tcaud wrote on 2026-10-13, 23:36:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Google-lets-AI- … .1419166.0.html

Should we be worried? There will be a crazy amount of fan games popping up, and the copyright lawyers will likely be out in force like never before trying to quash them all.

People are going to have to make a stand against AI/LLMs, as in, stop with the fence-sitting 'nuanced' position(it's not, you just enjoy convenience) of allowing LLMs for certain things and rejecting it only when it's annoying. LLM-coded software is never ethical unless you train your own model with your own dataset that YOU own, and nobody does that. People will disapprove of AI "art" because it's gross and unethical and that position is easy to understand, but what is most difficult to get across to people in my experience is that AI code is exactly the same argument.

AI code relies on stolen labor, just as how AI art does. People who are against AI art should advocate against AI code as well.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant. It's because it is.

So long as it’s identified as AI very prominently, is segregated into its own section completely separate from other normally produced games outside normal searches and has a clear usuable money back refund , I have no real issue with it.

There is already tons of broken slop in estores including on even switch and it’s a big problem.

Realistically the worst offense is kidslop, kids under 15 shouldn’t see or interact with ai at all.

Needs to be very strong walls similar to pg13 movie ratings that rate the degree of ai (text only, speach, partial video or full), how janky it is while keeping it fully separate so you can’t see ai unless you explicitly want it.

Should be universal across all mediums

megatog615 wrote on Yesterday, 00:26:

People are going to have to make a stand against AI/LLMs, as in, stop with the fence-sitting 'nuanced' position(it's not, you ju […]
Show full quote

tcaud wrote on 2026-10-13, 23:36:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Google-lets-AI- … .1419166.0.html

Should we be worried? There will be a crazy amount of fan games popping up, and the copyright lawyers will likely be out in force like never before trying to quash them all.

People are going to have to make a stand against AI/LLMs, as in, stop with the fence-sitting 'nuanced' position(it's not, you just enjoy convenience) of allowing LLMs for certain things and rejecting it only when it's annoying. LLM-coded software is never ethical unless you train your own model with your own dataset that YOU own, and nobody does that. People will disapprove of AI "art" because it's gross and unethical and that position is easy to understand, but what is most difficult to get across to people in my experience is that AI code is exactly the same argument.

AI code relies on stolen labor, just as how AI art does. People who are against AI art should advocate against AI code as well.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant. It's because it is.

I don't normally get involved in AI debates but ..

Should we also not be worried about humans who have read and trained from books/literature/media ? Is this not the exact same thing ? or does it coming from a human give it a free pass? Training data is essentially no different than the books in a library, do you consider the people using the books to be stealing the information they learn from them ?

The AI was created, trained and prompted by a human to do what it does, it only ever creates what its told to create, it has no free will of its own and thus all of its output is no different than the output of a hammer and anvil used by a blacksmith.

I personally see AI as nothing more than a tool, it requires a human to prompt it and use it for it to create anything, as for its training data ...no different than how humans learn from the collective Knowledge and Art we have stolen over the centuries from each other.

AI Slop is a different debate and since that slop required human input to even exist ..well ...garbage in garbage out and there is a huge swarth of human created Slop out there and we are happy to give that a free pass. (Just visit your local Art gallery to see the human created slop or Steam for the human created slop games there too, or just check out Netflix which is peddling slop like its going extinct)

AI is nothing more than a tool and I have seen some truly amazing things be created with it, I am not going to pan something simply because how how it came to exist, if its good and does what it was created to do then great Ill use it, I don't care if it was created by a human or generated with the help of AI.

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 00:51:

I don't normally get involved in AI debates but .. […]
Show full quote

megatog615 wrote on Yesterday, 00:26:

People are going to have to make a stand against AI/LLMs, as in, stop with the fence-sitting 'nuanced' position(it's not, you ju […]
Show full quote

tcaud wrote on 2026-10-13, 23:36:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Google-lets-AI- … .1419166.0.html

Should we be worried? There will be a crazy amount of fan games popping up, and the copyright lawyers will likely be out in force like never before trying to quash them all.

People are going to have to make a stand against AI/LLMs, as in, stop with the fence-sitting 'nuanced' position(it's not, you just enjoy convenience) of allowing LLMs for certain things and rejecting it only when it's annoying. LLM-coded software is never ethical unless you train your own model with your own dataset that YOU own, and nobody does that. People will disapprove of AI "art" because it's gross and unethical and that position is easy to understand, but what is most difficult to get across to people in my experience is that AI code is exactly the same argument.

AI code relies on stolen labor, just as how AI art does. People who are against AI art should advocate against AI code as well.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant. It's because it is.

I don't normally get involved in AI debates but ..

Should we also not be worried about humans who have read and trained from books/literature/media ?. Is this not the exact same thing ? or does it coming from a human give it a free pass? Training data is essentially no different than the books in a library, do you consider the people using the books to be stealing the information they learn from them ?

The AI was created, trained and prompted by a human to do what it does, it only ever creates what its told to create, it has no free will of its own and thus all of its output is no different than the output of a hammer and anvil used by a blacksmith.

I personally see AI as nothing more than a hammer and anvil, it requires a human to prompt it and use it for it to create anything as for its training data ...no different than how humans learn from the collective knowledge we have stolen over the centuries from each other.

AI Slop is a different debate and since that slop required human input to even exist ..well ...garbage in garbage out.

Sorry bro but that’s the least damaging aspect of ai.
The issue you bring up is for Businesses to sort out as by the law (which many aspects I don’t agree with) is pretty explicit that what ai does is illegal and not as transformative as people assume.

Just because magic box go boom does not mean ai isn’t plain dumb in how it does its thing. (99% is copy paste iterate of what’s already been done)
Whether I copy and paste snippets from one source or a thousand doesn’t make it better.

Whether I agree with the duration or terms of how patent, copywrite and registered marks work or not and the damage they cause to creativity is irrelevant in this case.

I would argue for a tiered system more leaniancy and expanded free use to small fully human content creators with heavier regulation on large entities or ai.

Ai has has too many examples of real world damage and danger to be treated as “tots no different “ as many unexpected elements can get thrown into otherwise harmless ai nonsense.
The argument that “I” use my own homemade models responsibly doesn’t mean that others don’t just pull down unsorted content from everywhere and the kitchen sink.

rmay635703 wrote on Yesterday, 01:03:

Sorry bro but that’s the least damaging aspect of ai. The issue you bring up is for Businesses to sort out as by the law (which […]
Show full quote

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 00:51:

I don't normally get involved in AI debates but .. […]
Show full quote

megatog615 wrote on Yesterday, 00:26:

People are going to have to make a stand against AI/LLMs, as in, stop with the fence-sitting 'nuanced' position(it's not, you just enjoy convenience) of allowing LLMs for certain things and rejecting it only when it's annoying. LLM-coded software is never ethical unless you train your own model with your own dataset that YOU own, and nobody does that. People will disapprove of AI "art" because it's gross and unethical and that position is easy to understand, but what is most difficult to get across to people in my experience is that AI code is exactly the same argument.

AI code relies on stolen labor, just as how AI art does. People who are against AI art should advocate against AI code as well.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant. It's because it is.

I don't normally get involved in AI debates but ..

Should we also not be worried about humans who have read and trained from books/literature/media ?. Is this not the exact same thing ? or does it coming from a human give it a free pass? Training data is essentially no different than the books in a library, do you consider the people using the books to be stealing the information they learn from them ?

The AI was created, trained and prompted by a human to do what it does, it only ever creates what its told to create, it has no free will of its own and thus all of its output is no different than the output of a hammer and anvil used by a blacksmith.

I personally see AI as nothing more than a hammer and anvil, it requires a human to prompt it and use it for it to create anything as for its training data ...no different than how humans learn from the collective knowledge we have stolen over the centuries from each other.

AI Slop is a different debate and since that slop required human input to even exist ..well ...garbage in garbage out.

Sorry bro but that’s the least damaging aspect of ai.
The issue you bring up is for Businesses to sort out as by the law (which many aspects I don’t agree with) is pretty explicit that what ai does is illegal and not as transformative as people assume.

Just because magic box go boom does not mean ai isn’t plain dumb in how it does its thing. (99% is copy paste iterate of what’s already been done)
Whether I copy and paste snippets from one source or a thousand doesn’t make it better.

Whether I agree with the duration or terms of how patent, copywrite and registered marks work or not and the damage they cause to creativity is irrelevant in this case.

I would argue for a tiered system more leaniancy and expanded free use to small fully human content creators with heavier regulation on large entities or ai.

Ai has has too many examples of real world damage and danger to be treated as “tots no different “

And you are treating it as if its a unique identity with free will, which its not (YET), it will only ever create what it is prompted BY A HUMAN to do, so everything you have an issue with is with that human. A tool is only as good as the human trained to use it.

As for regulation . .fuck no, we have far to much already and it why the world is in the mess its in. There is far too much corporate and government oversight and I for one do not want more of it, I want less.

Remember AI nonsense is Human created/generated, we created the AI and are now shocked that its behaving like us ...colour me not at all surprised. Safe to say we cannot put this litter of kittens back in the bag and its up to us to deal with our own creation.

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 01:10:

rmay635703 wrote on Yesterday, 01:03:

Sorry bro but that’s the least damaging aspect of ai. The issue you bring up is for Businesses to sort out as by the law (which […]
Show full quote

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 00:51:

I don't normally get involved in AI debates but .. […]
Show full quote

I don't normally get involved in AI debates but ..

Should we also not be worried about humans who have read and trained from books/literature/media ?. Is this not the exact same thing ? or does it coming from a human give it a free pass? Training data is essentially no different than the books in a library, do you consider the people using the books to be stealing the information they learn from them ?

The AI was created, trained and prompted by a human to do what it does, it only ever creates what its told to create, it has no free will of its own and thus all of its output is no different than the output of a hammer and anvil used by a blacksmith.

I personally see AI as nothing more than a hammer and anvil, it requires a human to prompt it and use it for it to create anything as for its training data ...no different than how humans learn from the collective knowledge we have stolen over the centuries from each other.

AI Slop is a different debate and since that slop required human input to even exist ..well ...garbage in garbage out.

Sorry bro but that’s the least damaging aspect of ai.
The issue you bring up is for Businesses to sort out as by the law (which many aspects I don’t agree with) is pretty explicit that what ai does is illegal and not as transformative as people assume.

Just because magic box go boom does not mean ai isn’t plain dumb in how it does its thing. (99% is copy paste iterate of what’s already been done)
Whether I copy and paste snippets from one source or a thousand doesn’t make it better.

Whether I agree with the duration or terms of how patent, copywrite and registered marks work or not and the damage they cause to creativity is irrelevant in this case.

I would argue for a tiered system more leaniancy and expanded free use to small fully human content creators with heavier regulation on large entities or ai.

Ai has has too many examples of real world damage and danger to be treated as “tots no different “

And you are treating it as if its a unique identity with free will, which its not (YET), it will only ever create what it is prompted BY A HUMAN to do, so everything you have an issue with is with that human. A tool is only as good as the human trained to use it.

As for regulation . .fuck no, we have far to much already and it why the world is in the mess its in. There is far too much corporate and government oversight and I for one do not want more of it, I want less.

Ai systems have already caused people and children to commit suicide ,
Like it or not you need regulation or you end up with illegal wars, blatant theft and hyperinflation.

We don’t appear to be able to act responsibly without boundaries.

Ai is not something that we win or gain anything useful from so we should slow down to figure out how much nonsense we get. Before diving head first into a concrete pond.

rmay635703 wrote on Yesterday, 01:14:

Ai systems have already caused people and children to commit suicide , Like it or not you need regulation or you end up with ill […]
Show full quote

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 01:10:

rmay635703 wrote on Yesterday, 01:03:

Sorry bro but that’s the least damaging aspect of ai. The issue you bring up is for Businesses to sort out as by the law (which […]
Show full quote

Sorry bro but that’s the least damaging aspect of ai.
The issue you bring up is for Businesses to sort out as by the law (which many aspects I don’t agree with) is pretty explicit that what ai does is illegal and not as transformative as people assume.

Just because magic box go boom does not mean ai isn’t plain dumb in how it does its thing. (99% is copy paste iterate of what’s already been done)
Whether I copy and paste snippets from one source or a thousand doesn’t make it better.

Whether I agree with the duration or terms of how patent, copywrite and registered marks work or not and the damage they cause to creativity is irrelevant in this case.

I would argue for a tiered system more leaniancy and expanded free use to small fully human content creators with heavier regulation on large entities or ai.

Ai has has too many examples of real world damage and danger to be treated as “tots no different “

And you are treating it as if its a unique identity with free will, which its not (YET), it will only ever create what it is prompted BY A HUMAN to do, so everything you have an issue with is with that human. A tool is only as good as the human trained to use it.

As for regulation . .fuck no, we have far to much already and it why the world is in the mess its in. There is far too much corporate and government oversight and I for one do not want more of it, I want less.

Ai systems have already caused people and children to commit suicide ,
Like it or not you need regulation or you end up with illegal wars, blatant theft and hyperinflation.

We don’t appear to be able to act responsibly without boundaries

Not touching your first sentence, that discussion is not for Vogons or really any place on line and is so far off topic its orbiting Pluto.

None of what you list there will be stopped by regulation, criminals do not care about regulations or laws and will do as they please regardless. The only people affected by regulations and laws will be the people already doing the right thing.

Ai has already proven to be incredibly useful in a wide range of fields and especially in medicine and science, the fact you believe its not tells me far more about you than anything else you have written thus far.

So out of respect to myself and others Im going to walk out of this discussion before it gets derailed.

tcaud wrote on 2026-10-13, 23:36:

Should we be worried?

There's already plenty of humans who reject whatever obvious sterile thing CEOs cool-slap their percieved God machines for shitting out.

Keep the bankruptcies coming!!!

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 00:51:

Should we also not be worried about humans who have read and trained from books/literature/media ? Is this not the exact same thing ? or does it coming from a human give it a free pass? Training data is essentially no different than the books in a library, do you consider the people using the books to be stealing the information they learn from them ?

No it is not the exact same thing. Books and other media are made for humans to consume within the bounds of a social contract, for the purpose of entertainment or learning. AI/LLMs are an egregious violation of that social contract. Consumtion of this media for datasets is for mass plagiarism.

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 00:51:

The AI was created, trained and prompted by a human to do what it does, it only ever creates what its told to create, it has no free will of its own and thus all of its output is no different than the output of a hammer and anvil used by a blacksmith.

I personally see AI as nothing more than a tool, it requires a human to prompt it and use it for it to create anything, as for its training data ...no different than how humans learn from the collective Knowledge and Art we have stolen over the centuries from each other.

Created and trained on stolen labor and prompted by humans to generate(not create in the human sense) what is by average the most likely word, pixel, etc in sequence. Comparing GenAI to humans using tools is a step in the wrong direction in your argument and I suspect anyone who makes this claim is already on the pipeline toward AI psychosis. I don't care what your personal feelings about it are. You should stop using LLMs right now.

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 00:51:

AI Slop is a different debate and since that slop required human input to even exist ..well ...garbage in garbage out and there is a huge swarth of human created Slop out there and we are happy to give that a free pass. (Just visit your local Art gallery to see the human created slop or Steam for the human created slop games there too, or just check out Netflix which is peddling slop like its going extinct)

It's not a different debate and I refuse to treat it as such. All GenAI output is slop. No amount of "prompt engineering" will turn such output into gold. The only media or software or anything else worth consuming is made without plagiarism and GenAI is purely plagiarism.

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 00:51:

AI is nothing more than a tool and I have seen some truly amazing things be created with it, I am not going to pan something simply because how how it came to exist, if its good and does what it was created to do then great Ill use it, I don't care if it was created by a human or generated with the help of AI.

I don't give a damn if you think it's amazing. This is the third time in your post that you've stated this claim that AI is "nothing but a tool" but have failed to substantiate it.

(edit, adding one more thing to reply to)

Trashbytes wrote on Yesterday, 01:21:

Ai has already proven to be incredibly useful in a wide range of fields and especially in medicine and science, the fact you believe its not tells me far more about you than anything else you have written thus far.

Do not compare the marketing term "AI" to scientific usage of machine learning, which does not use unethical or stolen datasets. ML for science has been around for decades and has never grown to the cancerous tumor that is "AI" forced upon us by fascist techbros who don't understand or care for consent.

I for one, don't intend to be on the lower slopes of Mount Stupid when the avalanche comes crashing down it. That's a case where standing in the way, isn't standing in the way, it's just standing in the casualty zone.

It's like chainsaws, some people can juggle them, some can carve awesome sculptures with them, some can accurately fell a tree and harvest lumber. But if you hand them out willy nilly there's gonna be a hell of a lot of lost limbs, deep gashes, trees falling where they ain't meant to, etc... and those with no common sense in the first place, are gonna be in the latter category rather than advance to the first category with careful practice.

BitWrangler wrote on Yesterday, 03:20:

It's like chainsaws, some people can juggle them, some can carve awesome sculptures with them, some can accurately fell a tree and harvest lumber. But if you hand them out willy nilly there's gonna be a hell of a lot of lost limbs, deep gashes, trees falling where they ain't meant to, etc... and those with no common sense in the first place, are gonna be in the latter category rather than advance to the first category with careful practice.

The trouble is that its use can find its way into every decision from a kid in his basement to the board room, to the investment house, to your insurance claim, on up to matters of state without proper validation at any point.

Nobody said big brother had to be smart, real world output to decisions are being made by ai with real world consequences.

Hello, interloper here, responding to some reports of ongoing misbehaviour in this topic. (If you want to discuss this message with me, please send a PM or use the contact form instead of derailing this topic with a meta-discussion.)

I feel disappointed that for the second time this week I am tasked with reminding folks—including some of the same people as before—about how we all agree to conduct ourselves as a community.

No matter how wrong someone else is here or how wrong you feel they are, it is always possible to register disagreement—even strong disagreement—without resorting to insults or personal attacks. Everyone here, including me, agrees to try to do this. Our mutual benefit in following these rules is having the ability to discuss things which may be difficult, share ideas and opinions that not everyone will agree with without being threatened, and hopefully learn from—and teach others—new and interesting things. When these rules are broken, it ruins the conversation for everybody, including you. Eventually, it makes it impossible for this place to continue to exist at all.

I’m not expecting anyone to change their attitude overnight, but if this is the second time you’ve seen a message like this in the past week, and some of your posts have been deleted, and you want to keep being a part of this community, I need you to please start trying harder to be more curious about understanding others’ perspectives, and to be less indignant when they differ from your own. I understand how hard can be to resist the urge to blurt out a sick burn—especially when you’ve been habituated to similar toxic behaviour being actively rewarded in other places—and I know that no one will get this right 100% of the time. But there is a difference between trying and falling short from time to time, and not trying at all. If you don’t feel like trying—or you think you shouldn’t have to if everyone else isn’t already perfect—there are many other places online for this sort of discourse, so please go there instead.

A conversation where you can actually learn new and interesting things requires a willingness to be wrong, and a willingness to provide actual evidence that others can evaluate, question, and reply to in a constructive way. If this particular discussion is to continue, I would ask that vague and grandiose claims be backed up by actual evidence: first-hand experiences, studies, data, etc. There can also be value in discussing how this affects a hypothetical future and what to do about it—but not if those ideas start and end with the attitude “you’re stupid for thinking anything else”. Regurgitating the same worn clichés about AI generally will just make this another boring topic, so hopefully we can avoid getting stuck in that trap too.

Do you have more to add about Google Playground, or have a reply to someone else’s thoughts, and can follow the rules? If so, great, please continue. Otherwise, please don’t ruin things for everyone else.

Thanks,

Given it's billionaires/trillionaire at the helm of the slop factories, there's plenty to punch up on the subject. Just some latch onto defending it like it's a new alleged culture war (it's more of a class war). I've seen a lot of this routine here already

We could talk about how "tim is a dork" (jazz jackrabbit, 1994) with the recent UE6 announcement about being all-in on AI and then today's self-admitted vibecoded Epic launcher update. There's plenty of self-respecting game developers extremely frustrated about this. Also it's amazing how much gullible VC latch onto something so unsustainable that are just gliding on the same futurist buzzwords and mantras that get repeated here (that were also previously used for blockchain bullshit, hmm.)...

People quickly forget that humans are more than capable of generating vast quantities of slop on their own without AI, Steam Green light and Early Access before gen AI was evidence of this, same with Itch.io ...so much Human slop and yet when AI as a tool is used to create slop people get all up in arms about it as if its never happened before and its something new.

The free pass for human slop while hating the AI slop is ..perplexing as both are human generated one by hands the other by an AI prompt yet both require the human and don't exist otherwise.

Google Playground is nothing new, itll be used to create slop for a while and then itll change as more experienced and talented people start using it, AI isn't the demon people want it to be and its quality of output is directly tied to the person using it.

Personally I'm still on the fence about it all but I'm willing to keep a cautious open mind towards it as I have seen that in the right hands it can be exceptionally useful and certainly speed things along. I have also seen the outright damage it can cause in the wrong hands.

As for Tim and Co ...lost cause, that fella is in bed with the AI bros much like Jensen and nVidia. (This is the part I hate, we can see their agenda form the other side of a blackhole, but we are not in any position to change it .. its a money numbers game and they have more)

I'm going to keep a cautious mind open to this new tool and not waste my time or energy hating it, I don't believe itll replace humans or even wants to replace us but I do see it becoming yet another tool in our arsenal for dealing with problems and questions we face.

Never been a better time to be a retro gamer

kolderman wrote on Today, 02:23:

Never been a better time to be a retro gamer

I fully agree !

Its a problem that will sort itself out because either people wont buy those games because they are junk or people do buy them because theyre not.

"Time will tell...
Sooner or later time will tell."

ElectroSoldier wrote on Today, 09:35:

Its a problem that will sort itself out because either people wont buy those games because they are junk or people do buy them because they're not.

"Time will tell...
Sooner or later time will tell."

Funnily enough Steam and Itch.io are also evidence that your point is on point, people were not buying the slop from Humans or AI and Steam and Itch both made sure it got buried where people could not see it, this has lead to less of it being front and center and thus less of it being bought and by extension less of it being created. Its naturally still there but there is far less of it now then there used to be, Steam has also gotten far better at weeding out the slop before it even hits the store. People are also pretty damn good at spotting slop too and reviews on store pages certainly help with the above regulation.

The market is self regulating for slop of any kind from any source, so the fear from AI slop is unjustified as the market itself makes sure its short lived.