Hacker News Reader

Comment by rivetfasten | Hacker News Reader

Speaking of low effort, "ban Z" does not constitute a thoughtful and intelligent solution to "Z created a problem."

Z=AI in this case, but lazy solutions are as old as time.

Not that I agree with your assessment, but why do we need a thoughtful and intelligent solution here? Seems to me people want a simple, easy solution and bans or required disclosure seems to fit quiet well here

Isn't a user-selectable filter very different from a ban?

Not to the most aggressive of LLM-based-tooling boosters, no.

It was lazy to ban DDT or X-rays for determining shoe sizes or watches with radium paint.

Get rid of the thing that's causing problems is both thoughtful and intelligent when the alternative is either ignore the problem or some as of yet undefined activity that is entirely outside the current scope of business. Steam isn't obligated to accommodate AI-generated games or participate in whatever currently undefined process would be required to make them palatable. That's the studios' responsibility.

Nobody browses the Steam store at random we all use filters and recommendations.

Not initially but after I gained experience with the store, yes. SEems like AI coders are going for the lowest common denominators (new users)

AI's largest share of any market is users who don't have domain expertise, though.

That is true thus the lowest common denominator.

I assumed the target market was Steam hoarders that buy games when they're cheap but never actually play them.

Those hoarders I rarely ever see IRL. I am thinking it's the vocal minority and influencers, twitchers saying they hoarded games but never played.

I am in multiple gaming community where they are heavy gamers. Rarely do I see them doing that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com