Not sure how to interpret this. The use of any tool can be for good or bad.
If the quality of the game is increased by the use of AI, I’m all for it. If it’s used to generate a generic mess, it’s probably not going to be interesting enough for me to notice it’s existence.
If they mean that they don’t use AI to generate art and voice over, I guess it can be good for a medium to large game. But if using AI means it gets made at all, that’s better no?
People want pieces of art made by actual humans. Not garbage from the confident statistics black box.
What if they use it as part of the art tho?
Like a horror game that uses an AI to just slightly tweak an image of the paintings in a haunted building continuously everytime you look past them to look just 1% creepier?
Would the feature in that horror game Zort where you sometimes use the player respon item and it respons an NPC that will use clips of what a specific dead player has said while playing count as AI use? If so, that’s a pretty good use of AI in horror games in my opinion.
That’s not generative, since it’s just copying player input. Feasible without AI, just storing strings for later recall.
They cannot possibly assure customers that remote devs aren’t using copilots to help them code.
Generative AI is a technology that can create pictures, movies, audio (music or voice action) and writing using artificial intelligence
By their definition of Gen AI, it’s unclear to me if the label says anything about code. I’m not sure I would consider it “writing.”
This might be a little off-topic, but I’ve noticed what seems to be a trend of anti-AI discourse ignoring programmers. Protect artists, writers, animators, actors, voice-actors… programmers, who? No idea if it’s because they’re partly to blame, or people are simply unaware code is also stolen by AI companies—still waiting on that GitHub Copilot lawsuit—but the end result appears to be a general lack of care about GenAI in coding.
