Simple fix: show your work.
Kickstarters don’t have these accusations simply because the devs are in a direct relationship with the investors. There’s no NDA. Indies want to make a game, backers support it. Indie shows work.
Now show your work.Go Team Meteor! Meteor 2026!
I don’t game much or know anything about game development, but that was a very interesting and timely article.
Most of my posting here is sharing wildlife photography. I work part time with animals at a rehab clinic, and every week I see them do things I never expected. One might think my experience would help me pick out AI generated or altered photos, and many times it does, but sometimes animals do really improbable stuff I would never expect to see, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do those things.
I made a post today about two really exciting photos I came across. I wanted to share them because I felt they were very unique, but one was flagged as AI by Meta’s AI, and another was being mildly brigaded saying “these animals would never do that” but both photos looked real to me. Both seemed to be legit photographers with large portfolios of pics in consistent styles.
Lemmings here get pretty rightfully angry at AI posts, so I addressed the community saying I’m over 90 percent confident these are real, is that good enough for you guys?
I felt so bad these photographers both captured images that people should be excited to see, especially the one with really rare animal behavior, but I felt they were being punished by a not insignificant amount of people by being falsely accused. Both offered some proof, but with me not knowing much about photography, I didn’t always know what is Photoshop or Lightroom style post processing vs AI manipulation. I want to share amazing pics, especially of really rare stuff, and I try to maintain a pretty respectable educational vibe to the community, so I worry about sharing fake stuff in times like this and losing credibility. If this was my job like as it is for these games devs, that would be really demotivational.
I use AI as a last resort for translations of text I really want to read, but other than that, I feel I see way more harm than good coming from generative AI. Add to that the environmental costs that seem to be growing exponentially, and it’s making me an unhappy camper all around…
Removed by mod
Serious question - is there a non-AI tool that can translate biological research into something I can understand?
I’ll usually try the browser’s built in translation tool, but that is already an LLM anyway, isn’t it?
When I try to read serious research and not just photo captions often times it just becomes useless word salad since it can’t handle technical terminology. Someone once suggested I try the free Deepl translation, and that has been the most consistent thing to handle jargon.
I’m not a techie person, so I don’t know every option out there. A lot of what I want to read is studies about rare animals, and I’m stuck with what languages the studies are written in. It’s very niche stuff and nobody out there is in a rush to translate it by hand. If you’ve got a more ethical tool that can get the job done, I’d be more than happy to try it.
If you think I’m a garbage human for translating maybe 6 or 8 groundbreaking papers a year, you’re entitled to your opinion, and it is what it is, but if your solution for me is to just stay ignorant and not try to learn all I can about what I’m passionate about, then yeah, we’re not going to agree on this.
I think it’s a problem with the term AI being co-opted by the LLM shills. From my quick research DeepL, their original model, appears to be a CNN based translator, which is different from GenAI architecture. Based on what Wikipedia says about the source data, it seems fairly ethical. Their training computer uses hydropower, also more ethical than most in the AI space. The only morally questionable thing I see is that the company has other GenAI models, but if you’re using the free version, that doesn’t really seem like an issue to me. Overall, I wouldn’t feel negatively about using the original DeepL model.
Thanks for all the info. The free translation is all I’ve ever used. I don’t want it doing anything more than a literal translation of text. The whole reason I want to read the papers is so I can generate my own summaries, opinions, and so on. The model doing that would take all the fun away from me.
These discussions are about Gen AI and LLMs so if you were relying on those you’ve never understood jack shit because it doesn’t “translate data” for you it produces slop based on random number generators approximating human work.
If you think AI tools can’t translate texts you must have never tried. I speak two languages natively and sometimes use AI tools to translate text between them, because it is simply a lot faster than doing it by hand. Being able to speak both languages I can easily confirm that the AI translated texts are at least as good as what I could produce myself. It’s a really useful tool for that purpose.
If you hate AI on principle, that’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. But to say it doesn’t work is just simply wrong.
Meteors hit the Earth all the time.
Something bigger than a chihuahua’s head.
the whole chihuahua
Y’know what? I’ve earned it: 4-chichuahuas-sized.
It’s tiring. Media illiterates on both sides of the AI argument are flinging turds at the wall and don‘t even stop to see what sticks.
I’m not even gonna read the story. I just agree with the opening quote.
I hope its at least twice as big as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.
idk shit’s going down all the time all over the world and causing inconvenience to some fancy artists in London is tipping the scale?
If you cant prove your process in steps, such as layers in a 2D work file, sculpting capability in blender or such, or literal steps in a Parametric modelling program, then maybe you deserve to be dragged through the mud.
EDIT: This comment was 4 - 0 and now it’s 5 - 7, looks like some bot and/or brigading techbro got real butt hurt.
From reading the article it sounds like they get constant accusations from people who don’t do even the minimum effort to look into it. If you have to separately defend yourself to 1000 different people because they are all to lazy to read the info you have already published, it becomes unreasonable.
Literally a Gish gallop in a different form
DDoS (Distributed Doubt of Source)
If a thousand potential customers reach out to me asking me to clarify an asset then I will pitch a sale to each and every one of them happily.
It has gotten to the point where devs are just being asked to disprove a negative, though.
“Ok, well you didn’t use AI in what you showed but you used it somewhere else.” Short of devs wearing body cams to try and prove literally every step in every process, people are going to have to have some faith that developers aren’t using it.
Doesn’t align with anything I’ve experienced, personally. Usually when proven wrong they’d just go quiet, but at that point they don’t have credibility even if they respond.
I think it creates a much more creative and healthy environment to hunt down the fucking witches, I welcome questioning the artist’s process.
