What is the mentioned "surface thinkness" about?
(I guess it's supposed to be "surface thickness", but I don't get that either...?)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: emphy

Code is supposed to shove numbers around. It's outcome can be defined. And tested.

That's is like judging literature on the basis of shopping lists.

The way the numbers are juggled and how those methods affect the end result are as much part of the artistic process as any other choice of medium.

Sorry, no.

The way Mario jumps is art.

The process of putting that in code...
Well, I'd call it engineering.
(I am professional software developer, if that plays a role.)

PS: The quote button is back!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

*edit*
And how would the company even know if their game contains AI generated code? Surveillance of all their developers? Strong filters in the office? What about working in home office...?

That's pretty straightforward with firewall filtering. At my work, we block everything except the two or three services we have strong legal agreements with.

Maybe Devs can still get around this with their phones on 5G, say, but retyping all that code would be tedious. They still get to use genAI sadly, but at least it's not dodgy services that will use query and query history to build future models.

And you admins know all Chineese or Turkmenish AI services...?

Negative filters don't work.
Positive filters are to restrictive to do development with in the first place.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuzI find it unreasonable to distinguish between coding & art.

I find it unreasonable not to.

Code is supposed to shove numbers around. It's outcome can be defined. And tested. The outcome of code generated by humans and by AI must be the same - the one defined. By a human.

Art is supposed to convey feelings. Optimally tell us something about life. The outcome of making art cannot possibly be defined. And hardly be tested for "correctness". And AI does not have anything to tell about life.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuzIf you don't have any arguments then simply don't join the discussion.

I join whatever discussion I wish to, thank you very much.

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: EikeReally, you're getting the source code of the games?

Yeah, I know, we do get the binary code, which is translated by a compiler from the source code, ...

Correct, we receive what was generated by the AI in binary form. What's your point here? You wouldn't receive the assets as-is either, they get processed, too (e.g. exported into the correct format).

Quoting: EikeThis is not leading anywhere.

* Developers do use AI to code.
* You cannot find out if they did from the binaries.

It's not worth the discussion.

What's the difference? I doubt you could distinguish the AI source code anyway.

And you think that's an argument for what you're asking for?

I happen to be software developer in a big company (not game related).
It would surprise me if less than 90% of the developers use AI every now and then.
We've got very different types, from developers finding it hard to do development when the AI access is broken for an hour, to those that use it like once a week. Yes, there's also some that don't use it at all, but you'll have hard times to find a whole development team where nobody is using AI.

If what you're asking for would be done - which I still find unreasonable - you'd end up with about every game being marked as "AI was used for code development". What would you gain?

*edit*
And how would the company even know if their game contains AI generated code? Surveillance of all their developers? Strong filters in the office? What about working in home office...?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: EikeThat example seems to be quite accurate to me:
The tools used to write the code are not an ingredient of the game. Unlike e.g. the assets. Which seems quite close to what Valve is asking for to be declared.

Obviously, the code the AI is generating is an ingredient of the game. Why should this be exempt from the disclosure?

Really, you're getting the source code of the games?

Yeah, I know, we do get the binary code, which is translated by a compiler from the source code, ...

This is not leading anywhere.

* Developers do use AI to code.
* You cannot find out if they did from the binaries.

It's not worth the discussion.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pbWe have obligatory lists of ingredients on food products, cosmetics, detergents - not only because of allergens, but simply because we (the consumers) have the right to know what kinds of shit went in there, before we buy. I'm not necessarily saying it should be obligatory to disclose the full toolbox used to make a game, but it would certainly be well received and I hope it will become a good practice.

That example seems to be quite accurate to me:
The tools used to write the code are not an ingredient of the game. Unlike e.g. the assets. Which seems quite close to what Valve is asking for to be declared.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Just read that ChatGPT will start to show ads. They realized that they're not making money. :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Wow. Proton/WINE changes for a launcher. What did they do to make a launcher that complicated?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LoudTechieAh, I didn't know that.
That indeed doesn't really lend credibility to my hypothesis.

It would be valid in every other case. :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments