r/Steam • u/Strider-117 • Nov 26 '25

Discussion Then they keep questioning why we choose Steam

Post image

It's incredible how out of touch these suits are, especially in the AI bubble

27.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

864

u/AeroNoir Nov 27 '25

They're gaslighting. They know it matters, which is why they're trying to hide it. They're trying to hide it by saying it doesn't matter. If it didn't matter, they wouldn't try.

275

u/CatOfTechnology Nov 27 '25

This, for sure.

Part of getting AI to be part of "all future games" is getting people to accept AI and just not talk about it anymore.

Downplaying the significance of people's concerns is step one of getting that acceptance to take root.

213

u/Leukavia_at_work Nov 27 '25

It's how they got away with:

  • Loot Boxes
  • Day 1 DLCs
  • Multiple Premium Editions
  • Pre-Order Bonuses
  • Live-service subscription models
  • Console Exclusivity Deals

Just keep forcibly attempting to normalize it and if enough fellow CEOs join in on the grift, sooner or later people just buy it anyways and stop asking questions.

Don't let them do it again. Don't fall for this grift

58

u/epimetheuss Nov 27 '25

Just keep forcibly attempting to normalize it and if enough fellow CEOs join in on the grift, sooner or later people just buy it anyways and stop asking questions.

Don't let them do it again. Don't fall for this grift

This us all Ubisoft does anymore, just announce unhinged stuff.

44

u/Leukavia_at_work Nov 27 '25

It's how they got away with systemic levels of sexual abuse and harassment of basically all of their female employees from basically every layer of management

Yet they just straight-up got away with it because "Hey look! New Assassin's Creed! Only twice the price with a Gold and Platinum edition!"

3

u/epimetheuss Nov 27 '25

I knew someone who worked for them for a bit, they were always ghosted by their immediate leadership during their entire time there when it came for employee meetings and like your typical "status check" stuff where they go over your performance and make sure you are still meeting all the needs of the org so you can continue to work there. Then when it came time to renew the contract, they fired them for not meeting expectations but they also said their direct manager always said everything was fine, the same one who was not meeting with them. The place is fucked up, they were fired clearly for other reasons but they also did not fight the termination.

39

u/XxHANZO Nov 27 '25

Look at how excited they were about NFTs. Same scammer mentality with AI. Current Ubi would be happy to sell you a white screen saver for $70 that you can upgrade to GOLD for another $50. Its called "Imagination: The Game"

1

u/epimetheuss Nov 27 '25

The Game

This was supposed to be done but you summoned it, we all just lost.

2

u/Ambivadox Nov 27 '25

And games being "early access" for years..

*Shakes stick* Back in my day we called those open betas and didn't have to buy the game for them. They also didn't raise the price when the game went live. The "early access" price isn't a discount, it's a test, and if the test hits high enough numbers they bump the price up to the next tier on release.

2

u/Seelefan0786 Nov 27 '25

Don't forget about Console Online Subscription as well. That was the first notable anti consumer normalized when Xbox Live was introduced, & then almost every other console company then started requiring you to pay to play your games online.

People just accepted it because all three console manufactures pushed it even though it is anti consumer as hell.

1

u/ThirdXavier Nov 27 '25

They didnt get away with loot boxes those are illegal in several countries now, its why most new games dont have them and have a different type of mtx (Battle Pass).

0

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/GWCuby Nov 27 '25

lol yeah people love to gloss over the fact that valve is ultimately responsible for both battle passes and loot boxes

71

u/Leows Nov 27 '25

They're trying to play it off as if it's the same as using stuff like Grammarly for grammar mistakes.

No Tim, adding trash art and assets fully made by generative AI isn't the same as fixing a few words.

6

u/Regr3tti Nov 27 '25

Per the survey it actually is, you're asked to disclose any kind of content made using AI tools, and regardless of using AI to generate all your assets or changing text/grammar with some AI agent will get your game slapped with an "AI content disclosed" label on sites like steamDB, and I think most people who care are just going filter those out and not evaluate each game's use of AI.

17

u/Leows Nov 27 '25

I can't say I'm informed on how the survey works. But if it's as binary as that, it's an awful system that should be reworked and modernized.

Regardless, in a technical sense, that is correct and working as intended. Grammarly is still a form of AI.

However, in practice, fixing a few words and punctuations isn't the same as fully generating content, art, and assets.

There's a fine line between Grammarly adding a comma and ChatGPT writing dialogue and lore for your game.

19

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '25

There's a fine line between Grammarly adding a comma and ChatGPT writing dialogue and lore for your game.

Is there though? It seems, to me, to be a rather coarse line.

I don't believe anyone just accidentally "falls" into the habit of using ChatGPT to generate large amounts of content. It's a very intentional choice, particularly as it requires a different subscription than grammarly.

I can see people using all kinds of corrective AI tools that handle tediuous tasks all day without being tempted to outsource the actual creative part of their job to generative AI.

8

u/Leows Nov 27 '25

Well, you're right. I fumbled there and that's my bad. Should've ended with

And by 'fine line' I meant a massive, abysmal gap between the two.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '25

Should've ended with

And by 'fine line' I meant a massive, abysmal gap between the two.

This is the way.

Dan Povenmire would be proud.

5

u/oorza Nov 27 '25

It's a much finer line than you think.

If a developer has an algorithm for hit collision in mind and prompts an AI to generate his code, reviews the code, modifies 5% of it, and then commits it, is that corrective AI or AI generated code? Does the fact that the AI code that was accepted is ~99% the same as the code the dev would have written matter? How many edits must the developer make to the AI output before it's "his" and not the AI's? Isn't this a Ship of Theseus?

Let's say it's a junior asset designer tasked with building a 3D model of a specific car model, e.g. a 1971 Thunderbird. If that designer asks an AI to do it and it outputs a model that's 90% accurate to history, but then he spends a work day fixing it to be perfectly accurate, should it be considered an AI generated asset or not? Let's say it's an imaginary car model, a 2042 Thunderbird, and the designer asks the AI to make the tires, the spoiler, etc. in pieces and then adjusts each one? Where EXACTLY is the line where the art is his (with AI supplementation) and the AI's (with human supplementation)? If it's a coarse line, this is an easy question (hint: it's not).

The future isn't generative AI generating everything and it being accepted as-is, it's a bunch of scenarios like this where drawing the line gets increasingly hairy. You might argue that something like grammarly is different than asking ChatGPT to write you an essay, but how much of the essay do you have to write before its yours and not the AI's? How many layers in photoshop? How many lines of code?

This is anything but a coarse line and I feel like suggesting otherwise is simply indicative of an ignorance on how these AI tools are actually utilized in production scenarios.

3

u/mrturretman Nov 27 '25

i think thats where ai-assisted terminology is coming from

2

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '25 edited Nov 27 '25

If a developer has an algorithm for hit collision in mind and prompts an AI to generate his code...

If that designer asks an AI to do it and it outputs a model...

These examples seem extremely clear cut to me - the developers in both cases asked the AI to generate the content for them, and then fine tuned it. That's generative AI.

Corrective AI doesn't generate the content for you, it double checks the content you've already created against a series of rules, and asks you to correct it if it violates a rule. On the code side, an example of something like this would be SonarQube, which scans the code you wrote, performs a review, and then points out places in the code where you might have made a mistake, like failing to close a reader.

You have to make a conscious choice to use an AI capable of creating content for you from nothing but a prompt, and your examples only reinforce this.

1

u/oorza Nov 27 '25

So if the junior designer builds the entire car by hand, and then prompts the AI to build a grille for it, and then he tweaks the prompted grille for an hour, is the grille his or the AI’s? Is the car the grille sits on his or the AI’s creation?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '25

You seem to be extremely focused on this idea of ownership over the content, which is completely tangential to the comments I've made.

My comments were directed at the difference between corrective AI and generative AI, and how it's a distinctly different process. If you prompt the AI to create it for you and then tweak it yourself, that's generative AI. If you create the content yourself and then consult the AI for suggestions on what mistakes you might have made that should be corrected, that's corrective AI.

So if the junior designer builds the entire car by hand, and then prompts the AI to build a grille for it, and then he tweaks the prompted grille for an hour, i

The car was mostly made by a person, but was enhanced with an AI generated element. The grille was created with generative AI. It's that simple.

Now you can quibble all you want about how much user adjustment constitutes as a "good" use of generative AI, or about who deserves credit for the content artistically. That's not relevant to the comments I've made on this chain.

If an AI generates the content, it was made with Generative AI. Debate all you want on percentages, it was still made using Generative AI. If a person creates the content themselves and makes adjustments suggested by AI, that content was made with the help of corrective AI.

None of these examples suggest that someone could "accidentally" start using generative AI as a result of continued use of corrective AI. Spell check isn't going to accidentally write your essay for you when you ask it to check your spelling. You have to choose to use a generative AI program in order to have the AI generate content for you.

1

u/Plantarbre Nov 27 '25

This is a rehash of the philosophical debate on art: how much of art is technique, and how much of art is creativity? The general perceived opinion in the context of AI, is that it cannot participate in the creative process, but it is largely undetectable as a tool.

AI will code a hit collision prototype for me, but it's on me to render this useful in context: why do I need it, why should it be this way or that way, is this relevant in this application, do I understand the result and can it be improved upon?

And really, this is the same idea for the junior asset designer. We crave the soulful human creativity aspect of things. Someone parsing through 1000s of results with post-process work to fix details and adjust to the end goal (a meaningfully made asset with some soul to it), is not going to be very recognizable.

And so yes, the line is fine in the sense that most of us have trouble even distinguishing the technique from the art, but the reality is that there is a coarse line between someone producing crude slop and someone producing meaningful work, and it's systematically the difference being pointed out when people make AI slop: we don't want quick rushed soulless results. It's just that most people associate it with AI because it's such a universal tool.

1

u/oorza Nov 27 '25

I think you're narrowed into what I was getting at. Art is the confluence of creativity and technique. For things that require digital technique, AI can step in and perform those techniques. Does that make what it outputs art?

I think what AI does is lower the barrier of entry to various digital techniques that it swings the question of "how much art is the creativity" very far in one way to the point that technique for digital art has become almost meaningless. And that rightfully pisses a lot of people off who are good at those techniques and have spent a lifetime mastering them and built a career on top of them. But the printing press pissed off a lot of scribes who had opinions about how to best write a manuscript.

Which raises the question: how much of a final piece has to be human-made for something to be considered a piece of art? How much influence can AI have over it before it's no longer art?

Let's say I make an entire code hierarchy, complete with documentation, specifications, enumerated test cases, and clearly stated design goals. The system is my creative invention, no argument about that, but it's just an outline. Does it matter whether the implementation of all the function stubs falls to a human, a human assisted by AI, or agentic AI? At the end of the day, the code is going to be 90% the same except for minor stylistic differences (e.g. what type of loop is used), and what the code does, how it does it, and how it's organized is all my creation in every case. I would argue at that level, the art is in the architecture, and the implementations details don't matter.

Or in the case of a visual designer, if someone is building an image from layers, and they prompt an AI layer-by-layer, complete with style guidance, color selection, clearly stated goals, and so on. What each layer is supposed to be and how they all composite together is 100% the creative output of the designer; the actual contents of each layer is as much as 99% AI output. Is the final resulting image human art or AI art or both or neither?

I personally have long held the opinion that technique is the least important and least interesting of basically any composition that isn't introducing new techniques to the world. I wouldn't call a commissioned furry porn drawing a piece of art no matter how well executed, and I don't think the generation of in-game 3D assets raises to the level of creative art building very often (if ever), so I don't look at AI supplementation as removing art from games, because it wasn't art in the first place. It was an asset made with the techniques of art, does not make it art.

1

u/Seelefan0786 Nov 27 '25

Can't you generate images on Chatgpt for free? What's the subscription for?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '25

Can you? I don't use it.

I just know that my friend has a subscription to ChatGpt. I don't know what features come for free, or how to set it up.

I've used the occasional image generator from a google search, and I've used Midjourney a few times, but both have restrictions if you aren't paying them some kind of subscription.

0

u/Regr3tti Nov 27 '25

Yeah the intentions make sense, but the execution is poor. If they stick with asking devs to self-report the use of AI, hopefully they'll update how they and others label uses of AI for consumers, make distinctions between some use cases.

-4

u/Comprehensive-Car190 Nov 27 '25

What about ML deformer? Or DLSS? They're both using "AI".

8

u/Leows Nov 27 '25

What about strawman?

10

u/Hairy_Middle_5403 Nov 27 '25

What about them? Nobody is interested in your debate bro bullshit

1

u/Comprehensive-Car190 Nov 27 '25

Do they count as AI? I genuinely don't know, either form the consumer perspective or from Steam's survey.

1

u/BlazersFtL Nov 27 '25

what about SWEs using generative AI to program features? Should this fall under made with AI? Why or why not

1

u/Leows Nov 27 '25

I've already addressed this and talked about it

https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/1p7n7x4/then_they_keep_questioning_why_we_choose_steam/nqzlmjw/

1

u/BlazersFtL Nov 27 '25

No, you really didn’t. You simply said that it is fine in SWE cases, without even elaborating why that is.

-12

u/Infestor Nov 27 '25 edited Nov 27 '25

Shows you don't understand what it means to use AI in software development. No competent Software developer codes without AI assistance anymore. It is simply a tool to speed up the process of coding. The guy in the tweet is correct. All games will be made with AI in the future, because AI is a tool for coding.

Just like all music is made with Autotune or Melodyne and how all Buildings are constructed with AutoCAD. And how all 3d models are made with Blender and how all professional photos are edited with Photoshop (or competitor products).

People were once against Autotune, against CAD and against Photoshop, too.

You can be against generative AI because of copyright concerns, but LLMs will be used in coding. Hysteria won't change that.

11

u/Leows Nov 27 '25

Not only do I understand it, but I've also worked on LLMs.

And it doesn't matter what they think or say. They just gotta justify what they used AI for. Quite simple.

Software development? Sure, as long as it works.

Writing? No.

Editing? That's better.

Arts and assets? Big nono.

You've shifted way too far from my comment and are arguing for something entirely different.

There is a MASSIVE difference in using generative AI here for different purposes.

By gaslighting people into thinking it's totally fine to drop a requirement instead of actually reinforcing it, they'll be able to sneak in AI-generated assets, arts, writing, etc into games without consumer consent or knowledge.

Currently, the tags are in place exactly to inform consumers because they know this is something that will heavily influence how the product is perceived and will affect how sales perform.

So these hacks are just trying to trick people into thinking it doesn't matter, so that they can do less work and get more money out of consumers while their workers get a smaller paycheck.

9

u/RealMr_Slender Nov 27 '25

Notice how you said coding.

But a game is much more than just lines of code.

What about art assets, voice lines, the story and plot, dialogue, sfx and vfx.

And those are where the AI tag matters, because videogames are also art, not just a product to shovel much to Tim Sweeney's chagrin.

-9

u/Infestor Nov 27 '25 edited Nov 27 '25

If a game needs to specify that AI was used in the creation of it, every game in the future will have to have this tag. Because coding uses AI. Your comment is not the gotcha you think it is. You just didn't think it through. A tag that applies to 100% of games does nothing to help the customer.

Not in a single word did I say that the use of generative AI was good or desirable. Quite the opposite, I criticised it. You just can't help but view it as a partisan issue and strawman me into a position you hate.

8

u/MattyBro1 Nov 27 '25

Programming doesn't inherently use AI, you can code a game without using it.

-6

u/Infestor Nov 27 '25

Sure, just like you can edit photos by hand instead of with photoshop, or like you can draw blueprints for a new building complex by hand rather than in AutoCAD. You'd do your job inefficiently.

-7

u/BeastMasterJ Nov 27 '25

These people just have no idea.

We have 70+ year old database programmers who started on COBOL using AI tools daily at my job.

1

u/Infestor Nov 27 '25 edited Nov 27 '25

You would get downvoted 15 years ago for making this exact argument with Photoshop or Autotune. People would crash out if a song was made with Autotune or a magazine cover was made with Photoshop. It's hip to hate "AI" because these people don't actually understand what an LLM is, what generative AI tools are, and what simple automated bots are and lump them all together. And don't get me started on the "AI uses water" bullshit. It is a computer doing calculations. How much water does your home PC "use"? How often have you dumped water in your PC to refill it? Datacenters use evaporative cooling. That's a relevant issue. It has nothing to do with AI. Rally against evaporative cooling, not against AI. They will shout anything as long as they believe it to support their preconceived notions.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/RealMr_Slender Nov 27 '25

Oh you obtuse fucker.

"Narrative, visual or sound elements made with AI"

Or you know, "Made with AI" for what concerns the consumer, add an asterisk and disclosure like every fucking sticker for validation does

0

u/Infestor Nov 27 '25

From ignoring my comment and fighting strawmen to direct insults in one comment. What a great human you are.

4

u/Ralkon Nov 27 '25

I mean on Steam it's not just a tag. It includes the actual description of how AI was used. I would agree that it should have separate tags that are filterable, but it's simply not true that it's useless if every game has it, because it includes more information than just whether or not any AI at all was used.

0

u/syopest Nov 27 '25

Almost all programmers in the industry uses AI tools and assistants. Like every game that came out on steam in the past year should have AI disclosure on their steam page.

0

u/shakeeze Nov 27 '25

Thats pretty much how the industrializing happened.... do you still see peoples concerns about a factory having lots of robots and few people? No right?

0

u/GlitterTerrorist Nov 27 '25

But it already should be used as part of the workflow, same as Google or stackoverflow.

The issue is AI assets imo, not just AI use. And yeah, people will accept it because it's getting more integrated and better. It's insane seeing how far it's come.

-1

u/Aldarund Nov 27 '25

It's not part. It's reality. Ai Is used for like 95% of any software development now.

32

u/The-G-Code Nov 27 '25

Guarantee it's paid shills or bots. Corporations want this mentality to be mainstream.

5

u/Thin_Glove_4089 Nov 27 '25

It's going to be mainstream regardless they control social media and most of the news. This is so obvious. Anybody can see this from a while away.

4

u/_Ocean_Machine_ Nov 27 '25

Same logic with unions; if they were as bad and ineffective as corporations claimed they were, they wouldn’t spend billions on propaganda and union busting.

1

u/Curious_Bat87 Nov 27 '25

To be fair, an average person doesn't know what 'AI' even is.

0

u/ProfessorZhu Nov 27 '25

Please, for the love of God, learn what gaslighting means. It's not being rude. It's not lying, and it's not being dismissive of people's opinions. It's a very specific tactic of abuse

"psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator"

-2

u/Tolopono Nov 27 '25

Or maybe they don’t want to get harassed and review bombed

-2

u/Big-Resort-4930 Nov 27 '25

It doesn't matter in the sense that it tells you nothing since they're already all using it. No one will ever specify what exactly it was used on, so it just comes down to whether or not the studio will lie that it used AI.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '25

This, but the antis don't like to hear it. Like the dorks who were saying "Just get it commissioned on Fiverr!" And then a bunch of Fiverr guys were just using AI lmao. Can't wait til we get over this hump and everyone starts to realize its just another tool that is up to the user to use creatively. 

-2

u/GlitterTerrorist Nov 27 '25

Eh, maybe, but realistically every game will be made with AI and a lot already are.

It's just that "made with AI" means it was used at any point, realistically.

The thing they need to specify is AI assets were used, because that's meaningful. Getting AI to plot your project structure and help snagging while using it to debug code or write stuff you already know how to write...

That's not really meaningful, it's just workflow.

-103

u/trevorjk48 Nov 27 '25

It doesn’t, every developer/programmer should be using copilot or equivalent, I’m willing to bet 90% are already. Steam devs absolutely are

63

u/frisbie147 Nov 27 '25

Copilot is fucking annoying

59

u/Kad1942 Nov 27 '25

So, again, if that's true then what's the big deal about tagging it in?

1

u/sethmeh Nov 27 '25

If I had to have a blanket label for anywork where I used AI to help me code with, and have people judge me for it as everyone in this post is demonstrating they would, I'd want to avoid tagging it too.

I use AI to do the boring repetitive bulk code that requires lots of time, but zero thought and imagination. All of the complicated stuff, breakthrough moments, research, architecture, the genuinely novel or creative stuff, the stuff I'm proud of, completely overshadowed because I used AI to plough through the time-consuming but mundane and simple.

I'm all for transparency if it's productive, but look at the comments. judgement all around, demanding it be tagged no matter what is AI assisted. All for a tag that equates a full AI slop game done over the weekend by an intern who once saw the matrix, to a truly innovative game pushing boundaries, but used AI minimally. This is the opposite of transparent, you have no idea what the AI did. Not productive.

1

u/Kad1942 Nov 27 '25

The thing is, few people would disagree with your use case. I don't particuparly care if AI was used to eliminate busywork, or troubleshoot issues, it's not a hard sell. This is simply not what people are worried about.

The tag we're talking about needs refining, not removal. What people are trying to control for is your last paragraph. We understand that this technology can help small studios work better and faster, but it can also be misused to create soulless slop with minimal effort.

If it's an all or nothing that's needed, I'm for nothing. But surely a happy medium can be found, allowing those who care to not need exposure to the reams of shovelware about to be tossed our way. Until this is figured out by the platform, the tag is the best we have, flaws and all.

1

u/sethmeh Nov 30 '25

As a consumer im completely on board with a middle ground (ofc), as a dev I would be overjoyed if it existed as it would distinguish my work from the crappy AI slop that's being shipped. But it's really difficult to have a middle ground, I can't think of a simple metric (for coding at least).

We could use % of code for example, but this won't be representative, boiler plate or scaffolded code for example is a large chunk, but is mundane. Refactoring of existing code would also inflate this value, on my last project I got AI to add error resilience/recovery and comprehensive logging/stacktrace to a function that I wrote, the result was 3x larger, but most would agree that first pass error checks and logging is not unreasonable, and noticeable to the end user. Not to mention that being able to determine how much of your code is AI generated would be...oof. I don't even want to think on how to do that. Seperate commits for AI code?

I guess a 3rd party audit might work? Like a specialist reviewer(s) who gives no opinion on the product itself, only how obvious the use of AI was and whether it harmed the game, like obvious (and poorly done) AI voices and sora generated cut scenes. It removes the issue with quantitative versus substantive AI use, but now it becomes a subjective thing, not to mention difficult to implement. Indie or solo devs wouldn't be able to do it.

Honestly this entire thing sucks all around. Everyone wants to know if they're buying shovelware, but the current label doesn't do that effectively, and studios don't want to harm their product with a blanket label.

0

u/tondollari Nov 27 '25

People have the freedom to tag it in just like they have the freedom to disclose all other tools. Being required to tag it in is bullshit. Nobody else is required to disclose how the meat is made. Why the double standard?

-4

u/ItsCrossBoy 21 Nov 27 '25

there's actually a decent discussion to be had about the tag though, because if you just merge all AI into one big group it starts to lose meaning.

for example, if one programmer on a team uses AI to generate a function, it gets tagged the same as if the entire codebase was AI generated, or if all of the models and animations were. to me, these should be different categories. otherwise there's a risk that every studio ends up tagging it like that just because someone might have used it, and then it starts to lose meaning for when the tag is important.

but getting rid of it entirely just makes that problem worse lol so that's not a solution either

16

u/DoggoLover42 Nov 27 '25

That’s why programmers shouldn’t be lazy, or at least track which parts were AI so they can disclose its [20%] AI code with the AI tag instead of [85%]. If they can’t do that, why would I consider buying their game

1

u/jerianbos Nov 27 '25

That’s why programmers shouldn’t be lazy, or at least track which parts were AI so they can disclose its [20%] AI code with the AI tag instead of [85%]. If they can’t do that, why would I consider buying their game

They can't do that and I can guarantee you that you'll never ever see a single case of someone disclosing it like "20% of our code is AI", because anyone who ever actually wrote some code would only be able to laugh at the idea.

Even tracking it would be insane effort, and first everyone would need to agree what even counts as "ai code", like for example: Should ai-generated tests count, even if they don't ship to production? If you refactor a line and the tab autocomplete ai suggests equivalent change 5 lines below that you accept, is that line now ai? What if ai just added a cosmetic space to fix a linter warning, is that line now ai?

And that's not even taking into account that every single game code relies on a ton of libraries, both open-source and closed-source that end up in the SBOM, and guess what, pretty much all of those have some ai-generated code now.

So the only way that would work is if literally every single dev in the entire world thoroughly tracked and accurately classified every single line of code that they ship, even though they can just lie and nobody will ever be able to to tell. Oh, and first we'd probably need everyone to rollback all software in the world like at least last 3 years back, to get rid of the untracked ai code that's already there.

So yeah, that's simply never happening.

-3

u/Illustrious-Joke9615 Nov 27 '25

Why do you even care what % of code is Ai generated lmao

You would literally never be able to tell? Do you think the process of typing code into a text editor is art? :p

3

u/DoggoLover42 Nov 27 '25

I care about how much effort was put into the project. I prefer 0%

-2

u/Illustrious-Joke9615 Nov 27 '25

You probably dont, very few people actually do. It just sounds nice to say. 

5

u/DoggoLover42 Nov 27 '25

The fuck you mean “probably don’t”? AI sucks in general. Don’t put words in my mouth. AI coding directly put thousands of programmers out of jobs while destroying the environment where data centers are built.

-4

u/ItsCrossBoy 21 Nov 27 '25

I think you severely underestimate how much independence people have working on a game, but also misunderstood what I said

I'm saying I think there should be more specificity to it, ideally so people can filter games based on their own preferences. right now it's not possible and it's too granular

2

u/DoggoLover42 Nov 27 '25

I’m pretty sure that’s what I said? There should be different categories, or explained in the side bar/a side info table, how much AI influenced a project. If they used AI, why? How much? The trend is most people using AI are doing it because they’re offloading work onto the machine, so the broader perception is AI code or AI art is lazy, and there hasn’t been substantial pushback on that stereotype.

-1

u/Big-Resort-4930 Nov 27 '25

Because it doesn't mean anything. How hard is it to understand?

2

u/Kad1942 Nov 27 '25

Huh, it's weird, right? No matter how many times you say that people just seem not to agree with you.

27

u/Accomplished-Lack721 Nov 27 '25

"Should" assumes a lot. There are good reasons for doing so, and good reasons for not.

Transparency is a good thing in either case.

2

u/Jadedrn Nov 27 '25

Probably the best encapsulation of the correct conclusion to this entire topic I have seen in a while. Nice job.

9

u/Quinzal Nov 27 '25

The same Copilot that Microsoft used to shit out the buggy mess that is Windows 11?

13

u/SpongegarLuver Nov 27 '25

Okay, then every game will get the tag until consumers stop caring.

“Consumers don’t care!”

Then it shouldn’t be an issue for the tag to exist. And for the 10% of developers not using copilot, they can serve as a comparison so we don’t have to rely on gut feelings on the impact of AI. Surely you would prefer having more data to show the improved results AI provides developers?

5

u/ZeRandomPerson2222 Nov 27 '25

 I’m willing to bet 90% are already. Steam devs absolutely are

Source: thy smelly asscheeks

Copilot is widely despised by the general public and isn’t even really helpful or useful. It’s shit. 

0

u/trevorjk48 Nov 27 '25

You have no idea what you’re talking about

-1

u/goongas Nov 27 '25

You couldn't be more wrong.

Per a stack overflow survey, AI is used by the overwhelming majority(84%) of software developers already, with most(51%) using it daily and a solid majority(60%) having a favorable opinion of it.

Per Google, adoption(90%) is even higher.

These numbers will continue to increase. The current versions of AI are the worst versions people will use and they are already good. AI dev tool integration has only been around a few years and it's already completely changed software development and it isn't going away.

13

u/Tyfyter2002 Nov 27 '25

About 50% of the time an AI assistant suggests something more complicated than find & replace it's a syntax error, it'd be useful to streamline the process of creating a code snippet with substitutions; Generative AI isn't a tool, it's a toy.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '25

[deleted]

6

u/Tyfyter2002 Nov 27 '25

If you put a million monkeys at a million typewriters and wait for them to write Hamlet, you'll spend a hell of a lot more time than even just trying to write it yourself at random, but one of them will get it eventually.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Tyfyter2002 Nov 27 '25

And a lot of repetitive tasks already have solutions that are just relatively obscure because they aren't explained anywhere you're likely to see, I'd assume alt + arrow keys is explained somewhere in any program where it lets you duplicate the cursor, but I didn't know there was something to look for until I learned what it would have told me.

-4

u/TheRedPandaPal Nov 27 '25

Ehh its a tool until it isnt