In a statement, 11-Bit Studios confirms that an instance of AI-generated text appears in The Alters due to an “internal oversight”
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/11-bit-studios-acknowledges-the-use-of-ai-generated-text-in-the-alters
Just so we’re clear, the first pass of localization of every game you’ve played in the past decade has been machine-generated.
Which is not to say the final product was, people would then go over the whole text database and change it as needed, but it’s been frequent practice for a while for things like subtitles and translations to start from a machine generated first draft, not just in videogames but in media in general. People are turning around 24h localization for TV in some places, it’s pretty nuts.
Machine generated voices are also very standard as placeholders. I’m… kinda surprised nobody has slipped up on that post-AI panic, although I guess historically nobody noticed when you didn’t clean up a machine-translated subtitle, but people got good at ensuring all your VO lines got VOd because you definitely notice those.
As with a lot of the rest of the AI panic, I’m confused about the boundaries here. I mean, Google Translate has used machine learning for a long time, as have most machine translation engines. The robot voices that were used as placeholders up until a few years ago would probably be fine if one slipped up, but newer games often use very natural-sounding placeholders, so if one of those slips I imagine it’d be a bit of drama.
I guess I don’t know what “AI generated” means anymore.
I haven’t bumped into the offending text in the game (yet), but I’m playing it in English, so I guess I wouldn’t have anyway? Neither the article nor the disclosure are very clear.
That said, the game is pretty good, if anybody cares.
historically nobody noticed when you didn’t clean up a machine-translated subtitle
I don’t know about that, it’s super noticeable when that happens, it’s just that it mostly affects languages other than English, so it did not get noticed by Western media unless there is a review bombing campaign after a particularly atrocious localization
As a non-native English speaker, let me tell you, terrible localization was very much a thing that happened well before machine translation, so that by itself (and more subtle typos or one-off errors) was definitely not enough to infer that someone had forgotten to fix a machine-translated line once.
You can definitely tell when something has been machine-translated and not fixed, but the real challenge is lack of context. This leads to nonsensical localization even today, whether it’s human or automated, especially in crowdsourced localizations, which are frequent in open source software. I contribute to some on occassion and maaaan, do I wish well intentioned people in that space would stop contributing to projects they don’t use/lines they haven’t seen in situ.
but I’m playing it in English, so I guess I wouldn’t have anyway?
The text in the screenshot in the reddit post they link is in English
I hadn’t clicked through to the Reddit thing (for obvious reasons). The example in the article proper is in a Portuguese subtitle, but now that you pointed me at it and I did check the Reddit thread… well, that text is not legible in game unless you really try, so yeah, I hadn’t read it. I’m guessing that’s the only English instance?
Machine generated voices are also very standard as placeholders. I’m… kinda surprised nobody has slipped up on that post-AI panic
Diablo 4 had this recently, where an obviously Microsoft Sam like robot voice made it through, and a few people lost their minds.
What an insanely non-issue to clutch one’s pearls at… Between Luddites and Trumpites, this is the worst timeline…
Really appropriate example, actually.
As the Industrial Revolution began, workers naturally worried about being displaced by increasingly efficient machines. But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.”
Me and the boys being worried for our jobs as automation stretches onwards and just wanting some level of guarantee that good paying jobs will still be available 😭
For the record, the word as a general noun is widely recognized to mean what everybody thinks it means:
Luddite noun Ludd·ite ˈlə-ˌdīt : one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change
One of the weirder annoyances of the AI moral panic is how often you see this spiral of pedantry about the historical luddites whenever someone brings up the word as a pejorative.
I mean, fair rhetorical play, I suppose, in that it creates a very good incentive to not bring it up at all. If the goal was to avoid being called a luddite as an insult or as shorthand for dismissing AI criticism as outright technophobia I suppose that is mission accomplished, disingenuous as it is.
Someone disagreeing with you =/= moral panic
That is correct.
It is also correct that someone disagreeing with me can be doing so because of a moral panic. Our agreement is entirely disconnected to whether there is a moral panic at play or not.
For the record, I think “AI” is profoundly problematic in multiple ways.
This is also unrelated to whether there is a moral panic about it. Which there absolutely is.
long winded way to say your objections are logical and sound while everyone else is just having a panic, you little moralizer you.
Well, no, it’s a concise way to say some objections are logical and sound and some are stemming from a moral panic.
Whether I agree with the objections on each camp is, again, irrelevant.
I disagree with some of the non-moral panic objections, too, and I’m happy to have that conversation.
Four possible types of objections in this scenario, if you want to be “logical” about it:
- Objections that aren’t moral panic that I agree with.
- Objections that aren’t moral panic that I disagree with.
- Objections that are moral panic that I disagree with.
- Objections that are moral panic that I agree with.
I think there aren’t any in that last group, but there are certainly at least some objections in all other three.
Ah, the always welcome “and so what?” comment, with a side of name calling for some extra spice.
It wouldn’t be lemmy if we weren’t always in a moral size measuring contest.
Like I’m not the biggest fan of gen ai but a generic computer screen feels like a good use case for filler text.
Showing that even a small non-issue use of AI will be detected is a pretty strong incentive for other games to disclose that willingly. Otherwise, why would they admit to it if no one can tell? Morals??? 😂😂😂
Why should they “admit” to it when NeoLuddites with pitchforks and no ability to reason lurk around every corner?
A substantial part of the market not wanting AI in their products is actually a great reason for them to disclose when it is or isn’t used
Thank you. At least some people on this abomination of an antisocial media still seem to use their brain.
