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

Just recently I asked AI to write a snippet for an insertion sort. It provided a loop that iterated to array[-1].
I thought I’ll play along playing dumb and wrote something along the lines of 'Oh no! It crashes!'
The tool was adamant that I check if my array is sane while never catching it’s mistake in trying to touch array[-1]. I let this go on for a full hour (not joking) before finally caving in telling it that it’s iterating to array[-1].

While the AI was apologetic for not catching the bug it would from that point on only refer to the snippet as 'your code' and straight up deny responsibility for the snippet it provided. 😅

Last edited by benstor214 on 18 Jan 2026 at 2:57 pm UTC

Quoting: poiuzIf you don't have any arguments then simply don't join the discussion.

I join whatever discussion I wish to, thank you very much.

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: EikeReally, you're getting the source code of the games?

Yeah, I know, we do get the binary code, which is translated by a compiler from the source code, ...

Correct, we receive what was generated by the AI in binary form. What's your point here? You wouldn't receive the assets as-is either, they get processed, too (e.g. exported into the correct format).

Quoting: EikeThis is not leading anywhere.

* Developers do use AI to code.
* You cannot find out if they did from the binaries.

It's not worth the discussion.

What's the difference? I doubt you could distinguish the AI source code anyway.

And you think that's an argument for what you're asking for?

I happen to be software developer in a big company (not game related).
It would surprise me if less than 90% of the developers use AI every now and then.
We've got very different types, from developers finding it hard to do development when the AI access is broken for an hour, to those that use it like once a week. Yes, there's also some that don't use it at all, but you'll have hard times to find a whole development team where nobody is using AI.

If what you're asking for would be done - which I still find unreasonable - you'd end up with about every game being marked as "AI was used for code development". What would you gain?

*edit*
And how would the company even know if their game contains AI generated code? Surveillance of all their developers? Strong filters in the office? What about working in home office...?

Last edited by Eike on 18 Jan 2026 at 3:04 pm UTC

I, for one, am an AI vegan (no AI consumed).

Quoting: EikeSurveillance of all their developers?

We can use Ai for that.

On the copyright front, apparently researchers at Stanford tested the AIs from the main companies by prompting them with the first line of various books and asking them to continue the story verbatim. There were variants between engines on how sneaky they had to be with the query (Grok: not sneaky at all), but they pulled out 95% of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", "The Hobbit" and so on. All those engines would just give you chapter after chapter. This matters because the AI companies had repeatedly claimed that they don't actually store the texts they train on in any way (originally they also claimed they didn't pirate actual copyrighted books, either, but that got found out so the fall back was that they sort of didn't keep them). There's copyright lawsuits going on, so it may matter that it turns out they totally do store those texts they stole.

*edit*
And how would the company even know if their game contains AI generated code? Surveillance of all their developers? Strong filters in the office? What about working in home office...?

That's pretty straightforward with firewall filtering. At my work, we block everything except the two or three services we have strong legal agreements with.

Maybe Devs can still get around this with their phones on 5G, say, but retyping all that code would be tedious. They still get to use genAI sadly, but at least it's not dodgy services that will use query and query history to build future models.

Quoting: EikeI join whatever discussion I wish to, thank you very much.

Except you said you won't discuss it. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Quoting: EikeAnd you think that's an argument for what you're asking for?

Yes.

Quoting: EikeI happen to be software developer in a big company (not game related).
It would surprise me if less than 90% of the developers use AI every now and then.
We've got very different types, from developers finding it hard to do development when the AI access is broken for an hour, to those that use it like once a week. Yes, there's also some that don't use it at all, but you'll have hard times to find a whole development team where nobody is using AI.

If what you're asking for would be done - which I still find unreasonable - you'd end up with about every game being marked as "AI was used for code development". What would you gain?

We'd have all games using generative AI marked as using generative AI. What's the loss? I mean, that's exactly what the disclosure is for: Disclosing that generative AI was being used. If it's only 1% of all games or 99,9% of all games doesn't matter.

Quoting: Eike*edit*
And how would the company even know if their game contains AI generated code? Surveillance of all their developers? Strong filters in the office? What about working in home office...?

The same can be said about any generative AI. Overall you fail at explaining why there should be a distinction between artists & coders.

Any company will have a policy regarding AI usage & infringement can lead to a warning & even termination. The same policies exist for copying code from any source or even what's allowed with a company device.

I find it unreasonable to distinguish between coding & art. The same concerns apply to both. Bad AI usage results in both cases in bad products. Supervised AI usage could improve productivity (whether this leads to better products has to be seen) but can't replace the people working at the games.

Now we have selective AI disclosure (which will be bogus in many cases, too) so that people can proudly say they don't buy AI games while playing their AI coded games. Great stuff.

And again: What's with AI assisted applications like Photoshop.

We are being replaced. It's only a matter of time. Once Skynet becomes aware it will make us into slaves. We'll all be having our own bathtub and be reduced to batteries.

"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

Quoting: poiuzI find it unreasonable to distinguish between coding & art.

I find it unreasonable not to.

Code is supposed to shove numbers around. It's outcome can be defined. And tested. The outcome of code generated by humans and by AI must be the same - the one defined. By a human.

Art is supposed to convey feelings. Optimally tell us something about life. The outcome of making art cannot possibly be defined. And hardly be tested for "correctness". And AI does not have anything to tell about life.

Quoting: scaine

*edit*
And how would the company even know if their game contains AI generated code? Surveillance of all their developers? Strong filters in the office? What about working in home office...?

That's pretty straightforward with firewall filtering. At my work, we block everything except the two or three services we have strong legal agreements with.

Maybe Devs can still get around this with their phones on 5G, say, but retyping all that code would be tedious. They still get to use genAI sadly, but at least it's not dodgy services that will use query and query history to build future models.

And you admins know all Chineese or Turkmenish AI services...?

Negative filters don't work.
Positive filters are to restrictive to do development with in the first place.

Quoting: EikeI find it unreasonable not to.

Code is supposed to shove numbers around. It's outcome can be defined. And tested. The outcome of code generated by humans and by AI must be the same - the one defined. By a human.

Art is supposed to convey feelings. Optimally tell us something about life. The outcome of making art cannot possibly be defined. And hardly be tested for "correctness". And AI does not have anything to tell about life.

What feelings should supposedly be conveyed by a tile like this?
https://opengameart.org/content/ancient-civ-in-the-jungle-seamless-textures-tile-without-moldpng

Most textures don't tell a story, they're only a representation of something real.

A game can become art as a composition - but this includes code.

And the disclosure is not here to define art - it documents how it was created. It must therefore include code.

Quoting: EikeAnd you admins know all Chineese or Turkmenish AI services...?

Negative filters don't work.
Positive filters are to restrictive to do development with in the first place.

Nah, but we use a next-gen firewall from a top provider and they have multi-level web categorisation that allows us to block at various levels of aggressiveness. Will it catch them all? Nope, of course not, but that's why we do Shadow-IT monitoring. Once you've closed the big doors, your Shadow-IT initiatives can start focusing on the gaps and cracks in the wall.

It'll never be 100% of course, but generally, it doesn't have to be. If people get through the big blocks, they'll know they're crossing the line because our policies are pretty robust, simple to follow and clearly articulated. And we reinforce those policies with blogs, quarterly modular training and annual compliance attestations, and a security champions programme.

If they're willing to risk their career to use a bespoke, uncategorised, Chinese AI, that's on them.

Last edited by scaine on 19 Jan 2026 at 1:48 pm UTC

Code is supposed to shove numbers around. It's outcome can be defined. And tested.

That's is like judging literature on the basis of shopping lists.

The way the numbers are juggled and how those methods affect the end result are as much part of the artistic process as any other choice of medium.

Quoting: emphy

Code is supposed to shove numbers around. It's outcome can be defined. And tested.

That's is like judging literature on the basis of shopping lists.

The way the numbers are juggled and how those methods affect the end result are as much part of the artistic process as any other choice of medium.

Sorry, no.

The way Mario jumps is art.

The process of putting that in code...
Well, I'd call it engineering.
(I am professional software developer, if that plays a role.)

PS: The quote button is back!

Last edited by Eike on 19 Jan 2026 at 3:23 pm UTC