And as there is no sure way to detect if something is AI made or not well. Only bad quality will eventually be a clue. But humans can make bad stuff too. Guess will have to pay more attention to quality.
I feel like that’s the question, not if it was used as a binary flag.
Consumers want to know, so it’s probably a good idea to tell them.
But there’s a gradient. AI generated art assets aren’t the same as AI generated concept art, which isn’t the same as AI generated code, which isn’t the same as AI code completion. If you include the AI search results everyone is adding you’d be hard pressed to find something that didn’t use AI in a sense now.
What I care about is if your stuff is some generated slop code that will crash mid game and no one will ever be able to fix it. That any art that’s supposed to catch my eye has human intention behind it, and not just random generation.
I don’t want any AI that people feel the need to hide.
I should probably care more about filler assets, but I don’t really. If it’s the same to me if the creator handmade their grass texture or found a random one online, I’m kinda indifferent about if it’s AI.
Steam’s system has the binary flag, and then gives space for developers to explain in their own words how AI generated code was used in the process, (IE: Arc Raiders mentioning its use for physics simulations, COD giving a more generic “used throughout development” line). There will be plenty of people who will see “AI content included” and will stop reading the store page after that, and that is their decision. For people who read the explanation, they can get a better idea of what kind of usage they are dealing with, and decide if it’s still worth buying the game.
Absolutely 100% the correct take as far as I can see. Just need to get that information on a form to fill out like a drop down under the “used AI” tag.
The problem is how to define “use AI”
And as there is no sure way to detect if something is AI made or not well. Only bad quality will eventually be a clue. But humans can make bad stuff too. Guess will have to pay more attention to quality.
I feel like that’s the question, not if it was used as a binary flag.
Consumers want to know, so it’s probably a good idea to tell them.
But there’s a gradient. AI generated art assets aren’t the same as AI generated concept art, which isn’t the same as AI generated code, which isn’t the same as AI code completion. If you include the AI search results everyone is adding you’d be hard pressed to find something that didn’t use AI in a sense now.
What I care about is if your stuff is some generated slop code that will crash mid game and no one will ever be able to fix it. That any art that’s supposed to catch my eye has human intention behind it, and not just random generation.
I don’t want any AI that people feel the need to hide.
I should probably care more about filler assets, but I don’t really. If it’s the same to me if the creator handmade their grass texture or found a random one online, I’m kinda indifferent about if it’s AI.
Steam’s system has the binary flag, and then gives space for developers to explain in their own words how AI generated code was used in the process, (IE: Arc Raiders mentioning its use for physics simulations, COD giving a more generic “used throughout development” line). There will be plenty of people who will see “AI content included” and will stop reading the store page after that, and that is their decision. For people who read the explanation, they can get a better idea of what kind of usage they are dealing with, and decide if it’s still worth buying the game.
Absolutely 100% the correct take as far as I can see. Just need to get that information on a form to fill out like a drop down under the “used AI” tag.