Fans slam The Alters after discovering evidence of undisclosed gen AI in images, text, and translation
-
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.
-
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. LOLIf 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.
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.
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]
SLAVERY??? Come on man. Outrageous.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.
It's genuinely wild that you wrote this and then minutes later tried to make a "comparison but totally NOT equivalency, guys" to SLAVERY.
EDIT: btw, not that it matters at this point, but that's not what a simile is. It is analogy, though, but a super flawed and shitty one
-
When did I demand an equivalence??? This is what using ChatGPT does yo your brain, it destroys your reading comprehension
You're projecting, and being an asshole. Pause a minute and collect yourself.
-
I'm not and it's always been consistently praised.
I will concede that we have lived different experiences.
-
You're projecting, and being an asshole. Pause a minute and collect yourself.
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.
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.
It's genuinely wild that you wrote this and then minutes later tried to make a "comparison but totally NOT equivalency, guys" to SLAVERY.
EDIT: btw, not that it matters at this point, but that's not what a simile is. It is analogy, though, but a super flawed and shitty one
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I like how l saw this repIy coming and accounted for it and pre-repIied to it, and you stiII Ieft it. Yeah, it would be outrageous to equate generative Al and slavery, that's why l didn't do that
-
I will concede that we have lived different experiences.
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 l saw this repIy coming and accounted for it and pre-repIied to it, and you stiII Ieft it. Yeah, it would be outrageous to equate generative Al and slavery, that's why l didn't do that
Yes, 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 slide
wrote on last edited by [email protected]So the reason behind that was to point out that, by your logic, slavery would be excusable. That's the argument you're making. The consumer won't notice the difference, therefore it's fine for the producer to use it.
-
So the reason behind that was to point out that, by your logic, slavery would be excusable. That's the argument you're making. The consumer won't notice the difference, therefore it's fine for the producer to use it.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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 if it's EQUIVALENT to slavery, it's not (which you yourself said in an attempt to have it both ways lol), so "my logic" does not apply to slavery... Dude.
-
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. LOLPoint 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.
-
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.
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??? Why is it that now that I am asking you to explain things, you won't?
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
-
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 if it's EQUIVALENT to slavery, it's not (which you yourself said in an attempt to have it both ways lol), so "my logic" does not apply to slavery... Dude.
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.
-
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
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I'm willing to grant literally all of this. I have a deep-seated hatred of generative AI that clouds my ability to have productive discussions about it. It turns me into an asshole, specifically to people who defend it.
When did I demand an equivalence? That's what I asked 37 minutes ago, and what you've spent several replies now pivoting away from answering
