reality: it's a minor implementation detail and has no relevance to the user)
-
You must be young. proc gen used to get tons of hate in the 2010 and such era, gamers complained about devs being lazy and not being willing to actually make levels/worlds/dungeons/whatever. This complaint was of course inconsistently applied. These days people mostly just got used to it as normal. In 10 or 20 years, I'd wager the same will be true of gen ai.I'm not and it's always been consistently praised.
-
both are used to produce more content with less effort. There's your equivalence. What would actually add value to the conversation is discussing why a particular criticism of one may or may not apply to the other. I actually disagree with the original premise, and explained why in another comment.Sharing one thing in common does not make two things equivalent You're welcome to try again
-
both are used to produce more content with less effort. There's your equivalence. What would actually add value to the conversation is discussing why a particular criticism of one may or may not apply to the other. I actually disagree with the original premise, and explained why in another comment.> both are used to produce more content with less effort. There's your equivalence. Bingo. > As if the reason people don't like generative AI is because it makes bad games. Nice, point proven.
If it doesn't make games bad, then the complaints are simply invalid and bandwagoning, and developers cannot be faulted for using it. LOL
-
Sharing one thing in common does not make two things equivalent You're welcome to try againYour previous comment proved my point, thanks
-
Sharing one thing in common does not make two things equivalent You're welcome to try again
-
LOL care to educate me on why one is acceptable and the other is not, then? I'll wait.
(reality: it's a minor implementation detail and has no relevance to the user)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.
-
you demanded an equivalence. I gave you one. If you don't like it then that's a you problem.When did I demand an equivalence??? This is what using ChatGPT does yo your brain, it destroys your reading comprehension
-
> both are used to produce more content with less effort. There's your equivalence. Bingo. > As if the reason people don't like generative AI is because it makes bad games. Nice, point proven. If it doesn't make games bad, then the complaints are simply invalid and bandwagoning, and developers cannot be faulted for using it. LOL>If it doesn't make games bad, then the complaints are simply invalid and bandwagoning, and developers cannot be faulted for using it. LOL "If slavery doesn't harm the economy, then the complaints are simply invalid and bandwagoning, and plantation owners cannot be faulted for using them. LOL" I know Lemmings have a lot of trouble reading, so I'll get this out of the way now: no, I'm not saying that generative AI *is* slavery, nor am I saying they're *equivalent.* I'm drawing one *similarity* to make a point. That's called a *simile.* The point being, that one supposed criticism isn't valid doesn't mean that *no criticisms* are valid.
-
From the article: > Danilov posited that the mistake was either the work of a "careless translator taking shortcuts", or it was "done by someone on the dev/publisher side who couldn't be arsed sending last-minute missing lines for translation and decided to throw them in a random LLM without oversight". > > Handong Ryu, who handled the Korean translation for the game, replied: "I was responsible for translating the vast majority of the Korean version of The Alters. Unfortunately, the same issue exists in the Korean version as well, which makes it more likely that the second scenario you mentioned is closer to the truth. Sounds like this text was either added late in development or simply overlooked until after the last set of translation work had been completed, so the devs decided to let an LLM do it rather than getting billed for another batch of localisation. Very dumb, especially as this puts them in direct violation of the Steam AI disclosure policy, but given the context I guess they figured no one would notice.
-
>If it doesn't make games bad, then the complaints are simply invalid and bandwagoning, and developers cannot be faulted for using it. LOL "If slavery doesn't harm the economy, then the complaints are simply invalid and bandwagoning, and plantation owners cannot be faulted for using them. LOL" I know Lemmings have a lot of trouble reading, so I'll get this out of the way now: no, I'm not saying that generative AI *is* slavery, nor am I saying they're *equivalent.* I'm drawing one *similarity* to make a point. That's called a *simile.* The point being, that one supposed criticism isn't valid doesn't mean that *no criticisms* are valid.
SLAVERY??? Come on man. Outrageous.
-
When did I demand an equivalence??? This is what using ChatGPT does yo your brain, it destroys your reading comprehension
-
I'm not and it's always been consistently praised.
-
What am I projecting??? Why is it that now that I *am* asking you to explain things, you won't?
-
SLAVERY??? Come on man. Outrageous.I like how I saw this reply coming and accounted for bit and you *still* left it
-
Totally valid, mutually conceded. I'd bet we can agree that the current climate of games generally praises procedurally generated content, regardless of how we experienced its history.
-
I like how I saw this reply coming and accounted for bit and you *still* left itYes, of course I did, it would be gross of me to let that slide
-
Yes, of course I did, it would be gross of me to let that slideSo the reason behind that was to point out that, by your logic, slavery *would* be excusable. That's the argument you're making. It doesn't hurt the end product, therefore it's fine for the producer to use it.
