this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
137 points (96.6% liked)
Games
18585 readers
144 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
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
Why? AI doing one good thing doesn't erase the dozens of bad ways it's utilized.
I'm interested to see AI used on a larger scale in really specific ways, but the industry seems more interested in using it to take giant shortcuts and replace staff. That is going to piss people off, and it's going to really piss people off when it also delivers a shit product.
I'm fine with DLSS, because I want to see AI enhance games. I want it to make them better. So far, all I can see is that it's making them worse with one single upside that I can just.. toggle off on my end if I don't like it.
OK, but... you know AI isn't a person, right?
You seem to be mad at math. Which is not rare, but it is weird.
.. yeah, I'm aware AI isn't a person. I'm not sure why that's a question? Maybe I phrased things badly, but I'm not- nor have I ever- been really mad about AI usage. It's mostly just disappointment.
It's just a technology. I largely dislike the way it's being used, partly because I feel like it has a lot of potential.
Yeah, I don't disagree with the idea that the AI shills are currently peddling it for things it doesn't do well (or at all) and that's a big issue.
It's just not a running tally of "AI doing good" or "AI doing bad". "AI" isn't a single thing, for one.
Ok, but... You know there's a person operating that AI right?
You seem to be separating the tool from the user. Which is not rare, but it is weird.
Hold on, in this scenario you're mad at the user of the AI app, not at the maker of it?
As in, you're fine with the tools being trained and made as long as people use them right?
I don't think you're aligned with the zeitgeist there.
Please do me a favor and quote the part of that comment where I claimed I'm fine with the way AI is made.
You said "there's a person operating the AI" and you referred to separating "the tool from the user".
Please do me a favor and quote the part of that comment that refers to the way the AI is made at all. The point you were parroting was pointing out that the "AI good/bad debate" isn't a judgement of value of the technology underlying the applications, it's an assessment of what the companies making apps with this technology are doing with it on each individual application.
I never brought up the user in this. The user is pretty much neutral. The "person operating the AI" isn't a factor here, it's some constant outside the debate where we assume some amount of people will use the tools provided for them in the way the tools are designed.
And again with words in my mouth. That wasn't even close to my point!
My point was that you were unnecessarily sarcastic in a rude way to someone. Beyond that, your comment made absolutely no sense because you were telling them that they were mad at the tool instead of the way the people are using the tool. Which, if you go back and read their comments, is what they were actually upset about. They didn't make much, if any comment about AI itself, but rather the way people are using it.
How was that your point? You just rephrased the original comment with some different wording.
In what universe would someone have looked at that and gone "ah, some witty commentary on how unnecessarily sarcastic my post was; furthermore, on the inconsistency between my original retort and the subjects of the previous post".
Did you just forget to write that part the first time? Do you think I can read your mind? How was this supposed to work?
I repeated you nearly word for word, only substituting a few words. Go ahead and look up "parody"
That's not the definition of parody.
I mean, I could tell you were being snarky, but definitely not that you were being snarky as some sort of performance art accusation thing.
Anyway, now we're just talking about your shortcomings as a communicator and I think we can both agree that's not an interesting conversation, so... moving on.