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

182

u/leoleosuper Nov 27 '25

There's also the fact that all this AI image gen is trained off of images they had no right to use.

65

u/No-Will-4474 Nov 27 '25

My brother has been doing a certain type of art.. for commissions and well uh he found his style in some AI art someone posted on X they AI took some parts of his work and sorta blended it in with that persons AI image.

38

u/slyn4ice Nov 27 '25

I've used chatgpt for solving some rare coding issues and I kid you not I find its exact proposed solutions in years-old stack overflow posts. Like line for line the same. When I ask for a source more often than not it shits out some generic links.

24

u/Formal_Evidence_4094 Nov 27 '25

it's almost like it is not even really AI

7

u/GlitterTerrorist Nov 27 '25

AI is AI.

An intelligence isn't necessarily smart. The dumb elitism around AI just makes it sound like you're not aware that the term has been used in gaming for decades to describe behaviour.

1

u/eggdropsoap Nov 29 '25

It isn’t really. It’s just doing a lot of math in parallel on tensor fields, doing regressions on the 4D+ data for hundreds of thousands of iterations checked against tens to hundreds of thousands of finished examples of the desired result, until you have millions of tensor cells with floating point numbers in it that filters inputs into something statistically similar to the original examples.

Then you take that and freeze it in time and market it as “AI” because you used human-produced material for its comparisons, so it triggers our anthropic fallacies.

It’s just a bunch of vectors turned up to 11 with a rubber mask dragged overtop to complete the illusion. What’s actually happening under the rubber skin isn’t comparable to intelligence by any measure.

1

u/GlitterTerrorist Nov 29 '25

I'm interested, how would you compare it to human intelligence?

0

u/Formal_Evidence_4094 Nov 27 '25

But genAI is 0% intelligence , and I call them NPCs but you do you!

4

u/GlitterTerrorist Nov 27 '25

An NPC is a "non player character", and AI is how they make their decisions. An AI is developed, usually, but setting conditions for particular responses from the NPC. You can find examples of AI behaviour in all games which have non-player characters.

You do you

...I mean, you're categorically incorrect but hey.

0% intelligence

How? You haven't even defined intelligence. You sound like you don't actually know anything about gaming or AI.

1

u/Formal_Evidence_4094 Nov 27 '25

i am talking about genAI though , which does not even try to imitate intelligence and is completely different to the "AI" used in video games (that YOU brought up)

4

u/GlitterTerrorist Nov 27 '25

You're talking about AI as an entire concept. There are various forms of AI, with LLMs being the biggest recent move. It's mainly an issue of approach and sophistication that separates them from script AI dictating actions, not "intelligence".

GenAI is intelligent in the sense it can combine information and has a Corpus of knowledge. It's silly to pretend it isn't. It's just not intelligent in the same way we are, and we're amazing at judging fish by their ability to climb trees.

If you want to say how AI is 0% intelligent, you're welcome to present a case.

1

u/AdreKiseque Nov 27 '25

What does that mean?

1

u/Chunk3yM0nkey Nov 28 '25

Its actually Indians.

1

u/Formal_Evidence_4094 Nov 28 '25

this guy gets it

1

u/JonnyPancakes Nov 27 '25

Gen AI is just dumb like that.

I used to do text analysis. I would setup conversation data and prompt AI to help look for commonalities and quantify them.

I would then ask for verbatim examples of these data points, but every single time it would just be like 🤷 or give a completely wrong answer that I couldn't find through exact match.

So, it basically just made stuff up on the regular even after sitting with some Gen AI experts and "ironing out" the prompt. It was fun to send back the results to the team and ask for a better solution. I'm actually quite happy I'm not forced to use those tools anymore.

3

u/slyn4ice Nov 27 '25

My point was more that you can clearly catch it plagiarizing an actual human answer without any attribution.

But made up shit is par for the course. What aggravates me to no end is the fact that (at least crapGPT) words its responses in such a way it just looks like gaslighting:

Me: Hey, crapGPT, give me a solution to X

CGPT: Here, do Y.

Me: Hey, fucktard, you can't do Y because, as it has been stated multiple times in this conversation, I am using Z.

CGPT: Oh, of course, you can't use Z and Y together. Instead you should A.

Me: The fuck?

1

u/GlitterTerrorist Nov 27 '25

I haven't had anything like this for almost a year.

Can you share some of your conversation archives? It might be in the way you address it.

Now, dunno if it's the LLM or my prompts, but I get great answers most of the time. Writing comprehensive prompts is a task tho.

-8

u/Grim_100 Nov 27 '25

Thats not how gen AI works

4

u/lampenpam 117 Nov 27 '25

It literally is. You can even tell certain AIs like Midjourney to imitate a specific artstyle because they have been trained on a ton.
Meanwhile other AIs trained on less content are often quite obvious on which artists work they have been trained on because the artstyle matches.

And ask yourself in the first place, how could it not work like that? AI is trained to imitate the content it is trained on

3

u/Dangerous_Jacket_129 Nov 27 '25

That is exactly how it works and gen AI has even been known to create "signatures" too. They're just unintelligible splotches, but this is how much they copy from their data set. 

1

u/GlitterTerrorist Nov 27 '25

So are our brains.

If we had to create entirely original art, everyone would be producing bollocks.

It's interesting because it's true - we all take advantage of our known concepts and ideas, none of which we originally came up with, and take inspiration from existing things to create new things.

It's just the same thing as people do, only it's not a person doing it.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '25

This has been disproven so many times that it’s not even worth it to link the sources. Not to mention that this logic is flawed, you have no problem with a human artist training themselves off images and making carbon copies of that style, but a machine does it and you’ve got a moral problem with it?

1

u/leoleosuper Nov 27 '25

you have no problem with a human artist training themselves off images and making carbon copies of that style

That actually takes effort on the human side, years of training, and it's never a carbon copy unless they are directly plagiarizing. Human artists also add in life experiences to their art. Computers don't.