this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2025
655 points (99.0% liked)

Gaming

4198 readers
43 users here now

The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community

For news, discussions and memes!


Community Rules

This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:

You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.

What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:


If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A Valve artist has defended AI disclosures on storefronts like Steam, saying they only scare those with "low effort" products.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

You’re talking about your supposed right to enforce your idea of ethics on people who don’t agree with you, in a situation where there is no universal consensus, there is no law backing you up, and all supposed harms are abstract, indirect, and essentially a dispute about market competition.

"illegal = unethical" is a fascist take

The harms are real, but it's also about control over your creations that you own, would you want your creations stolen, copied, mashed up with other stolen creations and the occational public domain thing, and extruded as slop?

Or a better question, do you want the right for your creations not to be used like this? Surely it would be good if you could specify AI policies in licenses and they were legally enforceable?

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

“illegal = unethical” is a fascist take

That is not why I'm mentioning it, I agree that legality and ethics are separate. The point is that regardless of who is right about the ethics of this, applying vigilante enforcement to this kind of situation is unhinged, and signals about whether something is ok to do like legality do matter for that. If such popular enforcement is ever justified, it's in situations where people are getting hurt where there is little ambiguity and clear malice, that's absolutely not the case here.

[–] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

so having rules against AI on a platform is "vigilante enforcement"??? no. what a bullshit take. is the "no bigotry" rule on a discord server "vigilante enforcement" of anti-bigotry ideas?

"vigilante enforcement" would be DDoS-ing AI

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago

so having rules against AI on a platform is “vigilante enforcement”

I feel like you're dramatically misinterpreting my statements on purpose now, this one is more obvious. I'm on the fence about whether disclosure requirements are a good idea, but am not emphatically condemning it, it's understandable that they have them. But I am emphatically condemning efforts to use AI disclosures to brigade and harass developers, and I think the existence of those efforts is the reason why requiring disclosure is questionable.