Maybe it has to do with people losing their minds at the mention of it? Spend however long on a game, for some random to come out the woodwork and attempt to invalidate everything because you decided to disclose.
An AI filter is in the interest of both sides here because the people who would "lose their minds" over it can just avoid it with the press of a button. And if you want to sell to everyone, then make a product everyone wants.
It’s really to the interest of nobody, because obviously there’s an incentive to be dishonest.
It’s also not particularly helpful, right? Because if I use an LLM to debug a crash report, then that’s the same category as creating a slop game.
So what you would do, realistically, is use the AI to write code, debug, you know typical software development stuff and then just… lie. Your game is closed-source anyway, so nobody is reading the code.
There’s levels to this. AI generated slop assets is one thing. AI-assisted coding describes every software project everywhere in the world.
> Because if I use an LLM to debug a crash report, then that’s the same category as creating a slop game
Steam has clear guidelines on what requires an AI disclosure, and all that people are asking for is that they can filter based on this. It's a tiny change.
> AI-assisted coding describes every software project everywhere in the world
That is simply not true.
> and then just… lie
I'm not a lawyer, but lying about something that influences the customer's purchase decision sounds a bit like fraud and not something I would advise to "just" do. If using AI is so normal then why lie about it?
No, it is. You can ask any software developer working at any company right now if they use AI in their workflow somewhere in the company, either them or other developers. They will say "yes". The only people who think LLMs aren't typically used in software are not software developers. Which I get it, if you don't know then you don't know. So ask. It's not just one or two companies, it's also not 90%. It's 99.99%, I would say 100% but I can't say for sure.
> not something I would advise to "just" do.
Not something I would advise either, but people are going to do it. The difference is indistinguishable and you can't verify it anyway because you typically can't access the source code. So, of course people will lie.
Yeah why would people care about a technology they are already deeply skeptical about and have majority beliefs that said technology will harm humanity and not help it.
God forbid consumers exercise their rights in the matter.
Valve takes a 30% cut and makes eye watering profits. I don't feel it's fair to characterize them as a victim for having to put in some effort to mention a basic standard of quality on their platform.
I really want to see how this plays out. The impossibility to identify AI work and thus keep users happy, vs profitability and steam actually trying to make things work.
Valve is a business but they're also a brand. It doesn't help their brand to be bombarded by slop created by a third party. The initial money is a trifle compared to how many refunds they'll have to dish out. It's like a brute force attack, AI is doing it to a lot of industries and fields including mathematics.
They've got a solid return policy, if you've played less then 2 hours they'll refund. They can probably derive a ratio to mint a hiristic and bobs your uncle.
Slop makes it harder to find good games, both in terms of discoverability and customers being less willing to take a chance on purchasing an indie game, resulting in fewer purchases and less income to Valve. Slop games also mean an increase in customers asking for game refunds.
As with most app stores, Steam does not aspire to be a curated collection of "good" apps, and discovery features have never been sufficient as substitutes for traditional marketing mechanisms.
AI undoubtedly hurts slop hurts small independent developers who rely more on Steam placement and internal reviews than traditional marketing more than it hurts Steam itself, so if I were a small independent developer, I'd be looking elsewhere for solutions, treating Steam more like larger publishers do, primarily as a distribution mechanism rather than a marketing tool.
How are they a victim? People aren't going to leave Steam over this. Valve will continue making money regardless from these sales, just as they don't care that they got children addicted to gambling because it also made them money.
Wouldn’t this and similar efforts to centralize bureaucracy make AI the new gatekeeper? Without reliable transparent models we’re just trusting OpenAI instead of a hundred top legal firms.
Because we’re social animals and 84% of the population can’t do calculus or understand any meaningful statistics. It makes honest discussion and cooperation with the average person nearly impossible.
My secretary is absolutely clueless about maths and yet every interaction with her
improves my mood, she is a lovely motherly 50something person who cheers you up every day.
Her being my colleague definitely makes me happier.
For me it's the lack of curiosity that makes me resentful of people. I can understand completely people are clueless about maths. But having no curiosity about anything seems to be so common in this country right now.
Can everyone afford to be curious though? I think being innately curious like cats is a double-edged sword. I think most people aren't privileged enough to explore their curiosities fully. Curiosity often costs much more than time when we take opportunity costs into account.
For example, I used to be much more curious about a lot of things but now that I'm stressed about my life, my priorities shifted.
She is equally pleasant to everyone, including her kids, her friends and her neighbors. We have known each other for 10 years as amateur singers before I even employed her.
Your cynical view of reality is also extremely narrow and misleading. The world is more varied and colorful than you think.
She would have laughed you heartily for suggesting that she could simply wear different personalities to her work like clothes. This is precisely what highly emotional people struggle to achieve. On the rare occasion when she feels dejected or depressed (the kids, twins, are 16 and sometimes a handful), everyone around will definitely know.
It’s not cynical, you’re just over simplifying. Many of my family members are very bright and funny. I’m generally considered a funny person. It’s not an either/or. I mean, you’re kind of illustrating my point.
A high IQ allows for a higher quality of life both superficially and meaningfully. This experience is usually weighted down by bullies and vindictive dysfunctional people. Envy is an intense oppressive force.
Stupidity in the sense of doing nothing good for themselves or anyone else, yeah. People are mostly a collection of local context clues about overly emotional nonsense.
