Yeah I mean, that sounds reasonable. There is a big difference between generating all your game assets with AI and using Claude to refactor methods and write docs.
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2026
32 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
13202 readers
197 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Big difference but I would argue both require disclosure because I will opt out of any of it. Add it to the long list of bullshit in the gaming industry I will not condone with my money.
The problem is that it's unenforcable. I bet that's one of the reasons valve is rephrasing.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. Better to make the rule and enforce it where they can than to just forget about it. Maybe some honest devs will disclose it.
Good luck finding a dev that doesn't want to use/ isn't forced to use / doesn't lie about using AI tools.
Ar this point if we're to shun all AI tools we might just give up the hobby.
While on principle I don't care about people using llms to refactor code in my games, I still think that the AI is inevitable narrative is a bit jarring and that study in particular has a huge conflict of interest issue.
I have considered it many times.
Jesus christ can we please stop trying to automate art and content creation
As long as it is used as a tool that has human refinement as part of the process it would be comparable to CGI replacing background matte paintings and motion capture replacing manual manipulation of CGI to make movement. Gollum worked because of the blend of technologies that were replacing existing practices, but as a new approach and not a cost cutting measure.
The problem is entirely about using the output directly as a replacement for humans to cut costs, not having another tool that can be used as part of a process. This is coming from someone who absolutely hates LLM and genAI slop, which is taking the horrible approach.
That is, in fact, not the problem in its entirety.
The move to CGI didn't require stealing the artwork of the matte painters. The move to mocap didn't require raping the land of all its water. The move to either didn't require all of the world supply of computing power, leaving it only affordable for the world's richest. The move to either didn't create a corporate circle jerk that the damn near whole world economy was propped up by.
I mean, if were talking about efficiency tools for artists to use rather than straight up automatically generating the assets (not sure what those tools would be at the moment, but I've not been following what the AI industry actually releases for awhile because it's always seemed a bit useless), then the result should be an increase in the output of those artists rather than replacing them with statistical amalgam.