I don’t think you understood my point. If 90% of new games get tagged as AI no matter how non-slop they are, no developer will care if they get tagged, and most players will ignore the tags since it carries no meaning about the quality of the games.
> it carries no meaning about the quality of the games
It doesn't have to, Steam already has reviews.
Again, I'm saying this would end up not impacting any developers' finances, because nearly no players would take the AI tag seriously.
Consumers absolutely hate AI companies. Consumers hate their leaders, distrust their workers; why shouldn't consumers be allowed to know which companies are eating at the LLM trough and which ones aren't?
The only reasons I see here is that it's bad for those gaming companies, which just leaves me to retort: who cares?
Consumers have a right to know which types of businesses they are supporting. If the business doesn't like it, they are free to do something else.
It's okay to disagree with what I'm saying but please acknowledge that you are arguing against a statement different from what I'm saying. I'm claiming that they would not lose business at all. Not that they shouldn't lose business.
You presume in favor of the existence of non-slop.
We are almost certainly already there with AI coding, and if we aren't I give it six months to a year tops. AI is being used for coding everywhere now. The difference between the slop and non-slop isn't whether or not AI is being used. It's how much care is being taken by the developer. But it's no longer a question of whether new code had AI contributions. It did.
By the simple mechanics of information theory, there's always going to be certain common grain to what you get if you try to prompt entire massive systems into existence with minimal human input as to what the system should be. You'll always be able to type in "give me a 2D platformer like Mario but with cats and barn animals instead" and get some sort of slop result, no matter how good that slop result may eventually become in the abstract. It'll take more information from somewhere to make it something other than that slop result.
(Though that information may not all source from a human sitting there and batting things back and forth with an AI, though that will be an effective method.)
I'm confining myself to "code" here, which is mostly useful to a game because of the results of the code. Gamers do not sit there and actually admire the cleverness or cleanliness of the code. I'm not speaking to art, which is a more complicated scenario. You can make a similar case for visual and audio art, but I also don't think the AI stuff is as far along relatively speaking as it is for code.
That trivially maps on to the exact argument being made in that video. You think you haven't come across any software that has improved since the developers starting using AI. But if you encounter improved software, you have no mechanism to determine whether or not it was improved by AI. So you decide without even consciously thinking about it that it isn't because of AI. So of course you have not encountered the thing your sensors can not sense.
And just like CGI, there are some characteristic failures that allow you to realize that the failure is due to AI misuse. So you do identify AI failures, and as a result, all the AI you can identify is a failure.
But your sensors could never have given any other result. So it's not a surprise that your sensors give you that result. The result has no meaning.
Has all software only gotten worse? Really? I’m not particularly against that worldview, although I would probably argue software was degrading before AI.
The Linux kernel uses AI and it’s patched a lot of vulnerabilities. Is that bad, or lower quality software? No, it’s the opposite.
AI is fundamentally a tool. AI makes it much easier to write higher quality software because you can write more tests, use more comprehensive tests, do more thorough security research, and much more.