this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
472 points (99.6% liked)
PC Gaming
9694 readers
867 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It doesn't have to be inevitable. You, a gamer, can openly and loudly refuse to buy games that are made with the use of generative AI
People in the early 20th century could have openly and loudly refused to ride in cars, but they didn't, and people today won't refuse to accept AI in enough numbers to stop AI. It doesn't HAVE to be inevitable, but it is anyway.
Recently, a thread cropped up about indie devs putting "No GenAI used" stamps in their pages, and the amount of people questioning the value of the initiative or outright criticizing it is absurd.
People saying disingenuous things like "It's just another tool, I didn't hear anyone complaining about the brush on photoshop", and "games already used AI, are you also against procedural generation?" or the ridiculous "I need AI to make things. Why are you all against me learning and growing as a person?"
There is a vocal, often severely technically-uninformed crowd that strongly likes GenAI, doesn't care about and refuses to understand the harm it causes, and needs everyone to be like them so they can stop receiving backlash for contributing to creator exploitation.
You mean people took opposing sides on a topic on a debate forum? Color me surprised.
The problem isn't opposition. It's spreading misinformation, framing critics as luddites, refusing to acknowledge their misunderstandings about the relevant technologies and how they impact others. There's no "two sides" to it when one of the sides thinks 2 + 2 is 5.
Sure, but that means everyone who disagrees on that point is arguing in bad faith, which is not possible. People argue what they think is right, and change their minds over time. Everyone was wrong about something at one point.
Just because they have faulty logic doesnt make them bad faith. You have faulty logic in this case, should I assume you are bad faith?
This attitude of "only one side follows facts and it just happens to be mine" is so amnesic, you never were always on the right side.
It doesn't, that's not my point. Bad faith implies they're lying despite knowing better, which isn't what I described. I never claimed bad faith, I said they're factually wrong in this instance, and that their discourse is harmful regardless of their beliefs.
Just as not all anti-vaxers argue in bad faith, but are wrong nonetheless. Like many other groups who honestly and earnestly defend(ed) everything from racial segregation to genocide. I'm not saying these groups and the harm they cause are equivalent—this should be obvious, but I'm saying it anyway.
When one being wrong hurts innocent people, something has to be done. I expect folks in aforementioned groups to stop being wrong about those things at some point. Otherwise, it's up to the rest of us to act to protect the victims, not the moral standing of the aggressors because they're sincere.
That's a gross misrepresentation of my position, which I hope is born of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the topic. I tried to clear up any misunderstandings. If you don't think they're wrong or causing harm, I'm willing to have a conversation about this to explain it, if you want.