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.

Yes, of course I did, it would be gross of me to let that slide

So 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.

> by your logic, slavery would be excusable. That's the argument you're making.  I'm sorry, we're talking about the implementation of generated content in video games. That only works ifn it's EQUIVALENT to slavery, it's not, so "my logic" does not apply to slavery... Dude.

Point **not** proven. There are many reasons why people in general actively dislike generative ai. Many of those reasons have to do with the creation of the ai (including environmental damage and harm to artists, and more besides), and are applicable regardless of the quality of the end product. Furthermore, using generative ai does **tend to** make the end product worse, regardless of what that product is. This does not mean that it is impossible to make good shit with ai, nor does it mean that ai *only* makes good shit. There's nuance to the issue that is often ignored. Furthermore again, there is bandwagonning happening in the hate of ai. However, just begause bandwagonning is a logical fallacy, does not automatically make the arguments wrong (see the fallacy fallacy). Furthermore the third, developers absolutely can be held at fault for using generative ai. Valve demands ai use be disclosed, they didn't comply, ipso facto, devs are at fault. However, not all fault is equal. The example being discussed in the original post is much less egregious than most in my opinion. It's not like they ai generated the entire game asset by asset. I had another point but already forgot what it was so I'll leave it at that for now.

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.

> What am I projecting??? > This is what using ChatGPT does yo your brain, it destroys your reading comprehension > Why is it that now that I am asking you to explain things, you won’t? > You’re projecting, and being an asshole

I was about to type out a whole response, but I need to learn when to cut it short. Generative AI is demonic, using it offloads your creativity, humanity, and soul into an unthinking, unfeeling machine. Anything that uses generative AI is inherently worse because it was not made by someone with agency or creativity. You're advocating for putting artists and writers out of work.

I'm going to grant literally all of this. *When did I demand an equivalence?*

Literally everything you just said applies to procedural generation, except that it is demonic because that's just silly

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.

Since you're being reasonable again, I'll answer. Perhaps "demanded" was the wrong word to use. It got the wrong point across. You did not explicitly ask for it, but rather strongly implied that you wanted the other guy's argument to be a certain way. (your comment I am referring to is quoted below). Ultimately, you were right, as the plot has thickened over the past 2 hours. In another comment the other guy agreed with the explanation I provided, and used that to claim that proc gen and gen ai are effectively the same (a claim that I disputed in another another comment). So on this point, you win. It was I who misunderstood the other guy's argument. > 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 way. As if the reason people don’t like generative AI is because it makes bad games.

The issue becomes: if they used Gen AI to create background filler text, can we be 100% certain it wasn’t used elsewhere in the production of the game? If they really wanted background text, they should have paid someone to write some, or use Lorem Ipsum if they didn’t want to spend the money and no one would have cared.

If you think "AI" and a designed classic algrithm generating things are equivalent, no wonder you hail AI as good... because that is fucking clueless take.

It's literally just implementation and they're both statistical models, but

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

Didn't equate them. You must be better. Sorry GPT has fried your brain so badly that you can't read two paragraphs

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

Boycotting because someone made a mistake? Ok