134
SuperNovaStar
Free Video Game GiveawaysI see a lot of free games on here that are made with AI, and personally i'm not interested in AI generated content. If other people feel the same way, maybe we could start tagging posts accordingly?
As the person who posts the most here my main question is how? I don't have any way to know what was used beyond what is posted on the game's page. Some sites like Steam force disclosure, so anyone interested can just look there. Some like Itch don't even enforce a description of the game so you've got no idea with them!
"AI" is a generic marketing term for a load of different things (for instance you might have different opinions on generating all your graphics compared to translating your game into another language compared to using a code assist compared to cloning an entire game), so a catch-all "uses AI" term isn't necessarily relevant to everyone.
Ultimately if you're posting you've always been free to put as much or as little info in the post description as you like, and to add extra info in the comments if you find something relevant about someone else's post.
Thank you for dedicating your time to create these posts. :)
You're welcome!
My suggestion would be that any ai disclosures the developers make (whether they say it contains AI or if they explicitly say it does not) should be included in the post body. Obviously sometimes people overlook things, but I think it would be a good norm for the community.
Obviously it's your comm so do what you want with it :)
Seems fair, I usually copy the description anyway so if there's some disclosure it's not much extra effort to copy that too. Other posters don't always add a post description though, so I'm not going to start deleting posts just because that info is missing!
Would you mind at least "recommending" it in the sidebar?
Sure, I'll wait and see what other discussion comes out of this thread and then make some updates
Thanks, I appreciate it!
Yep, please at least copy any disclosure the devs have made!
Would also appreciate a "could not find disclosure" for everything else.
100% without question I support that.
Absolutely it should be tagged, and I think the AI Generated Content Disclosure from the store page could be included in the post body too for Steam games.
Yes, but it should be limited to using ai for assets lit art, voice acting, models, etc.
I don't think should be used to tag games that have used ai as part of their development. Like how are they able to determine how much ai is warranted at tag. Would one dev using ai search to look something up counts as ai use?
Yes, 100% mandatory!
of course not, it will be an added burden that posters can't possibly satisfy.
this isn't an investigative community.
Of course, that needs to be mandatory!
imo tagging is not enough, they should be shunned to their own sublemmy(?)
That seems overly harsh as not everyone minds it like I do. If you'd like to create your own no-AI-allowed free games comm, no one is stopping you!
hey, i was asked for my opinion and that's what i provided. i think the way AI slop infects and corrodes communities and trust is underrated atm.
is a tag only to filter for something or can you set a tag to "ignore"?
Lemmy doesn't even have the concept of tags
I think that varies from client to client
if you can't ignore it it's not going to be useful for people who don't want to see it.
Well it keeps you from clicking on a game, reading the whole store page, and then finding a little disclosure tacked onto the end
Pretty sure they're called communities.
thanks!
In principle, I think having these tags would be a good thing. I don't know about making it a hard requirement though as in many cases, posters may not know for sure whether AI was used or not.
I think it could also be relevant to know how AI was used. For me, there's a big difference between a vibe-coded project full of generated assets and a game where AI was just used for something like debugging.
So maybe, one way to go about it is to have a short Steam-Style "AI-disclosure" in the description for games, where that information is available or obvious. Like "Uses AI-generated 2D-Assets" or "Uses AI for text translations" etc. But as I wrote, I would make it a suggestion rather than a requirement.
I don't think reading the store page for a game you post is that much of a requirement. Obviously if the developers don't say one way or another, then the poster won't / can't know.
And yes, including the disclosure text in the post body would be nice.
I mean, the least we can do in this community is to do a little research and post whether we're unsure/definitely know if it has AI.
If I find any that I post here, going forward I'll make sure to consciously put a note in the title concerning AI.
100% for this. I don't think people should get up in arms if the fact it used AI in development is not clearly available, but if its right there on the steam page it should be tagged.
I don't care that much, but I'm not going to be offended by a tag.
Yup agreed
Mandatory and really easy to see with an icon. Full disclosure on text.
I know this isn't what you want to hear but, this is only going to be relevant for a few more months. Everything is going to be built with AI to some extent.
Been hearing that for years now, how AI is only a few months away from a variety of lofty goals. Funny how that never seems to fully materialize
At this point, it's already easier to list what DOESN'T contain AI code than what does. It's only going to get more widespread.
Just one more datacenter bro trust me AGI is here bro we just need to ingest a few million more books bro you'll see bro it's right there. (heavy /s)
Given how many people seem to care, perhaps it isn't as irrelevant as you think it is.
What they're saying is, is that so many, if not all games and software will have been developed using AI in some capacity, that it'll make the tag pointless.
Well, then an AI-free tag for developers who proudly avoid it. I'm sure people will continue to care.
No :3
Then we get to the philosophical question of how much AI in a game requires it to be tagged “made with AI”?
I don't think that's a difficult question at all. How many peanuts need to be in a food before it's labelled as "contains peanuts"?
People will die if they eat peanuts.
AI is more of an ethical dilemma. Like if a vegan has something with animal parts in it, they won’t fall over and die.
(I do understand that Lemmy is by far the worst place to have a nuanced discussion about AI, but I’m unemployed and bored so… 🙃)
As a vegan, I absolutely would like just as much rigor in my food disclosures as the people with allergies want.
Also I will get awful diarrhea from animal products, but that's beside the point.
That’s an allergy then and not an ethical choice
okay then, how much animal product needs to be in a food for it to not be allowed to call itself vegan?
Up to 0.1% to get the V-Label.
and that's for unintended contaminants. for actual ingredients and processing, the limit is 0.0%.
And your game is almost certain to have "contaminants" too, even if you've never consciously used generative AI to develop it. For example, the Godot engine contains some AI-generated code, so your game will too, if you use a recent version of that engine.
yeah so check your sources. it's just common courtesy.
ANY AMOUNT, ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY: The dev can specify what it is. Otherwise people will weasel in whatever bullshit they can.
If you include stuff like Visual Studio autocomplete and looking stuff up on Google, you'll probably get to 95%+ for games being worked on within the last year. If you include AI-generated code in libraries and game engines, you'll get close to 100.
Besides, it's usually not the devs posting here. Random users finding a free game will have to rely on the information that is available. Even the Steam AI disclosures don't include any information about the game's code.
So a programmer creating the update server terraform file used AI to generate it - the whole game is AI tainted?
Or a shader being used was AI generated, tainted?
This is very straightforward; YES!
AI use should be disclosed and detailed, full stop. People can decide from there based on the details.
The only people this is gonna upset is people trying to hide the fact that they used "AI" aka LLM.
I guess it would be good if a developer would disclose what AI was used for. Can't make everyone happy here, because we have all nuances from "any AI use is bad" to "IDGAF" on Lemmy, so the dev should give more details on actual AI use. I personally would not object to using AI helpers for boilerplate stuff like this, but I can guarantee that a lot of people here think differently about it
The disclosure simply notes those things made with AI.
I think first you'd have to define "made with AI". I have personally given up worrying about AI usage in the code-side, but I definitely do want to know if the game has visible AI assets / audio
Well if the developers used AI then it was made with AI. If they didn't use any AI then it was made without AI. I don't think that's a complicated definition at all.
Having a description of exactly how AI was used would also be nice, yes.
What about if it’s just for proofreading or a spellcheck? A lot of them are no different or fancier than what’s included in Word or other text programs. Those shouldn’t be clumped into the same group.
There needs to be a line between generative, and tools.
Whatever is disclosed on the store page should be copied into the post body. I don't think that's a monumental ask.
I don't work for Epic, Steam, Google, etc so what to disclose is above my pay grade.
Almost all developers are using AI to some degree from what I can tell, I end up having to tag most posts on my emulation community as "AI Assisted" after wasting my own free time looking through repositories for open source software and I still miss things because I'm not a developer myself. Disclosure is hit and miss. Some devs even actively try to hide it. No doubt the few other contributors miss things as well. On top of that Lemmy still doesn't support tags like Pylova/Piefed do. What a fucking mess.
It's getting to the point where I'm considering removing that tag and replacing it with "Human Coded" or "AI Free" because that's becoming the exception instead. Currently I think that makes more sense and promotes attention to the exceptional tag, instead of everyone getting complacent and beginning to just ignore the tags because almost everything will end up having Anti AI tagging. It's just natural human behavior to start filtering out redundant noise. Have not committed yet, I can be discouraged or encouraged on this strategy here.
100% vibe slop (pure agentic programming) by non-programmers is remaining banned to be clear. That's easy to spot at least. The reddit community allows it, it's like wading through sewege looking for gold nuggets and then learning half of what you found is Fool's Gold instead.
It's also adding a lot of homework to a voluntary effort running the community I didn't ask for or anticipate when I started it.
It'd be nice if I could share these thoughts without risking zealots on either side downvoting me but I also anticipate that which is rather unfair. I'm just trying to navigate a new reality, it's not locked in yet. That's... why I'm here 😆.
I think that if I were tagging it, i'd have an AI-Free tag and a "Contains AI-generated assets" for any sprites/dialogue/music/etc. made with generative AI
Yea I agree with this
In that scenario they used ai to spell check. So it’s made with ai
The idea continues to hold water :]
But what is considered Ai? Those spellchecks are functionally identical, so anyone who has used words spellcheck would need to disclose Ai.
There’s tools in photoshop that use Ai or very similar systems. They would need to disclose as well.
It’s not a s simple as people are making out to be. A local model isn’t the same as LLM and generative content. They fall under being similar to spellcheck, and procedural generated content, or autofill tools.
Your idea is a sieve though, yeah it “holds” water, but there’s so many flaws and issues, it just doesn’t make sense.
Even translators were running what could be considered ai a decade ago. Where’s the line? We got to go back to not even using spellcheck? Yeah, no, let’s be realistic about this.
Yes, disclose those too!!
I have absolutely zero problem in letting me have a more informed choice. Disclose all the tools used and people will select what they tolerate themselves.
Doesn’t even need to be a detailed thing, “local self trained LLM used, photoshop used, this grammar check website used” is perfect cause I’d see ‘local self trained LLM’ and nope out anyway
So what, they pay someone who just goes and does the same thing and now they can avoid disclosing it?
You don’t know what parts of your tools you’re already using could have been ai, or the artist you paid touched something up in PS, but now you can say OC from a paid artist. Does that make a lick of sense to you?
You think if you pay a proof reader they’re not gonna go and put it into word to look for basic mistakes first?
If you did a search you definitely do know what parts of the tools are ai because that’s a hot topic right now. And commissioning an artist who you know uses ai should be disclosed all the same, both as a matter of crediting that artist and in the ai disclosure. “Assets made by Mr. Artist” minimum, who I can then also look up. “Assets made by Mr. Artist using photoshop” is preferable though. A dev should at least know what tool their artist is using, else that lack of care is just as reflective of the final product as ai
Nah, it's even worse to have a plethora of existing pre-ai tools and still choosing to use AI for a task. Fuck those people extra hard.
With a local model, what’s the concern? It’s functionally identical to those tools, and could be expanded upon to include your lore and other literature. It can also look for syntax and other things as well. Which are things previous tools aren’t capable of.
There’s different “levels” of ai, even using photoshop has a lot of automated generative content. Those are indistinguishable from ai.
Procedural generated worlds would fall under this umbrella too.
Firefox runs a local LLM to do translation in the browser... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Did you use "AI"? Then the answer is yes, full stop. That part is extremely straightforward, just don't lie about it!
Why?
Edit: now that I think about it, just because I don't care doesn't mean it shouldn't be disclosed. I'm just too tired to care at this point, I just wanna play good games, and admittedly I could just ignore the AI discourse around a game i'm interested in. Transparency is good. I'll still leave my original comment below, I tried to explain myself but did so quite poorly I guess:
Because I honestly don't really care about the code, I think a game can be good and worth its price even if the dev used an AI tool somewhere in the programming. I think the game should be judged by how good it is overall, and worrying about the non-visible parts of it is a bit of a waste of time, imo. A buggy mess will always be a buggy mess, and fortunately games have reviews warning users of slop. There are so many aspects to game development and design, that you can quite easily tell when a game was made with passion, instead of being a sloppy cash-grab.
I guess i'm just optimistic that when the AI bubble eventually pops some actually viable, non-destructive and overall helpful tools remain and the slop goes away
Much to my chagrin, AI has become a very powerful programming tool and is used to write a lot of code.
So much so that a majority of devs I know IRL are basically just code reviewers and don’t actually program like they used to.
Granted, I do not work in the game industry, so it might be different there.
The devs who are doing that are choosing to do that, and are contributing to the problem.
I agree with you, for what it’s worth.
