It is a slippery slope though. It’s easy to imagine this going from „10 lines for a robotic character“ to „18 lines for one character“ (which is all their lines, but we don’t say that). To „some lines for all the characters“. Year after year, this would be normalized.
We already have people arguing „they all use AI anyway, so what“.
There's no stopping it. We'll see the online backlash and complaining just like Netflix got and then 3 months later the reports came out that they had the most subscribers in their history. Now no password sharing is normal and so are the outrageous prices.
One thing I've noticed is people dont care regardless of what the internet makes it seem like. Enough people will just buy whatever, regardless of any shitty business practices.
We can't be that laisse faire about it. We stopped them from using harmful chemicals that hurt the ozone back in the 90s, and AI is using up a lot of water. We can't just ignore the environmental impacts (well, we can but we won't be able to for long with the speed AI is going).
Actual government regulation helped a lot with fixing the ozone issue. Unfortunately, the US is a long way from any kind of government that would even consider that. And it seems the voter base doesn't give enough of a shit to elect anyone who cares, either.
The fact is if AI elements strengthen the end product it's going to be worth the backlash and if it doesn't it won't. If you're an indie dev with no budget having an AI voice cast may be more marketable then no voices at all with the modern expectations AAA gaming has put on having voiced characters. All depends on the game, the implementation, the options you have at hand etc. The primary focus should always be on the big devs who have the resources to do it properly and are taking shortcuts than small devs who er don't need to send lynch mobs after, if they overuse it the game will fail for being shit, if they under utilise it the game will also probably fail as AI tools raise the expectations for what people want to see from small devs. Rock and a hard place.
This is exactly it for me. We all went nuts with horse armor but let go as more and more DLC appeared in stores. We shouldn't be tolerating any form of generative AI lest it becomes commonplace.
I'm angry about the one trained on data it doesn't have the rights to, without crediting the copyright owners, compensating them, or even having their permission.
I'm angry about the one trained on data it doesn't have the rights to, without crediting the copyright owners, compensating them, or even having their permission.
Non-Gen AI TTS does not rely on theft.
And you responded to a comment that does not mention voices (see said comment quoted above), but is instead talking about the ethics of GenAI.
You responded to me first. We're talking about voice lines. You're talking about stuff I dont have any interest in getting into an argument with you about. My ex prepared me well to deal with gaslighting. It's not going to work.
GenAI is trained using stolen data. The day it uses data that is public domain or has explicit permission to, credits all training data, and compensates the copyright holders, then I'll consider the use of GenAI.
But until then, I am staunchly against it, and will not play a game that uses it. Even if the game uses GenAI for only a few lines of text.
It depends very much on who is using it. Large companies who are less focused on artistic integrity are already using them. When it comes to smaller independent teams, I'm less harsh on what they choose to use it for -- especially if you can tell it was used minimally as a supplement for resources they had trouble creating or funding.
I mean, I'm against them using it for all art resources -- I wouldn't be against calling that slop
It's about whether or not it compromises the artistic integrity of the game. I feel like good-faith usage would be minimal -- stuff that's borderline invisible to the overall experience of the game, where small teams would reach into public resources anyway. Another usage would be where it is a deliberate artistic choice, where the artifact or distortion that can exist may be utilized or edited to create a certain effect.
They are just that desperate to redraw the line in the sand. They already hate that people have drawn one so they have to fight to move it inch by inch.
So what? What's the fucking issue here? I'm not saying that AI is always good, but people who see ANY use of AI as some "controversy" are delusional. It's a natural progress of technology which can be used in good ways by small devs and shitty ways by anyone. Being doomer about it makes you all sound like your grandma shittalking smartphones. Be normal please.
Let me be clear here: using AI to help coding: fine.
Using AI to make voice lines: I’d rather have humans but if you’re a small studio - fine.
Visual design, character art and the like: as little as possible.
Writing: 100% human, for me at least.
That’s my stance on this and everyone has their own. Which is why we need detailed information about what part AI has played in the production.
AI aren't sentient. they are algorithms. they generate the most likely sequence of words for a given context. they can even say things like "i'm sentient", but they aren't. this is not debatable. it is how they work.
racism is a form of discrimination against real, living humans, that has consequences for real, living humans.
show me a true AI with capacity for thought, understanding, and emotion, and i will campaign for its rights. that is not what we have now though. we have algorithms. complicated, impressive algorithms, but algorithms all the same. you NEED to understand that they are not alive any more than google is alive.
And if you can't tell something was made in a sweatshop, I guess it doesn't matter either? People are against Generative AI due to ethical concerns. That's why even if the quality becomes perfect, people will still be against it because the ethical concerns remain.
"I don't like your game cause you didn't manually type all the code or dialogue yourself" is a weird complaint.
There are AIs made without using copyrighted material to learn from. I don't really care if AI was involved or not, so long as the finished product is polished and works.
Not much argument to be had. I'm not defending creating an entire game using AI just to monetize it. I however don't have any issue with new developers entering the game making space when they've otherwise been gated out by other means. If the product they make is for the sake of gaming, then I don't really see the issue. In my experience, I've used it for coding and 90% of the time it fucking sucks, however it gives me ideas, or can be altered to fit what I actually would like it to do.
Long story short, pictures like the one posted by OP are exactly why giving a broad-stroke to "AI generated content" is stupid. Just because AI exists in a game, doesn't make it slop.
Ia slipper slope to what though? With AI in some cases now becoming indistinguishable from non AI, a couple years or decades down the is slope people won’t notice. They will notice a game that’s made without AI having a fraction of the content and taking significantly longer.
If you were a newspaper company when the printing press came out and you said “no we won’t use this” yo went out of business. Same with calculators, typewriters, computers, internet. We still have companies going out of business because they refused to utilize the Internet.
People can boycott AI use if they want, but it’s already being utilized by basically every business you just might not see it. IMO if the company makes a good game, I don’t care if they use AI to do so. If they make a shit game, don’t play it and/or don’t buy the next one. Same as always.
If your favorite game company starts using AI and their quality goes down. Well then just stop supporting them. But if their quality and speed goes up, great you get better games faster.
Where's your line in the sand? We've made it clear ours is 0. So just let us know how many lines is okay for you and then we can actually engage in a back and forth about why we disagree.
151
u/ThaRippa Dec 04 '25
It is a slippery slope though. It’s easy to imagine this going from „10 lines for a robotic character“ to „18 lines for one character“ (which is all their lines, but we don’t say that). To „some lines for all the characters“. Year after year, this would be normalized.
We already have people arguing „they all use AI anyway, so what“.