>"like it or not, gen AI is becoming an invaluable tool for developers".. ..who wish to take a dump on their work.

Super weird take, honestly. Procedurally generated content gets no hate, despite it being janky dogshit, too.

That's kinda sloppy, mainly in the disclosure and translation department, but nothing that some updates won't solve. I'm happy to support these devs with original ideas, even while they use some AI in a non-intrusive way. They have done something more important for in my book, which is following regional pricing. It's stupid how several studios think charging my 3rd world country the same **or even more** than the US is a good idea. CDPR and bethesda think it's ok, but It's disgusting. I would rather support 11bit.

Ita because you are still putting in the work to license or produce the individual parts used in procedural generation rather than using people's work without pay or permpermission.

"You're not actually supposed to read that text so this is not an issue." Good job missing the point.

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.

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.

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.

Love and hate are subjective opinions, so of course they're unfair. And so are upvotes/downvotes.

If you don't know the difference between procedural generation and generative AI, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject

Damn, I was looking forward to playing this. Glad I read this first

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.

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 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

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.

And yet you couldn't describe one aspect of the differences

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)

I'm not and it's always been consistently praised.

Sharing one thing in common does not make two things equivalent You're welcome to try again