200
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2026
200 points (99.5% liked)
PC Gaming
13878 readers
923 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah I mean, that sounds reasonable. There is a big difference between generating all your game assets with AI and using Claude to refactor methods and write docs.
Big difference but I would argue both require disclosure because I will opt out of any of it. Add it to the long list of bullshit in the gaming industry I will not condone with my money.
The problem is that it's unenforcable. I bet that's one of the reasons valve is rephrasing.
Even pure AI art is unenforceable unfortunately. Like any form of cheating, some will be amateurish and obvious. But others will be sophisticated, skilled, and will simply blend into a gray area where you can't easily define a line.
How much "AI tool assistance" does it take before it's called "AI generated content"? It's totally arbitrary, and in many cases it's going to be completely unenforceable.
That doesn't mean it has no value, but it does mean it's not a silver bullet and no amount of tweaking is going to make it one. We can quickly use it to take out the obvious slop, the well-crafted examples will pass beneath anyone's notice, and when examples fall into the gray area we'll all bounce around inside with arguments about who we believe and how much is normal and acceptable until we eventually reach an arbitrary, per-game consensus, or maybe adjust the "rules" a little to accommodate them, but nothing really changes, we'll probably be arguing about whether games contain "too much AI" for decades now and there will never be a clear solution or answer.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. Better to make the rule and enforce it where they can than to just forget about it. Maybe some honest devs will disclose it.
https://www.reuters.com/business/nearly-90-videogame-developers-use-ai-agents-google-study-shows-2025-08-18/
Good luck finding a dev that doesn't want to use/ isn't forced to use / doesn't lie about using AI tools.
Ar this point if we're to shun all AI tools we might just give up the hobby.
While on principle I don't care about people using llms to refactor code in my games, I still think that the AI is inevitable narrative is a bit jarring and that study in particular has a huge conflict of interest issue.
There's plenty of good games made before this gen AI nonsense started appearing.
Hi, dev here who doesn't use AI.
Never mind, my answer was out of context of what was said.
nothing is stopping me from making my own games without AI
It will be worse in the future, because young people growing up with Ai will find it 100% acceptable. Not everyone off course...
I have considered it many times.
You'll need to opt out of pretty much anything digital than because almost every business is has employees using AI is some form or fashion since it's shoved down everyone's throats so hard.
Anything that I find that's digital and uses AI, I do opt out of, thank you.
I called an HVAC company several weeks ago and they had an AI agent answer the phone. I hung up and called someone else. No problem.
You better stop using lemmy or your lemmy client then.
Odds are astronomically high that they've used AI at some point on its development.
Just uninstall all games made after 2022 then, because I can assure you llm' have been used for code in some capacity in every game. But I would argue there is a big difference in using AI for assert generation. And using it to help read docs or getting ideas for refactoring some code etc
Are you opposed to, for example, AI being used to bug fix?
Personally my opposition is mostly in the form of drawing art, writing plotlines, recording voicelines, etc. I am not opposed to AI being used in certain aspects of game development.
Yes, and while we're at it let'd refuse to read books not written by scribes. And refuse clothes not woven by hand.
I understand the frustration with the industry, but at the end of the day it is a tool, and it has its uses. Just because it is being misused doesn't mean it's universally bad. This just seems petty and misdirected.
Can I ask why you think that? AI has stolen code and art and is regurgitating both without any credit or attribution to the originators. What makes art different from code in your opinion?
I found the concept of stolen code to be a bit weird. Code isn't poetry, there is a correct way of doing things and then there is incorrect ways of doing things.
If everybody does things the correct way then the code will be the same for any given problem. So is it stolen?
It's rather like how it's almost impossible to play any set of chords and them not be from some prior work. It doesn't mean that the music was stolen it just means that there is a limited number of ways you can combine notes and if you further limit it to combinations that sound good the set is even smaller.
If I may ask, what is your opinion on AI music? Do you think AI music is fine since there's a set number of chords and the AI is just combining them in a statistically plausible way?
Obviously I can't really answer that question. It's nuanced I can't give a black and white answer.
Notice I said chords, music isn't just chords though. I mentioned it because they have been copyright cases where people have tried to claim that they can own certain chords or certain chord progression, the courts have decided that isn't the case. You can own the composition but not the progression.
AI music is an entire piece, theoretically an original piece, you could of course make the arguement that it's just cutting it up bits of pre-existing work and sticking them back together but you could also make that arguement of a human as well. Copyright law isn't really fit for the 21st century and it certainly isn't fit to deal with the existence of AI, but that's nothing new. I can go online right now and find music that sounds like the Imperial March, is that copyright violation? The courts don't think so.
I had initially written a different comment instead of asking about music, but since you brought it up I felt like that'd be a good gauge. I think we should treat all AI devised work similarly. If support AI code we should support AI art. I do think a nuanced approach is understandable though. The following is what I had initially written for my previous comment:
I don't think there is a "correct" way of doing a lot of the things AI is being asked to do. There are conventions which are followed, but plenty of people solve the same problems in different ways. Is an interaction a click, long press, or a swipe? Is something a button and a popup or a simple menu item? If there was a single correct way to solve coding questions, there would only be one operating system or one Lemmy app. I think a lot of people see code as a bunch of loops rather than a (hopefully) well planned solution to a problem. AI as it stands cannot actually understand a problem, but it can guess what a solution might look like based on similar problems. It takes those people's solutions and assumptions and applies them and there is an assumption that the output is somehow inevitably that regardless of what or who would have been asked to solve the problem. It's like saying there's a "correct" photorealistic beach scene. Sure, plenty of people might have an idea of what that might look like, but everyone might have a different take. Are there palm trees? Are there birds? Where is the sun in the picture? I'm sure AI can generate a serviceable rendition of one, but it's rendition is no more correct, and it certainly wasn't done with an actual understanding of the elements of the scene. People aren't asking AI to generate "if.. else..." they are having AI design applications whole cloth and we end up seeing the results like that site that had its user list exposed on its front end or that have buttons that go nowhere. If there was one correct solution then AI either didn't know it, didn't understand it, or didn't deliver it. Any of those options is a failure of the AI in that case, but the in my opinion true and scarier answer is that there is no correct way to do a lot of things AI is generating code for and that it is prone to mistakes for that reason.
There is a big difference, and I’d argue the Claude refactoring is worse. Content was already pursuing the common denominator. But open source was a place where you could actually bring some nuance, examine things in detail, and build a shared understanding of deeper truths. But why bother with the icky social factors of working together to build something with people all around the world that can evolve and last for 10+ years, when you can boil a swimming pool to produce a half-baked one-off solution instead?
Because it'll be half-baked and one-off.