Valve tweak Steam AI disclosure form for developers to clarify it's for content consumed by players

"This includes content such as artwork, sound, narrative, localization, etc."

It's so funny how "code" is conveniently absent in that list (or is it "etc."?) I wonder if that is because you can't enforce what you can't prove is in the product, anyway? Or because they realized that the vast majority of programmers is using at least some AI-generated content these days? Or simply because consumers don't "consume" code, because they can't see what it does? Or because vibe-coding is a legitimate efficiency tool in their view, while efficiency gains by generating AI art assets are not?

In any way, as a person whose code has very likely been used for AI training, I call hypocrisy on it. Apparently, the "poor artists" are entitled to protective measures, while coders aren't. Which reflects the vibe I am getting from the anti-AI crowd, really. One should think that people hating AI should hate all of it equally, at least.

Let's translate Valve's message:

Efficiency gains through the use of these tools is not the focus of this section.

"Basically everyone is using AI."

Instead, it is concerned with the use of AI in creating content that ships with your game, and is consume by player. This includes content such as artwork, sound, narrative, localization, etc.

"Let's stop being transparent & declare only stuff we obviously can't deny."

But reading the article it seems to work - ignorance is bliss.

Quoting: poiuzLet's translate Valve's message:

Efficiency gains through the use of these tools is not the focus of this section.

"Basically everyone is using AI."

Of course. It's a tool. Nobody stops you from taking the horse, but I'll be probably faster than you using my car.

Quoting: poiuz

Instead, it is concerned with the use of AI in creating content that ships with your game, and is consume by player. This includes content such as artwork, sound, narrative, localization, etc.

"Let's stop being transparent & declare only stuff we obviously can't deny."

But reading the article it seems to work - ignorance is bliss.

I really don't get the negative resentment from a lot of people with AI. It's a tool. It can't replace people, although many seem to think so. Right now, it simply can't. I mean, you probably could for some smaller things, but quality wise it's not the best idea.
What it does is to aid you, to let you iterate faster. Do the annoying things... *shrugs*

Related to the code, I couldn't care less if someone uses AI to aid in coding, as long as the result is proper, clean code. And as a gamer, a stable game that doesn't crash or has weird bugs. How that is achieved, I really don't care, so why tick boxes for that?

Man, I can't believe we're still defending genAI. As I've pointed out in many other comments, the top reasons I hear for the "negative resentment" are, in no particular order:

1. Negative impact on environment, slap bang in the middle of a climate crisis.
2. Driving job losses based on exaggerated claims of "efficiency".
3. Lowers IQ (I can't be bothered digging out the link yet again)
4. Slows down development (even in cases where developers claimed it sped them up, evidence showed otherwise)
5. Driving a nuclear age (Meta, Google and Microsoft have now all commissioned their own reactors)
6a. Societal impact - talking people into hurting others and/or themselves, sometimes leading to deaths)
6b. Societal impact - driving non-consensual nudity on Grok, including child pornography. When Musk learned of this, he paywalled the "feature". He paywalled it... not removed... paywalled it. FFS. Also see deepfakes of politians, or fraud using social engineering techniques.
6c. Societal impact - genAI "slop" now devalues everything on the internet. When you see something cool, you think "meh, it's probably just AI shite". Or it actually IS shite, in which case, genAI is on a race to the bottom, since the next generation of genAI will be taught on today's internet - mistakes will be compounded, biases reinforced.
7. Loss leading pricing - hoping to hook consumers/enterprisesthen putting prices up (see OpenAI adding adverts to ChatGPT)
8. Hallucination (multiple cases of invented bullshit, including court filings, leading to lawyers being debarred).
9. Obnoxious marketing (see MS especially).
10. Diverting investment away from targeted solution, and into a financial bubble (because #7).
11. All genAI engines are built on plagiarised work, for which the original authors/artists got no recognition, nor commission. Same with code - all code was scraped, regardless of license, and that code can be regurgitated in new, OR snippet form, by genAI, without recognition of that license.
12. Impact on website scraping from multiple companies building genAI models. Wikipedia in particular has had to actively block enormous ranges to prevent the scraping from leading them into financial run. Again, can't be bothered to find the link, but there's a Wikimedia blog talking about it.

Anyone offering the "it's just a tool" argument, is being deliberately obtuse. They're basically arguing that the ends absolutely justify the means, no matter the cost.

And the cost is high. Big tech has absolutely no morals, and this is a race to the bottom, fueled by literally hundreds of billions of investment that could have have so much difference elsewhere.

But hey, it's just a tool, right?