Reflections on AI Disclosure in Gaming
This week, I found myself contemplating the rising costs of RAM, which has unfortunately delayed my plans for a much-needed PC upgrade. As I hold on to my trusty RTX 2070 Super, I can’t help but reflect on the broader implications of technology in our lives, particularly in the gaming industry.
In a light-hearted nod to fellow bald entrepreneur Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, I acknowledge his recent critique of Steam’s generative AI disclosure requirement. Sweeney humorously compared the policy to demanding that everyone reveal their haircare routines, arguing that it is nonsensical in the context of game development where AI is poised to play a pivotal role in future productions.
While I admire Sweeney’s efforts to leverage Epic’s financial success to challenge the hefty 30% cut taken by Apple and Steam, I find myself siding with Valve’s perspective on this matter. The disclosure requirement serves as one of the few safeguards against the potential pitfalls of generative AI, a technology that has faced accusations of automating plagiarism and relies heavily on training data that often includes copyrighted material. The ongoing debate surrounding fair use in this context remains contentious, with the AI sector navigating legal challenges while courting political favor and promising lucrative partnerships with influential media companies.
Moreover, the substantial energy demands of AI data centers cannot be overlooked. While no single AI user is solely responsible for the overall resource consumption, the analogy of haircare products and environmental impact resonates deeply. Just as it took a collective effort to damage the ozone layer, the ramifications of AI’s energy consumption warrant public concern.
As I ponder the future of gaming, I am not quick to dismiss developers who utilize generative AI. However, I do believe that transparency is essential. Understanding how and why AI was employed in a game can significantly influence consumer choices. For instance, Activision’s vague statement about using generative AI tools for in-game assets in Call of Duty raises questions. It appears only on Steam, where disclosure is mandated, suggesting a reluctance to fully embrace the implications of their AI usage.
If Activision genuinely believes that generative AI enhances their game, they should confidently defend their approach, perhaps starting with a thorough explanation of the creative process behind those AI-generated assets. The curiosity surrounding the use of AI in gaming is not trivial; many consumers are eager to know the extent of its application, especially given that this technology is relatively new in its current commercial form.
As we move forward, if the trend continues towards AI-generated art, music, and voice acting becoming the norm in gaming, it may indeed become more commonplace for developers to announce their lack of AI involvement. However, the thought of a future where creativity is predominantly driven by algorithms is a rather disheartening prospect.
