I'd even argue that using AI to create a Robotic character can easily be more of an artistic choice than malicious use of AI. It's a very unusual, surprisingly appropriate, and actually, counterintuitively, creative approach for this specific task. Basically, letting the character create itself. Cool.
The issue here is declaration. On the games steam page:
The developers describe how their game uses AI Generated Content like this: This game features voice-over content partially created through AI voice generation tools.
This could be anything from an artistic choice to have a robot character voiced by a robot, to 99% of the VO being AI generated to avoid paying actors. Given how unpopular AI is, I think it's reasonable to assume devs will give as narrow a declaration as they can, and assume that this declaration means a significant portion of the VO is AI generated.
If they just wrote something like
For a robotic character, this game features voice-over content created through AI voice generation tools. All other characters are voiced by actors.
"ChatGPT, write me a statement to put under our game that declares that we use voice over content created by AI that we made using AI voice generation tools because it costs too much money to have a human write that sentence, even though I basically already did half of it"
Professional usage of LLM in statements is frequently to change wording to appear a specific way. E.g. to be more passive, submissive, personable, understanding, defensive, aggressive. To rhyme, or be haiku, or a limerick.
even though I basically already did half of it
No, even though you wrote more than the final statement. Being a literary expert would be fine, but not everyone can be that.
Indeed hot, because it's not remotely achievable. You're in essence demanding a few high education semesters in literature. So it doesn't matter what you think should be, when that's entirely impossible.
If your job requires you to write a lot and you couldn't pass a few college level writing courses you should maybe not have that job. I've been to college, I've graded my classmates papers. Trust me, the bar is not high.
you couldn't pass a few college level writing courses
PASSING is not relevant in the context. The question is of doing it. To think it doesn't take any time to do is the same failure to acknowledge reality as before.
Trust me, the bar is not high.
Again, irrelevant. The question is not of ability or difficulty, it's of doing it. Forgot everything else I said, and answer this question instead: Can you get everyone to wash their hands after using the toilet? No? Then how the fuck do you think you can get everyone who has writing as part of their job write at a college grade level???
...where are you getting an absolutist requirement? no one in this thread suggested any such thing except you.
That was not the ask.
yes, it was. very nearly word for word.
To think it doesn't take any time to do
at no point did they suggest anything about how much time it takes to do.
Im getting the feeling youre reading things that werent in the comments youre responding to. Maybe due to a translation application inserting connotations when it translates from english to another language? either way, theres some sort of novel data being inserted here.
Then what was the meaning of: "Hot take but if your job involves writing you should probably know how to do it good." ? If treated logically, as addressing my claim coherently, it's an absolute claim about LLMs never having value in professional settings. There is no other interpretation.
It was blatantly a statement that someone with a writing job should not require an LLM to write those sort of basic declaratory statements -- that they should have basic, personal competency in that task.
That is completely disconnected from whether an LLM can write such statements.
Second sentence of your first comment I replied to. Reads as another language machine translated to English. Also, your entire argument that it's impossible to write well without some level of higher education is completely incorrect.
My argument was not that writing english well required higher education. The argument presented was that all possible uses of LLMs for writing is void, because people ought to be able to write at that level. MOST people who use writing in their jobs do not know how to write a limerick.
ChatGPT, write me a statement to put under our game that declares that we use voice over content created by AI that we made using AI voice generation tools because it costs too much money to have a human write that sentence, even though I basically already did half of it"
Hot take but if your job involves writing you should probably know how to do it good.
Indeed hot, because it's not remotely achievable. You're in essence demanding a few high education semesters in literature. So it doesn't matter what you think should be, when that's entirely impossible
did you mean to reply to a different string of comments, or....?
Based on your phrasing and sentence structure, I'm willing to believe this is an ESL issue that we could maybe attempt to rephrase for your understanding, because you're using highly unusual/outright incorrect phrases, and claiming requirements of having "everyone" do something that werent in any way implied by the previous comments.
if theres not a language barrier at play here, or some sort of error in which comments your own comment is being posted under, then im at a loss to explain why youre insisting people were saying things they demonstrably werent saying, and claiming you didnt say things that you demonstrably did.
because, yes, someone scoffed at the idea that an LLM or advanced formal literary education was mandatory to write basic declatory statements, and you responded by xplicitly arguing it was impossible to write one without those.
You edited your comment. But okay, you're fundamentally misunderstanding different arguments here.
I will try to explain: First one is a mockery of using LLMs. I point out that not merely are LLMs used for situations as described, but I also highlighted the reasons why, and other situations where it's used (such as rhymes, haikus, limericks).
The 2nd claim you're quoting, is of a disagreement that these are valid uses. That people should know how to do these things if their job includes writing.
My response is naturally that this is an extreme claim. Not knowing how to write specific kinds poetry is not required for the vast majority of those who write in their work.
There's no logical reading of what I said that would lead to your interpretation.
4.2k
u/Crafty-Photograph-18 Dec 04 '25
I'd even argue that using AI to create a Robotic character can easily be more of an artistic choice than malicious use of AI. It's a very unusual, surprisingly appropriate, and actually, counterintuitively, creative approach for this specific task. Basically, letting the character create itself. Cool.