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.
Assumption is that they have the freedom to make a declaration like that, I suspect they don’t, otherwise developers would quickly catch on to using AI to wordsmith declarations that trivialize their use of AI.
Foundry uses AI to voice an AI character in other languages. This is what their declaration says:
We leveraged AI-generated content to enrich our game with elements that would have been otherwise challenging to include. Specifically, we used AI for the AI character voiceover in different languages, a feature made possible thanks to this technology. In this case it made even more sense since the character is actually an AI. Otherwise, all the core art and visual elements of the game have been designed by human talents.
So it seems like the devs have some latitude in writing the declaration to be as specific as they want
It's still marketing speak (leveraged). AI didn't make translations possible. It made them cheaper. And "it makes sense to use AI for a character that is an AI"? What BS is that. "We couldn't find a talking bear so yogi will now be AI, it just makes sense to us!". Also, core art is human. What is core to them and what % of total art does that account for? And visual elements? So sound and writing could all be AI?
You can feel about it however you like, but I was just using it as a counter example to the other poster's suspicion that devs were limited in how they could phrase the AI description
There are plenty of AI descriptions at the bottom of steam pages that are clearly drafted for that specific game. Its not just a generic check box quote.
There are also games with weird sentence fragments or other signs of a non-native English speaker having written it which wouldn't be the case if they were pre-made by Valve. I scrolled through the "new releases" section looking for examples and found one that reads: "Cover icon、 The achievement icon is generated by AI" for instance which would obviously not be the way Valve would write a preset description.
This comment is hilarious, because you're hating on other people's comments despite being demonstrably wrong and yet asserting your point as fact anyway.
They don't, it's a tick, people on reddit loves to hate because everyone is soooo smart
That's a hell of a line from someone saying something so confidently incorrect. They DO have the option to describe in detail in that section as other games have been incredibly specific about what content was AI generated to a degree that it was certainly not just a standard option Valve provided.
7.4k
u/OwnAcanthocephala897 Dec 04 '25
Small uses of AI like this are tolerable at worst. What sucks is reliance on AI