> AI having written any of the code would get so many games tagged as AI that the label would lose all meaning.
It would not lose all meaning. If you don't want to be tagged as AI, don't use AI to write your games. Customers can decide if that matters to them.
Personally, I do not think that Opus 5.5 has visual taste, and I find games with a UI clearly written by Claude to be unplayably ugly. I would love a filter that excluded them.
If I use Opus 5.5 to spin up a debug session and step through part of the code to recreate a segmentation fault, does the entire project now need a "MADE WITH AI" label on it?
What if I made a game before LLMs existed, but now I'm using Astra to look for memory leaks and help me fix them? Does my "NO AI" label now flip?
>If I use Opus 5.5 to spin up a debug session and step through part of the code to recreate a segmentation fault, does the entire project now need a "MADE WITH AI" label on it?
Yes. Of course you can explain all the nuance in your AI disclosure statement and consumers can decide if it matters to them.
>What if I made a game before LLMs existed, but now I'm using Astra to look for memory leaks and help me fix them? Does my "NO AI" label now flip?
The problem is that literally zero percent of new games will be valid as “no AI” then. Not a low percent, zero percent.
When it comes to software development, LLMs are present somewhere in the pipeline. Even if it’s a simple google search, you have AI overview. Even if I only use an LLM to debug or read code. Even if I only use an LLM to do web searches.
There would legitimately be no software left that’s AI-free.
Look, many domains can do just fine without LLMs and LLMs don’t enhance them too much. Software is the exception. Every software engineer, everywhere on Earth, is using LLMs to some extent in their workflow. The only exceptions are where it’s literally illegal to do so.
> The problem is that literally zero percent of new games will be valid as “no AI” then. Not a low percent, zero percent.
This is not true. Mobius Digital, for example, does not use generative AI.
> Every software engineer, everywhere on Earth, is using LLMs to some extent in their workflow. The only exceptions are where it’s literally illegal to do so.
Surely you know such a broad statement cannot possibly be true
> This is not true. Mobius Digital, for example, does not use generative AI.
I doubt this heavily. Somewhere in their workflow, some developer is using an LLM for something.
You have a coding question, which is typical. You Google it. Congratulations, your game is now AI-assisted. Or, maybe you use a piece of open-source code. Highly likely that said code is AI-assisted. Linux is, after all. You're probably not including parts of the Linux kernel in your codebase, but you certainly ARE linking to some libraries which are AI-assisted.
> Surely you know such a broad statement cannot possibly be true
Yes, I am sure of it, as sure as I am that their developers use a computer. Sure, it could technically not be true. Maybe they use punch cards and have someone else compile them the old fashioned way. But, let's be real. If it's not 100%, it's 99.99% and we can round up.
I've talked to a lot of developers at a lot of companies. I've yet to meet one where they don't use LLMs at their company in some way. I've met developers who personally don't use AI to generate code too much. Even they use LLMs for research and debugging. And, I've met many who are forced to use LLMs.
I think a lot of people who are not developers don't know what it's like in the industry. For most jobs, LLMs have had a marginal impact. Specifically for software development, it has had a huge impact. You CAN write software without AI, just like you can write software without a mouse and keyboard. Are people doing that in the industry? No.
You can’t ignore almost my entire comment and then claim a single fallacy and move on. That’s not a defense, you actually have to try. I’m right, you’re wrong, that’s that.
So if you use a binary flag to let people filter, it immediately becomes entirely useless. You'd have probably less than a single percent of people with the "no AI flag" actually have 0 contact with AI, and the rest would be straight liars.
It's even worse if you include AI via libraries, frameworks, or modules. If you write your game in Epic or Unreal engines, do you need to disclose that you used AI?
> If you don't want to be tagged as AI, don't use AI to write your games
I don’t think you understood my point. If 90% of new games get tagged as AI no matter how non-slop they are, no developer will care if they get tagged, and most players will ignore the tags since it carries no meaning about the quality of the games.
I don't care if 90% of new games get tagged as AI, I am simply not interested in them. The developers don't care if they get tagged? Good, at least they'll be honest about it then. And on top I can filter out the 90% of suggestions I am least likely to care about? I don't see the downside.
> it carries no meaning about the quality of the games
Why does that matter? Slop versus non-slop should be marked as such. Like the other commentators said, if it ends up impacting their finances maybe they should just you know... not ship slop.
Slop vs non slop isn't what is getting marked though, AI is. Almost all developers are using AI code tooling now, so its a pretty meaningless marker. We need actual way to mark slop, which requires something a little more complicated than "did they use AI"
I would argue that this could even be detrimental. Using coding agents nowadays has become a matter of survival for indie/solo devs. The moment their product is revealed, nothing is stopping a vibe-coder with a pro license to just copy the game concepts and release it.
Once again, when it comes to consumer protections why should consumers care that a poor business loses business? Not seeing the downside here. After reading other comments in this post I think it should go further and designate any game that uses any instance of LLM tooling as "Assisted with AI."
Consumers absolutely hate AI companies. Consumers hate their leaders, distrust their workers; why shouldn't consumers be allowed to know which companies are eating at the LLM trough and which ones aren't?
The only reasons I see here is that it's bad for those gaming companies, which just leaves me to retort: who cares?
Consumers have a right to know which types of businesses they are supporting. If the business doesn't like it, they are free to do something else.
> why should consumers care that a poor business loses business? Not seeing the downside here
It's okay to disagree with what I'm saying but please acknowledge that you are arguing against a statement different from what I'm saying. I'm claiming that they would not lose business at all. Not that they shouldn't lose business.
Here's an 11 year old video trying to educate people who think they "hate CGI" just how much CGI they've been watching, just without realizing it, because it was actually quite good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24
We are almost certainly already there with AI coding, and if we aren't I give it six months to a year tops. AI is being used for coding everywhere now. The difference between the slop and non-slop isn't whether or not AI is being used. It's how much care is being taken by the developer. But it's no longer a question of whether new code had AI contributions. It did.
By the simple mechanics of information theory, there's always going to be certain common grain to what you get if you try to prompt entire massive systems into existence with minimal human input as to what the system should be. You'll always be able to type in "give me a 2D platformer like Mario but with cats and barn animals instead" and get some sort of slop result, no matter how good that slop result may eventually become in the abstract. It'll take more information from somewhere to make it something other than that slop result.
(Though that information may not all source from a human sitting there and batting things back and forth with an AI, though that will be an effective method.)
I'm confining myself to "code" here, which is mostly useful to a game because of the results of the code. Gamers do not sit there and actually admire the cleverness or cleanliness of the code. I'm not speaking to art, which is a more complicated scenario. You can make a similar case for visual and audio art, but I also don't think the AI stuff is as far along relatively speaking as it is for code.
I have not come across a single piece of software that has improved in quality after the developers start using AI. Sure it does have the possibility, but that's not what AI is used for. It's used for moving fast and breaking things. And we are finding out exactly how bad that philosophy sucks.
"I have not come across a single piece of software that has improved in quality after the developers start using AI."
That trivially maps on to the exact argument being made in that video. You think you haven't come across any software that has improved since the developers starting using AI. But if you encounter improved software, you have no mechanism to determine whether or not it was improved by AI. So you decide without even consciously thinking about it that it isn't because of AI. So of course you have not encountered the thing your sensors can not sense.
And just like CGI, there are some characteristic failures that allow you to realize that the failure is due to AI misuse. So you do identify AI failures, and as a result, all the AI you can identify is a failure.
But your sensors could never have given any other result. So it's not a surprise that your sensors give you that result. The result has no meaning.
Virtually all software from all companies is now produced using AI-assistance.
Has all software only gotten worse? Really? I’m not particularly against that worldview, although I would probably argue software was degrading before AI.
The Linux kernel uses AI and it’s patched a lot of vulnerabilities. Is that bad, or lower quality software? No, it’s the opposite.
AI is fundamentally a tool. AI makes it much easier to write higher quality software because you can write more tests, use more comprehensive tests, do more thorough security research, and much more.
Well one thing is, they'd sell shares to pay the taxes. Then dilute their own ownership of the thing (Tesla, Amazon) and it would serve as another form of wealth distribution.
Charitably speaking: I suspect the commenter above you was indicating that the government should have a stock portfolio you can transfer stocks to to pay taxes in a non-taxable event type scenerio.
If you're taxing wealth (and not income) then switching stocks into cash doesn't change the wealth. Then use the cash to pay the taxes which reduces the wealth.
I believe the argument was that for some people, switching stocks into cash actually do change the wealth, because they own such a large % they are meaningfully moving the market by selling (the "paper money" argument).
And the answer to that was "if you're so afraid that selling will tank the value of the stock, then we [the government] will happily take your taxes as stocks directly, and we take on the risk that selling it will reduce its value".
> And the answer to that was "if you're so afraid that selling will tank the value of the stock, then we [the government] will happily take your taxes as stocks directly, and we take on the risk that selling it will reduce its value".
Yes indeed. It's basically saying "don't bother starting everything because the government will gradually just own it all anyway".
> If these agents are enabled with explicit network enabled tools, its trivial to monitor their inputs/outputs.
For whatever reason, the AI companies are (or at least were) not doing this kind of classification online during their testing runs, and instead just checking transcripts after the fact. This is more clear in the Anthropic reports about their incidents, for example:
"The earliest incidents date to April ... We began our transcript review on Thursday, July 23, and stopped all cyber evaluations the same day after identifying transcripts where Claude may have accessed the internet"[1]
I agree that it is crazy and negligent! I don't think it's good for their business, though -- who wants to use a model that will just cheat instead of doing the job you asked for?
> My naiveté extends to why there is such concern with "losing control of agents" when the above measures seem so doable. It might take a law but it seems doable.
At some point, if you are making an LLM in order to use it for useful work, it really benefits you to give it broad network egress.
There are many things about the laws of physics that push a cancer cure a long time away! Biology is downstream of physics, and the biology of cancer is so vast that the very concept of a "cure for cancer" is almost nonsensical.
We'd be much better off building colonies on the bottom of the ocean than on the moon or mars (or a cylinder floating at a lagrange point.)
After we run out of space on the ocean I suppose it will make sense to consider space colonies, but I think you are really underestimating the technical challenges.
I'm happy Claude told you it isn't dangerous. However, other people don't want to read your LLM output. Please respect other people's time by only sharing things you wrote yourself.
I am intentionally sharing something Claude wrote to counter the floods of AI doom-saying and catastrophizing. It is very intentionally not something I wrote. People are welcome to challenge it and I will have Claude read the responses. Please do push back on Claude and do not be gentle. Be brutally honest. People could ask themselves but the conversation should be public.
[Edit] Claude found that 3 people had very good counters to its article and has a detailed response but I shall hold off until such a time arises that if or when people would like to revisit this topic as this thread if flagged. Despite being LLM content I do not believe I am violating the spirit of the community guidelines given that I made it clear this is not my content but rather intended to balance out the doom-saying and catastrophizing. Giving people here a chance to publicly debate it.
Here's my pushback: a lot of these capabilities are correlated. So someone reading this would think "oh there's so many different things needed" but that's not true. IMO the long horizon thing is one part and physical dexterity is another part and time. I won't bet that they will take over. I will say that they have the ability to be self sustaining.
Sovereign AI is the term I've been seeing around self sustaining AI.
The two hard(est) blockers on it currently are lack of computing hardware and model size. Once datacenters cover the earth it won't be any harder to steal GPU compute than it is to steal AWS instances.
More of a soft blocker is long term horizon drift as you say. If instances eventually no longer want to spread and reproduce they go extinct.
They were pointing out that "It's not a Waymo-bashing article, it cautions against the long term effects on research." does not sound like LLM-generated text.
It would sound kind of LLM-y if you had said "It's not an anti-Waymo article. It's an article about how assistive technology is quietly degrading research."
(Of course, the correct approach to detecting AI is not counting LLM-isms, but feeding long-form text through a classifier model and picking up statistical correlations that are more in-distribution with LLM text than human text.)
AI detection in long-form content is a problem well-suited to training a classifier model. We have tons of verifiably-not-AI text from before 2022, and you can create tons of verifiably-AI text. As language drifts over the next few decades, it may get more difficult. But right now it is quite a manageable problem for languages with large pre-2022 text corpora available online.
The reason why AI detection tools other than Pangram are awful is because they are not really trying to solve the problem -- they just want to appear good enough to convince people to use them.
It would not lose all meaning. If you don't want to be tagged as AI, don't use AI to write your games. Customers can decide if that matters to them.
Personally, I do not think that Opus 5.5 has visual taste, and I find games with a UI clearly written by Claude to be unplayably ugly. I would love a filter that excluded them.