518
Epic Games CEO says it’s ‘really irresponsible’ of Steam to make studios disclose AI use | VGC - 25th Jun 2026
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
518 points (98.3% liked)
Gaming
28020 readers
34 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, they should tell if Ai is used and what is being done. There is no line. Every single human has the right to decide for themselves, even to boykott because the stars didn't align. Its their right. I don't know if the gender of the developer should disclosed or not, that is an entirely different topic with an entirely different meaning. Maybe you don't understand the difference between Ai and human? Because the gender of the human has nothing to do with the issues the Ai brings to the table. And why mention if they used Windows or Linux or whatever operating system? What is your thought process to bring this into our discussion?
I think you try desperately to muddy the discussion and the critique brought on the table, with non relevant examples as a counter argument.
Windows, Max and Linux are tools in game development, same as Visual Studio, Photoshop or AI. Only one of them is being singled out for disclosure.
I think you seem to believe AI makes games in a vacuum, and there are no people involved. It's not the AI that suffers due to the boycott by the ignorant, it's the people who make the games. You like to desperately pretend that no people are involved in the process, but that is a delusion. You're hurting people with your prejudice, not AI.
Because it does not matter if you use Windows or Visual Studio. These are not generative tools based on stolen data. Ai is. If you don't understand the difference and why people have an issue with Ai, then no wonder we don't agree on.
What data is missing? It's stolen in the same way an artist "steals" art by watching a Disney movie. Or a musician "steals" it by listening to an album. Nothing was stolen.
And Visual Studio is very much so generative. You generate programs with it using code; code that by your definition was "stolen" from a textbook, a blog, or a StackOverflow post.
No, it is not. Data is extracted and copied and analyzed with machines. As said before, you seem not to understand the different of a Large Language Model dataset/program and a human. This is not the same, nor should it be treated like the same. It's like suggesting that a Bash script you wrote can download, extract data from books and then you claim its the same as how humans watch films. It is not.
No. Stolen means not respecting the license and not even giving credit.
It is only different because you say it's different. Whether human or machine, in both cases it's learning from the material. There's no law in any county against a machine learning from content. Whether there should be is an entirely different discussion.
Stealing has a definition: "Stealing is the act of taking, using, or appropriating another person's property, ideas, or services without right, permission, or legal consent, with the intention of permanently depriving the true owner of their use or value"
Permanently depriving the owner. It means something is taken and is now gone. Nothing is missing. Nothing was stolen.
Ai is not "learning". These are autocomplete algorithms. They don't understand it. As said copying into a database and then just autocompleting based on probability is not learning and thinking. There is no reasoning. Its fundamentally different to how humans learn.
Whats the source for the definition and why is that definition correct and mine wrong? Did you ask an Ai? That's probably you don't have a source.
That's when you talk about real goods, not code. You forgot your Ai to tell that. In software and art stealing is if you take it and use it without permission, and possibly give no credit.
In example, if you see a photo on the net that is sold to you, but you copy it and use it without permission, without respecting the license, then its stolen image. The owner does not know, nor did you rob the ability for him to use the image. Another example is to take an Open Source project that is licensed under GPL, but then use it without respecting the license and sell the product on Steam for money. That is stolen Open Source project.
You literally don't understand what you're talking about. It's not a database, no copies are being made. The weights of digital synapses are adjusted in a neural network, the same as happens in our brains when we learn something. For all intents and purposes it is indeed learning from an example, not making a copy. There's no "auto-complete" involved, anymore than there is when a human creates something using something else as inspiration.
No copies are being made, no money is being made by something being sold. You can download the models and use them for free. You are only paying for access to the hardware to host the neural network, not the model itself. Again, nothing has been stolen, and no copies have been made. It's learning from data, same as people do from open source projects.
If there was a license that said you are not allowed to learn from reading the code, then you might have a point, but there are none of those that exist to my knowledge. If you weren't meant to learn from them then they wouldn't be publicly available.