Dev of Steam game 'Hardest' will delete it after new girlfriend made them realise AI is bad

The bit about brainwashing in universities is kind of a red flag, so it's no surprised he was gullible enough to buy the AI hype. Good that he's backing off on this at least, but I doubt I'd be interested in anything he makes going forward.

Was this girlfriend an AI girlfriend by any chance? Maybe the algorithm told her to break up with him and that made him realize AI is not your friend?

That girlfriend, if she is real and was really the reason for doing this, seems to be a keeper for her strong marketing skills. Now this game has become a limited edition release everyone is talking about and can't wait to get before the end of the month, when it comes an exclusive collector's piece.

this moral panic is getting ridiculous

Awesome, now we need his girlfriend to talk to Activision about CoD7.

While I agree there is a lot of immorality in AI, avoiding it just puts you at a disadvantage since everyone is using it. So, you'll be harming yourself, not the unethical AI companies. The solution to the ethical dilemma should come from politicians, but they are unfortunately too corrupt to do the right thing.

I'm a little surprised. He could have just taken it down temporarily with the explanation he provided and then ran a kickstarter to raise the funds to pay a human artist to replace the genAI artwork. Perhaps it is not worth the extra effort?

Kudos to that new girlfriend though!

Quoting: sarmadWhile I agree there is a lot of immorality in AI, avoiding it just puts you at a disadvantage since everyone is using it. So, you'll be harming yourself, not the unethical AI companies. The solution to the ethical dilemma should come from politicians, but they are unfortunately too corrupt to do the right thing.

AI companies are currently operating by dotcom logic.
The more users you've, the more you'll be able to lock in in the future and thus the more valuable your shares.
Boycotts do work to influence that metric.

This same logic also applies to this "disadvantage". The goal is vendor lockin they will try to get you to rely on their products to the level that you can't ditch them and they've many great minds working on that goal.
You'll pay a hefty sum when the time of income finally arrives.
Right now you're at a disadvantage if you use AI, because they're buying your dependence with low prices.

Spoiler, click me

This also, why deepseek was such a shock.
It used a(known, but for good reasons avoided) cheaper method for training to achieve equal results and marketed it.
It presented the threat that someone without trillions in capital could compete with their champions.

Quoting: sarmadThe solution to the ethical dilemma should come from politicians, but they are unfortunately too corrupt to do the right thing.

Why should ethics be the responsibility of government? That just brings more "nanny state" interference in everyone's lives. Ethics should be personal and exercised on the individual level. The corporations will switch gears soon enough once they realize their policy is garnering very few customers.

From the perspective of legality, however, there is the matter of the violated copyrights ...

Quoting: sarmadWhile I agree there is a lot of immorality in AI, avoiding it just puts you at a disadvantage since everyone is using it. So, you'll be harming yourself, not the unethical AI companies. The solution to the ethical dilemma should come from politicians, but they are unfortunately too corrupt to do the right thing.

"Everyone is doing it" is shallow reasoning that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I'd argue that you're actively harming yourself when you choose to use GenAI because you've robbed yourself of learning something new. Then add in the harm you're causing to others in the industry you've denied an opportunity to contribute to and the harm inflicted toward those whose content was used without permission in the first place, and I think you have plenty of reasons to never use it regardless of what others are doing. Harming "unethical AI companies" is not the goal in the first place.

AI isn’t some abstract future threat it’s automation, just like the machines and robots that have already replaced countless factory, retail, and logistics jobs. Now AI can automate not just cognitive work but, eventually physical labor too, meaning even jobs people thought were safe could be at risk. Automation removes work quickly, while job creation and retraining lag far behind, leaving millions behind in the process.

The bigger question is this if automation and AI keep replacing work faster than new opportunities appear, what will people do for a living? And if people can’t earn income who will buy the products and services these automated companies produce? This isn’t fear-mongering it’s basic math. Productivity may rise, but without people participating in the economy, the system cannot function.

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: sarmadThe solution to the ethical dilemma should come from politicians, but they are unfortunately too corrupt to do the right thing.

Why should ethics be the responsibility of government? That just brings more "nanny state" interference in everyone's lives. Ethics should be personal and exercised on the individual level. The corporations will switch gears soon enough once they realize their policy is garnering very few customers.

From the perspective of legality, however, there is the matter of the violated copyrights ...

Not the responsibility of the government, rather the responsibility of the judicial system. But you'll need the politicians to amend the copyright laws to make it more clear to the idiot judges who still can't see the mass scale copyright infringement that is going on here.

Quoting: sarmadWhile I agree there is a lot of immorality in AI, avoiding it just puts you at a disadvantage since everyone is using it.

That does not follow. For one thing, lots of potential buyers don't like AI, so if you don't avoid it, you may lose sales. For another, many applications of AI don't actually give advantage in the end, even if it seems like they ought to. Just because something is unethical does not necessarily mean that it is the best self-interested play. Lots of things are both unethical and stupid things to do.

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: sarmadThe solution to the ethical dilemma should come from politicians, but they are unfortunately too corrupt to do the right thing.

Why should ethics be the responsibility of government? That just brings more "nanny state" interference in everyone's lives. Ethics should be personal and exercised on the individual level.

I'm sorry, that's nonsense. A good deal of what government is all about has always been regulating unethical behaviour, in the interests of the community, because unethical behaviour damages the common good, and promoting the common good is what government is for. We're just so used to certain kinds of laws around ethical behaviour that we forget that's what they are. So for instance, laws against fraud are laws about ethical behaviour. Contract laws are laws about ethical behaviour. Arguably practically every law . . . murder, rape, theft, on and on . . . is a law about ethical behaviour. One could argue that laws about traffic aren't about ethics . . . but in a way even they are if you think the laws are rules to try to keep drivers and pedestrians safe, violating them makes people less safe, and making people less safe is an unethical thing to do.

In any case, where exactly has decades of whinging about the "nanny state" and getting rid of it wherever possible brought the United States? The US was a better place to live when it had more "nanny state" and that's no co-incidence. So was Canada, so was Britain.

Quoting: sarmad

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: sarmadThe solution to the ethical dilemma should come from politicians, but they are unfortunately too corrupt to do the right thing.

Why should ethics be the responsibility of government? That just brings more "nanny state" interference in everyone's lives. Ethics should be personal and exercised on the individual level. The corporations will switch gears soon enough once they realize their policy is garnering very few customers.

From the perspective of legality, however, there is the matter of the violated copyrights ...

Not the responsibility of the government, rather the responsibility of the judicial system.

The judicial system is a branch of government.

The power of significant others knows no bounds when it comes to influencing decision making. XD

Love to see some character development

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe US was a better place to live when it had more "nanny state" and that's no co-incidence. So was Canada, so was Britain.

If anyone thinks that there is less "nanny state" now than there was before, they are deluding themselves.

Personally, I am a fully adult citizen. I don't need the government holding my hand and warning me about the dangers of things that are more than obvious. I am capable of assessing my own risks and moving forward as I deem appropriate.

I'll concede to your point about laws governing unethical behavior, however.

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe US was a better place to live when it had more "nanny state" and that's no co-incidence. So was Canada, so was Britain.

If anyone thinks that there is less "nanny state" now than there was before, they are deluding themselves.

I suppose it depends on your definition. Most people who use the term generally use it to mean "Government doing anything useful". So, building housing, "nanny state"; providing health care, "nanny state"; social safety net, "nanny state"; regulations saying your food can't be poisoned, "nanny state". And, there is a lot less of all that stuff than there used to be in, say, the 70s. If you use it differently from that you're very much in the minority and can't be surprised if people misunderstand you.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe US was a better place to live when it had more "nanny state" and that's no co-incidence. So was Canada, so was Britain.

If anyone thinks that there is less "nanny state" now than there was before, they are deluding themselves.

I suppose it depends on your definition. Most people who use the term generally use it to mean "Government doing anything useful". So, building housing, "nanny state"; providing health care, "nanny state"; social safety net, "nanny state"; regulations saying your food can't be poisoned, "nanny state". And, there is a lot less of all that stuff than there used to be in, say, the 70s. If you use it differently from that you're very much in the minority and can't be surprised if people misunderstand you.

Hmm... I thought the use of the phrase would be obvious but your definition is definitely different than mine. However, I can see how your definition could overlap and eventually evolve into mine -- government interference and hand-holding, as if their citizens are all children that need constant guidance (as one would expect from a nanny to her/his underage charges). In recent years, that has been very prevalent.