420
Epic Games CEO says it’s ‘really irresponsible’ of Steam to make studios disclose AI use | VGC - 25th Jun 2026
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
420 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
27969 readers
328 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
It slows it down by causing developers to fear using the most efficient, productive tools because it will anger the irrational mob who down votes anything they disagree with, rather than whether or not it's adding to a discussion.
If some creation is clearly a copy/paste of someone else's work with only superficial changes then that is it's own problem that can be dealt with in the same way that it would if some person had copied someone else's work, and made superficial changes to claim it as their own. Art created using AI is not necessarily a copy of something existing, and it takes a skilled prompt writer to create their intention. People angry that a different skillset than is traditionally necessary to create art are being awnry gatekeepers in the same way that artists were at the advent of computer assisted drawing or computer generated imagery. New technology, same type of crybabies gatekeeping art creation.
I recognize that it's not a ban, it's just an unnecessary requirement in the current implementation. If it's going to be done, at the very least categorize it so AI code generation is separated from the AI art generation, or other generative tools. I still assert that none of it should be necessary, and if it in some way lowers the quality of the creation then it will be readily apparent and can be judged based on the quality, not the method of creation itself.
AI doesn't think. AI is a marketing name.. there is nothing intelligent about it
It literally is just a database of stuff it copied off the Internet and didn't give people credit for
That's the problem
AI isn't paying people for using their information for training
The only reason it's profitable at all by these companies is because it randomizes stuff so you can't prove what components of your work something has copied
That's an interesting theory, but not accurate.
It's the sum of human knowledge, and it's available for free. The use of their hardware is what they charge for, but you don't have to use it. You can use local hardware.
It's getting costly to do so because some bad actors are buying it all up. Those companies are the ones that have my ire, but being upset with the technology itself is misplaced anger.
Also, it's not profitable. They're losing an unfathomable amount of money, hoping to make it back when people become reliant on it. Don't - use your own hardware and models locally. It's not difficult to setup.
What's not accurate about it
They literally are using training data and selling it without permission from the original authors
If you want to pretend like it's actual intelligence, that's up to you (I assume you have Nvidia shares you're trying to protect).
But, it's really just a legal piracy program at this point.
They do think. Have you tried Gemini Pro? It even provides you with a steam of consciousness prior to answering your prompt. So does Qwen 3.6 when used locally. It's also not a database, it's a neural network with digital synapses - not unlike our own brains. The difference is they are digital, and we are biological.
No one is selling models, they're selling processing time on the servers that host the models. You can download a model and use your own hardware for free.
I don't own any shares of any company. I do have a Master's degree in Computer Science with a major of Artificial Intelligence, though.
Piracy would be selling someone else's work, and that's not happening. That's like saying an artist is pirating all the content they've watched to inspire turn when they make anything. Nothing is being sold, other than time on a server, and you don't need to pay that to use AI. It's completely free if you host it locally, which I do.
AI is only capable of hastening our own murder by these techghouls with the heat and pollution it causes. Sure it's neat sometimes. Is that worth the entire ecosystem and your food systems? If you say yes, you should seriously seek help.
That's not true, it can be done using solar energy and closed loop cooling. Be angry with companies that are mismanaging it, not the technology itself.