Fans slam The Alters after discovering evidence of undisclosed gen AI in images, text, and translation
-
This post did not contain any content.
"You're not actually supposed to read that text so this is not an issue." Good job missing the point.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
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.
-
Super weird take, honestly. Procedurally generated content gets no hate, despite it being janky dogshit, too.
EDIT: lol your downvotes don't make your opinion more consistent
wrote on last edited by [email protected]There’s more than one argument against generative 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.
-
"like it or not, gen AI is becoming an invaluable tool for developers"..
..who wish to take a dump on their work.
It will be used as a tool in pre-production and early stages of asset creation and no one will notice afterwards.
-
It will be used as a tool in pre-production and early stages of asset creation and no one will notice afterwards.
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.
-
Super weird take, honestly. Procedurally generated content gets no hate, despite it being janky dogshit, too.
EDIT: lol your downvotes don't make your opinion more consistent
Love and hate are subjective opinions, so of course they're unfair.
And so are upvotes/downvotes.
-
Super weird take, honestly. Procedurally generated content gets no hate, despite it being janky dogshit, too.
EDIT: lol your downvotes don't make your opinion more consistent
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Edit to clarify: what I meant was, if you don't understand why procedural generation is acceptable, and generative AI is not, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject. Leaving the original text for context.
If you don't know the difference between procedural generation and generative AI, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject
-
This post did not contain any content.
Damn, I was looking forward to playing this. Glad I read this first
-
Edit to clarify: what I meant was, if you don't understand why procedural generation is acceptable, and generative AI is not, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject. Leaving the original text for context.
If you don't know the difference between procedural generation and generative AI, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject
While your statement is objectively true, it does not pertain to the comment you replied to. Read it again, they were making a comparison. They did not claim that the two things were identical.
-
Super weird take, honestly. Procedurally generated content gets no hate, despite it being janky dogshit, too.
EDIT: lol your downvotes don't make your opinion more consistent
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.
-
While your statement is objectively true, it does not pertain to the comment you replied to. Read it again, they were making a comparison. They did not claim that the two things were identical.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
Edit: throughout this discussion, my opinion has evolved somewhat. Procedural generation is fine, because it only uses things created by the developer, and it will necessarily generate a better product than a generative AI, because the developer is the one who tunes it. An AI will generate any text that might fit within the genre, with no consideration for what's canon to the work it's being inserted in.
-
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.
Edit: throughout this discussion, my opinion has evolved somewhat. Procedural generation is fine, because it only uses things created by the developer, and it will necessarily generate a better product than a generative AI, because the developer is the one who tunes it. An AI will generate any text that might fit within the genre, with no consideration for what's canon to the work it's being inserted in.
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.
-
There’s more than one argument against generative 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
-
Edit to clarify: what I meant was, if you don't understand why procedural generation is acceptable, and generative AI is not, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject. Leaving the original text for context.
If you don't know the difference between procedural generation and generative AI, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject
wrote on last edited by [email protected]LOL care to educate us on why a statistical model is unacceptable while a procedural model (also statistical
) is acceptable, 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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Sharing one thing in common does not make two things equivalent. You're welcome to try again though
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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 again though
Your previous comment proved my point, thanks
-
Sharing one thing in common does not make two things equivalent. You're welcome to try again though
you demanded an equivalence. I gave you one. If you don't like it then that's a you problem.
-
LOL care to educate us on why a statistical model is unacceptable while a procedural model (also statistical
) is acceptable, then? I'll wait.(reality: it's a minor implementation detail and has no relevance to the user)
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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. 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. My point being, it's not inconsistent to be okay with procedural generation and not okay with generative AI.
