GoreJess 🔪

25 | Senior Verse Developer @PandvilNetwork | Developer for @CPChapter2 and the @wiiubru DNS | she/her 🇦🇺 | opinions are my own :)

[GoreJess 🔪 @Ep8Script]

This 25-year-old Verser still writes code the old fashion way...

Introducing... VerseBoy! 🎮

A highly accurate Game Boy emulator written in UE6's future programming language, Verse. It runs both standalone (using Python as the display) and right inside Fortnite using #UEFN! 🧵

[Essenger @EssengerMusic]

“you’ll be left behind if you don’t use Al”

Sure. And you’ll be “ahead” for a short period of time in which you’ll render yourself incapable of anything other than a middleman who knows how to prompt, which will turn out to be the most replaceable loophole job on earth

[nika 🩶 @rosentraume]

btw I’m 100% against generative AI. This technology should not exist. We don’t need it. We managed just fine without it before, we don’t need it now, don’t believe the crap those billionaires tell you. Go write that essay, pick up that pencil, watch the news, do your own research

[Kiri 🍁🍂🎃 @KiriBuilds]

It's seriously insane how completely lacking in awareness the pro-AI crowd is

Like, genuinely, how do you have ZERO clue about ANY of the problems genAI has been creating? They think it's still 2022 😭

Are they just playing dumb? Or are they actually just somehow THIS unaware??

[Veleho 🇫🇮 @_veleho]

"If we're too honest with consumers, they won't buy our games!"

[🎃🦇 SpookyKeat 🦇🎃 @BreadKeat]

HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT VALVE

[Is this a 3D model? @IsThisA3DModel]

since nobody legitimate supports GenAI, these are the type of account Tim needs to engage with

[Hardware Unboxed @HardwareUnboxed]

Tim Sweeney getting upset at Steam's AI disclosure is an endless stream of funny content.

He claims it's bad for developers, but what he actually means is it's bad for Epic Games. Because Epic are literally building UE6 around generative AI, which they say will play a "central role"

If generative AI is good, and developers are proud to use it, there shouldn't be an issue disclosing it. But the problem is gamers don't agree, and some actively avoid games using AI. This in turn will mean avoiding UE6 games using their fancy gen AI integrations, which hurts Epic's business model.

It's another one of those things where companies are not on the same page as gamers. Gamers want engine developers to solve problems they are having (eg poor performance, traversal stutter, visual artefacts). They don't want those problems to remain unsolved while Epic makes it easier to fill storefronts with low quality AI-made games.

Transparency is always good for consumers and shouldn't be sacrificed. Ever. Why hide the use of a feature if you think the feature is good?

If it's a "hate mob" issue, maybe time to reassess the messaging. Prove that AI use is good, instead of hiding it. Because if it's actually good, it should be easy to explain and show why. The work speaks for itself with these things.

If Epic are ever wondering why gamers love Steam and avoided the Epic Games Store for so long, it's because Valve continue to deliver what gamers want. Being hostile to gamers doesn't work.

[GoreJess 🔪 @Ep8Script]

If the developer’s brand involves AI-generated assets, then they should have no problem telling people “hey, we have AI generated assets”. Also “It's not for the platform to force this AI disclosure on the developer.” - it literally is, as Steam is doing right now. It’s telling that the only people bothered by this are companies or individuals pushing AI heavily. Valve are not forcing anyone to use a label, when they can simply use a different store or not use AI at all.

It’s not as simple as seeking human-made games when I’m interested in specific types of games. Human-made could be anything- I want to know if Fortnite or the new Star Wars game is using AI. That’s what AI disclosure is for, and again, it’s only a benefit to me that developers are required by Steam to display this. It would only benefit bad actors to hide it. Even if a game is human-made, or AI-generated, without the required disclosure, I don’t actually know for sure. That’s the obvious issue at hand.

Maybe Steam’s intention is for it to become the default too. That’s why once again, it’s only a benefit to disclose it right now. Maybe it’ll change my mind? Maybe I’ll see that so many games have AI disclosures on Steam that I’ll start to think “damn, maybe this really is the future.” And maybe Valve will decide that it’s no longer necessary. But for now, it absolutely is for consumers to feel comfortable purchasing games.

[GoreJess 🔪 @Ep8Script]

Yes, consumers are voting with their wallets. It’s not exactly a label, but an opportunity to explain the ways in which your game uses AI. A single skybox asset? Maybe consumers genuinely see that in the same bucket as the rest of the AI generated slop market. That’s not for any one person to decide, that’s for the developer to be honest that they didn’t want to pay someone to create the skybox, and for the consumers to decide whether they want to purchase the game as a result. Not requiring it would mean that the consumers are not aware of what they’re paying for. Many of them are using the disclosure label completely as intended and avoiding games that use any AI at all. That’s entirely on every individual to make that choice, it’s not the fault of the platform for offering that choice.

The problem with this idea you keep repeating about developers building their game around being “human-made” is that, again, this is expressly the default and has been for all of game development history. Games that choose not to disclose any AI will blend in and trick consumers into thinking that they’re human made too, even if every single asset in the game is AI-generated. Do you truly, genuinely, not see any issues with this? The problem is solved by the default being human made, unless AI usage is disclosed. No consumer has any problems with this, nor do I as a developer who doesn’t use AI-generated assets. I don’t need to build my game around being human made, bc it’s explicitly human made due to having no AI usage disclosed.

You’re implying that consumers are entirely okay with games using AI for programming. Programming is not hard, and that’s ignorant and incorrect. Not every game in the future will need this. If AI disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn’t shed a tear.

You do realise, if your intention of a “human label” is for every game that doesn’t use AI to have this label, then the situation is exactly the same as now, just inverted? Consumers would simply avoid games without the human label, which currently have the AI label. There’s genuinely no difference, unless you hope that people give up on the human level and thus consumers start to confuse human made games with AI slop.

[GoreJess 🔪 @Ep8Script]

“without the platform forcing a label on everyone else that's treated like a ‘warning’ or a stamp of low quality” is blatantly admitting to the problem that this is how consumers see AI. Without that label, you’re trying to obscure the fact that AI is being used to try and secure purchases from consumers who wish to avoid such low quality slop (as they perceive it).

If AI is actually so necessary and good, then the developers of such games should let it speak for itself and wear that AI disclosure label like a badge of honor before it supposedly becomes the default. What exactly are they afraid of if those consumers don’t want to play their games anyway? People who don’t care will just happily buy it with or without a label.

[GoreJess 🔪 @Ep8Script]

“A developer who built their game with AI and markets it as human-made is doing false advertising and should be shut down. That can already happen on steam today, the label doesn't prevent it. But if disclosure is up to the developer, then not disclosing isn't lying.”

So what exactly are you arguing? If people can already lie, then great, they should just go ahead and lie. But it’s not about lying, it’s about the fact that leaving AI disclosure up to developers rather than a storefront’s rules allows them to not disclose AI, which Steam is saying is wrong for consumers. That’s why consumers are completely for it, because it gives them power in deciding what they want to purchase. As I stated earlier, disclosing “human-made” makes no sense when it’s actually that consumers specifically want to know whether something uses AI. Making it required to tell consumers that you’re using AI solves that completely. A game that is human-made will be obvious because it doesn’t have anything to disclose. Players vote with their wallets, no different to the last 30 years.

Steam will punish developers who wilfully lie, and players who inadvertently buy these games, thinking that no AI-generated assets are in use, can ask for a refund. There is truly no downside to this system as it stands, and if anything what you’re saying is that the rules for AI disclosure are TOO light and should require you to disclose more AI usage such as code. Which I completely agree with! On top of that, even right now developers who want to further highlight their lack of AI usage can still add “human-made” to their game’s description without any platform changes even needed!

[☆T⁷₿ @tumiszn_]

Why do pro-AI people act like everything in life was impossible a mere two years ago?

[GoreJess 🔪 @Ep8Script]

When returning to Australia from overseas, there’s many things you need to declare to customs. The form says “if you aren’t sure, declare it!” The same goes for Steam’s AI disclosure. Is there harm in disclosing every aspect of how you used AI? No… not at all: even if you don’t have to share that you have AI-generated code, you’re not going to be punished for doing so, and that only helps consumers be aware of what they’re spending money on, while also ensuring that you aren’t missing anything

Steam removing the requirement that AI must be disclosed would ONLY benefit developers that want to lie about their use of AI to trick consumers who would be unhappy with that if they were aware into buying their game. There’s literally no other benefit. The argument you’re making about these two different games feels like whataboutism because it’s ignoring the fact that the game disclosing that it AI-generated a skybox is purely a good thing that allows consumers to make an informed decision, while those who don’t care will buy it anyway. I’m sure many consumers would like AI-generated code to be disclosed too, but they care even more about the art assets so I’m not sure what this comparison is proving exactly

[Is this a 3D model? @IsThisA3DModel]

Going on a multi month long tirade on the internet because the nutrition label on my food tells customers how their food was made and thats bad for some reason.

[Is this a 3D model? @IsThisA3DModel]

disclosing how GenAI is used in a game is not a "political statement"

customers deserve to right to know that the game isn't AI slop

[GoreJess 🔪 @Ep8Script]

The “impossible line” seems incredibly clear and consistent in the wording, that any user-facing assets that were created with AI must be disclosed

Of course developers that fear people boycotting their game due to AI usage would want to lie about it. That’s what you’re arguing for, right? There’s no other reason to prefer “developer choice” when the current system is already good for consumers as it is. And yes, you can absolutely lie on Steam if you’re willing to get banned and delisted for it. Not sure why anyone would advocate for that 🤔

[GoreJess 🔪 @Ep8Script]

@enebz2 @PayMyOne @ProBroFn @muselk @TimSweeneyEpic Have you seen “games” made by Claude for browsers with threejs? It’s often all contained in one HTML file with every asset created at runtime in JavaScript. Do you honestly mean to tell me that those assets don’t count as AI generated, and that Steam would agree?

[GoreJess 🔪 @Ep8Script]

@enebz2 @PayMyOne @ProBroFn @muselk @TimSweeneyEpic Of course assets generated by AI-written code are considered AI-generated assets, that’s such a ridiculous workaround and is not disagreeing with Steam. Yes, a game doing that should obviously be disclosing it- both games should disclose AI as that follows the rules of the store

[GoreJess 🔪 @Ep8Script]

If a game features AI-generated code that draws assets then it absolutely requires disclosure, that’s the same thing. Why would it matter how the asset is being stored?

It absolutely is the developer’s job to be transparent about how they used AI, that’s why Steam made it a requirement… so they are transparent. Why do you suggest that it’s better for a developer to be allowed to hide the fact that the skydome was generated if consumers would obviously prefer being aware of that before purchasing the game? If you believe such a label negatively impacts the game, then clearly lots of people would be unhappy about the developer generating that asset instead of paying someone to create it