this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
273 points (97.9% liked)
Fuck AI
4897 readers
1342 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hmm. Is there a one-size-fits-all answer to this? I feel from an in-game perspective they maybe could deploy AI in clever ways. Like make NPCs a bit less scripted. Or a scifi spaceship computer feel more like like it. Or ramp up things like procedurally-generated worlds... And I mean the GPU runs at full blast anyway. If we talk about climate emissions from the gaming PC, we got to ask ourselves if Triple-A games are alright to play in the first place... Letting go of the designers and replacing the assets with AI-generated ones would be an unequivocally bad thing, though. And that's probably the thing they're going for?
The one size fits all answer is no ai
No GenAI. I am fine with the behavioural training in Arc: Raiders for example.
That's Machine Learning and has been around for decades. The people profiting LLMs and Generative AI are just using the term AI for marketing and rolling terms like machine learning and neural networks into it just legitimizes it.
GenAI is also machine learning. The training process is at least similar.
None of it is actually "AI" in the true sense of the phrase; it's just being tossed around as a buzzword.
Ai has been in games for decades. No, not llm Ai. Enemy movement is a classic case of Ai. Hell chess has been running on Ai for years depending on your platform(yes you can play against other people in most cases but most cases also have a play against Ai mode)
What did they mean by Ai in the question? Better question, what did the responders think they meant?
Both the headline and the article made it clear that the survey was referring to generative AI — so the visible art slop that gives everything that nice shovelware look.
The survey in question is actually an ongoing project and there's a link to it in the article if you wanna share your own feelings.
Is it visible art? Is it written scripts? As I said in the other response would "brushing" a forest into a game world count as generative Ai?
We really need better terminology for this stuff
No, why would it?
I didn't decide where to plant the trees. I didn't decide what type of trees to plant. The algorithm generated what it thought a forest would look like...
Isn't that generative? It's not a llm, it's not making a tree but combining multiple trees to make a forest.
If it's putting conifers in a desert then sure it's generative AI, if it's following a predefined set of rules written by a human that govern tree placement and density, then it's procedural.
Minecraft is a good example, the rules that govern world generation are handwritten, they're not AI.
This again restates my point. We need a definition of generative Ai... Everyone thinks they know what it means but most don't agree.
Alright. That wasn't clear to me. I'm against slop as well. But that's not really what generative AI means. That term encompasses text-to-speech output as well. Like for fantasy NPC characters. Some of them use reinforcement leaning as well so the lines are a bit blurry there. We also got speech input in modern flight simulators, that's pretty much gen AI. And maybe procedurally generated maps or dynamically spawning mobs, depending on how exactly it's implemented. Or what I said, an LLM-driven spaceship computer. Fan-made translations for Japanese games often start out with machine translation... I'm against slop artwork as well. Or the weird things EA does like replace human playtesters with AI feedback on the prototypes. That's likely going to have the same effect AI has on other domains.
What you're missing is that nothing that we have is "AI" in the true sense of the term. LLMs, ChatGPT, etc. are not "AI," which is just an inaccurate buzzword being thrown around; they're still advanced autocomplete algorithms with no inherent self-motivation, or else their hallucination rate would be continually dwindling without their maintainers' help.
Yeah, you're right. I guess I disagree on some technicalities. I think they are AI and they even have a goal / motivation. And that is to mimic legible text. That's also why they hallucinate, because that text being accurate isn't what it's about. At least not directly. The term is certainly ill-defined. And the word "intelligence" in it is a ruse. Sadly it makes it more likely people anthropomorphize the thing, which the AI industry can monetize... I'm still fairly sure there's reinforcement-learning inside and a motivation / loss-function. It's just not the one people think it is... Maybe we need some better phrasing?
Btw, there's a very long interview with Richard Sutton on Youtube, going in detail about this very thing. Motivation and goals of LLMs and how it's not like traditional machine learning. I enjoyed that video, think he's right with a lot of his nuanced opinions. Spoiler Alert: He knows what he's talking about and doesn't really share the enthusiasm/hype towards LLMs.
That's half of what I meant. I mean I'm old enough to remember the first Counter-Strike bots being stupid and getting stuck all the time. But AI in the broader definition is what allows us to have competitors in Mario Kart, NPCs in fantasy games. Play The Sims... They said generative AI in this article, so it's a bit unclear whether that's still in scope... But chess computers or Alpha Go might count. And procedurally generated worlds are "generative" by nature. And with them it's a bit unclear when that crosses into AI. Open-world games are kind of nice, though.
Yeah. That's a big problem in the current reality, what is "Ai" besides a sale term? Hell from the game dev world there has been a "generative Ai" for years which took "trees"(pre-made images and meshes) and allowed you to kinda "brush" a forest down which kinda looked normal as none of the trees were in straight lines or specific distances.
Thanks. I didn't know, I'm not much of a designer. Yeah, maybe I should stop asking for nuance and well-defined terms in these arguments. Seems EA games means firing designers, in-house playtesters... And overall reducing quality. Other people mean various different things with AI and they all use the same word for it and it needs to be a yes/no answer... I think I'll stick with my initial opinion and it's just more nuanced with games than with other things. And we can't just ask random people on the streets and expect them to know the fine lines between different implementations of AI. Some have been used for decades. Some are newer and just slightly different, yet qualify as generative. Some are very different. A good chunk probably outright bad and cost-cutting measures with the usual downsides of AI, it just depends on what exactly the studios do. And things like AlphaGo are more or less a scientific achievement. And we also want single player games to feel like the characters in them were alive.
The problem is everyone is claiming "generative Ai" because they think it will result in lower costs or higher sales. No one has a official definition, I would think generative Ai is llm, another comment stated it was only about creating images and firing artists.
It's a buzz word. It's like social network a few years ago. Does Facebook count as a social network? How about steam? OK, now what about world of warcraft? Discord? What's the difference between a social network and a old school forum? All let you make friends, talk with friends and enjoy each other's company. Could be argued AIM was a social network...