I mean if they really actually believed it was the future, but also were very aware of the hate it gets, it would equally make sense as to why they would not disclose its usage. Not much of a gotchya that explicitly points to them knowing it’s garbage.
Yeah, they’d hide it if it were good and people hated it, and they wouldn’t hide it if it were bad but people liked it. They’re hiding it because it’s unpopular. They don’t give a shit whether it’s bad.
“If slavery is bad, why are you hiding the fact that there are escaped slaves under your floorboards?”
Because extractive capitalism hates informed consent. When interacting with an extractive capitalist, keep one hand on your wallet and one hand covering your drink.
consent is bad for business.
It might be the pitchforks.
If you don’t like pitchforks, don’t do things that invite pitchforks. It’s really that simple.
…well… let’s not pretend that the internet mob is completely rational in all its brigading… the pitchforks come out and get pointed in various directions for no good reason quite often…
I can’t really blame anyone working in PR for feeling the need to tread carefully. That said, it’s probably time we had some fair trade/labor practice disclosure standards for video games and/or computer software in general.
That shouldn’t be too extreme an idea to be practical - we have such things in other industries already, like clothing and food production.
I’m surprised we don’t have disclosures for working conditions. Gamers like the suffering of developers. It’s part of the power fantasy.
I would love for you to defend that logic in like any other scenario. Hey, that drug company didn’t need to say that the children’s cancer medicine they we’re making was really just Zima, that would have just upset the people with pitchforks.
Why defend it? The pitchforks being warranted doesn’t make them any less the reason companies hide it. Pretending it’s a mystery why companies hide it if they think it’s good is just silly. They obviously hide it because of the backlash, and obviously they should just not use it instead. But the reason they hide it is clear to everyone: it’s the pitchforks. Do you disagree?
Partly because calling them pitchforks is itself blatantly anti-consumer. It’s such a Bourgeois sentiment. ‘Oh The Peasants don’t like what we’re doing to them we better hide it, who cares if it hurts them.’ It’s this Gilded Age bullshit mentality.
You’re excusing that behavior when you say it. That’s just what you’re doing. So you should defend it.
Partly because calling them pitchforks is itself blatantly anti-consumer.
English is not my first language so I will believe you. I only called it “pitchforks” because you did and I was replying to your comment. I didn’t come up with the term, I was replying to you using the term. If it has a connotation I wasn’t aware of, then let’s just call it backlash. Either way it doesn’t change the point I was making: the companies are hiding it because of the backlash, and I don’t know why you’d want someone to defend the companies, who are obviously in the wrong.
I’m not asking anyone to defend the companies. I was asking the other guy to defend his logic. The implication of his comment was that not only are said company’s right not to share this information, but that the consumers were wrong. That’s the message of that comment. Which I find highly suspect and questionable.
So you’re saying it’s not the pitchforks?
It’s impossible to be “convinced” by this utter narrow-minded, degrading, obliterating, permanently damaging sorrow…
At some point, you just get tired of stating on public over and over… over and over… that absolutely no AI must ever exist in human art - never ever at all…
Art has a meaning, a weight, precious priceless value, the purpose… only when it’s of a human work…
Art is also a timeless universal conversation between people passing experience, ideas, love…
Regardless, whether it’s an asset, texture, shape, shader…
This is all what is to be preserved in the history…
Of the history of us the miracles, human…A hand-made work has a Human’s name on it… Who lived, learned, experienced… and expressed their unique view in a work to pass further…
The artist’s name may not be advertised, but it would exist and always possible to find to glorify…
Since isn’t it one of the main purposes of Art? To achieve, experience, to express and learn from each other…
This is an achievement that also supports you in long-term, as an Artist, who managed, who achieved, who learned and did it…Now, someone used AI in their work, and now the output has no name on it. It’s empty. It’s noise.
AI in art is always an unbearable noise… built on stolen and meatground effort of actual artists…
It radiates with screams and cries in painful sorrow… of unknown effort and love now decimated and passed through an algorithm of shallow hopelessness at vacuumed void…There’s nothing in AI for art, and there’s no achievement deserved to be inscribed into our human history… to learn from… to be proud of…
If I ever see anything related to AI in any art-related subjects, I don’t even consider it but skip it - it’s a disgusting empty noise that does not deserve any human time nor effort.
All these “AI” infestations are pure awful disrespect to our ancestors, the Human history… and our dear future…
And I will never consider it. It would mean death to me, since there’s no hope nor purpose in it to live for.
- - -
Miyamoto explained that there is a difference between creating and “executing” an idea, which has changed over time as technology has changed, and AI is at risk of replacing the execution element of many jobs.
“The tricky part is that the execution phase is actually quite enjoyable, and it provides a real sense of satisfaction,” Miyamoto said via Japanese outlet 4Gamer. “The greatest danger is becoming so content with the execution that you mistakenly believe you’ve created something truly great.”…
“I urge you to move away from the approach of taking an existing, enjoyable game and simply modifying it to make it ‘even better’,” he said. “It is far more rewarding, and I believe, much more fun to start from scratch, building upon an original idea that stems from the thought: ‘wouldn’t it be interesting to try something like this?'”
~ Shigeru Miyamoto
SourceThis, Shigeru Miyamoto’s, is authentic… truthful… that gives hope, will power to keep moving forward… to believe…
This is the genuine… These are hands, mind, heart, experience, love…
This will always be invaluably precious and significant…
This a true Artist attitude.- - -
The nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing…
~ “Six Feet Under” - Axty
Because these “game developers” are grifters: They’re into it for the money. They see it as a passive income source they can have on top of their main full time job. And they all think that artists of all kinds drive at least a Porsche if not outright a Bugatti, because they saw some rich rapper like that.
It’s everywhere. Programmers who hate AI use Claude for their coding projects.
People who hate data centers use Gemini to ask questions.
There is a deep contradiction in people’s minds. At this point, we should focus on harm reduction: local first, ethical training.
I think you’re conflating various shades of “hate corporate GenAI” with “hate GenAI entirely” and making a claim about the former while naming the latter: some programmers take issue with things like image generators, but not code generators. Others take issue with corporate fuckery, but adopt the technology.
And some just refuse to let their skills atrophy in favour of babysitting a machine that becomes less reliable the larger the project it’s working with because of context window limitations, which ironically causes a ton of problems when you reach the point where their withered skills would be critical.
The last group most definitely don’t use Claude - unless they have to, because their company forces them to. Likewise, the amount of people intentionally pulling up Gemini to ask it shit is only a small portion, since most users just get it shoved in their face.
Altman, Amodei, Pichai and the rest of the conmen have done a great job projecting that mirage, but it’s hollow: It seems everywhere because it’s being pushed everywhere, every app now comes with a chatbot and because the tech media outlets keep talking about it because everyone else is.
The only contradiction is OpenAI and Anthropic raising tons of debt while trying to hide that they’re still not profitable at a point where companies are realising that their products aren’t worth the (already cheap) prices.
Where are these programmers who use AI despite hating it? Unless a really good job outright requires it, I’m never using it for programming, or anything else. I’d actually look for a new job that doesn’t require AI usage.
People around me. Software engineer who burned out. Electrical engineers who are depressed. Devops too.
I feel it’s like the company AI mandate causes those talents to hook on some drug. They know it’s bad, but they can’t get rid of it.
Am one of those, and it is just giving up, as you describe it. I hate it, I hate every prompt and every line of generated code I need to review. Problem is you are essentially required to use it and it does something to your brain, but I would still never use it for a personal project outside of work. I am looking for a different job because of this.
You’re me if I was lucky enough to have a programmer lol
I still haven’t needed to use it tbh, happily waiting for the other shoe to drop
