Look at the salty downvotes

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?

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.

When people are talking about dissatisfaction with AI usage, in this context they specifically mean Llama and GenAI. Google translate may use LLMs as part of their translation model, but it doesn't make up the whole pipeline and will work completely differently than copy pasting some text into an LLM and telling it to translate something.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

this is a fantastic point. well put.

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

No artist or writer would have been hired for producing placeholder assets.

I wouldn’t say „precisely“ as those are (plausible) speculations.

No, I just don't know that I should avoid a product if I don't know the ethical problems with it. That's how boycotts work...

I don’t think it’s important where the placeholder assets come from, or that mistakes will be more common when someone used gen AI instead of non-licensed stock image from a web search.

You're right. It's an opinion and only as important as the one having the opinion decides it to be.

That's like saying you boycot Nestle but won't stop using any of their subsidiary products unless you accidentally find out that a brand not named Nestle is actually owned by Nestle. You had a bridge to sell to anyone with the naivete to believe it's the only place AI was used. What about your naivity of believing that other games are not using AI, unless of course you stumble on the information about AI usage? Seems hypocritical to criticize others for giving the benefit of doubt while giving the benefit of doubt to all other developers simply because you don't know any better?

It probably uses a GPT of some sort at this point, tbh. There is no reason whatsoever using Google's ML translation or ChatGPT's ML translation should make any bit of difference to people who are actually upset over this if they have given any thought whatsoever to their concerns.

No, it's like saying I boycott Nestle and will stop using their subsidiary products *when I find out that they're Nestle subsidiaries.* I don't know if other games are using generative AI. Maybe they are. If I find out they are, I will not buy them. If I don't find out that they are, *how would I know that they're using it?* The fact that I'm not able to detect it 100% of the time doesn't make me okay with it when I don't know it's there. What in any of my comments has made you think I have a " I don't care as long as I don't notice it" attitude???

Very soon protesting the use of LLMs is like going to be like protesting the advent of the television. There is no stopping it. We should endeavour to ensure it is used ethically rather than becoming puritanical about its use.