Skip to main content

Browse GamesGame JamsUpload GameDeveloper LogsCommunity
Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
Punished Felix10 days ago

My personal interpretation:

  • Machine translations should be labeled as AI generated content.
  • Text to speech depends on whether or not 1) the text was AI generated, and 2) whether or not the intent of the generated speech is to replace human speech. For example, eSpeak is a Text-to-Speech engine that is machine-generated, but nobody would assume an eSpeak voice is intended to replace voice acting. But AI voice generated samples intended to sound like VO should be marked as AI generated.
  • Enemy AI is not the same as AI generated content.
  • Since the content of spelling/grammar mistakes is still produced by a human, this is not AI generated, unless the AI generates literal sentences/paragraphs as corrections.
  • Copiloting code assistance should definitely be marked if the source code is being distributed. For games, I think if the developer intentionally uses AI assistance it should be marked. Also, protip developers - it doesn’t actually make you a better developer and can even increase code churn in your projects.
Reply
redonihunter5 days ago

I am curious. Why would machine translation count as ai generated content? For one, you do not even know if it is "ai" or not. Machine translations are older than the current things that are misleadingly/confusingly called "ai".

There is no artificial creativity for lack of a better expression. A translation is usually 1:1, if you use a translation site. You always get the same result for the same input. If you use an "ai" to generate an image or text from a prompt, this is not so. And even if a llm is used under the hood to translate something, there still is little to no content created. The content is translated, not created.

I am especially curious about your reasoning, since you would count grammer correction not as ai gen. As you wrote, the content is still created by the human. This is also true for a translation. One can define grammar correction as translation from "broken English" to "formal correct English".

Regarding tts, why would it matter, if the text was ai gen or not? If the text is ai gen, it stays ai gen, no matter how you deliver the information. Be it by written word or by spoken word - even if a human would read it out loud.

Also why would the intent matter? If I generate an image but do not "intend" to replace human generated images, it also does not change the nature of the content creation process. tts is tricky, because the content would be a speech pattern. The llm ai gen stuff works different for that, if at all. And there are professional solutions where they just pay a voice actor to record samples to generate a computer voice. This is also possible without modern llm tech, but I assume it is an easier task with state of the art tech.

For me, the defining attribute to recognise the modern ai stuff, or large language model generative systems is the prompt. You tell the system what to create. Like, "smoky voice of an elderly woman with a southerner dialect". Or "80's robot voice". Then the llm digs in it's training data to create something that would fit to that prompt according to it's understanding of the language. That the systems kinda understand the language in the prompt and can match it to the data is the big breakthrough in my opinion.

Reply
Punished Felix5 days ago

I don’t think you understand the process of translation or creative writing very well. For simple texts, machine translation can offer some context through translating dictionary meanings and matching patterns, much is lost because of the interpretation of the translation and the word choice that the individual translator chooses.

When a translator translates, there are often phrases that are impossible to directly translate. The translator requires some creative input to figure out what is the best representation of the expression - which extends beyond just word choice and arrangements. These arrangements are formulated between the translator’s biases, what parts of the text interests them, the expectations of translating similar texts from other writers etc.

Generative AI like ChatGPT don’t have these capacities, it simply will use a model trained on general use between these languages, so it has a real potential impact to the artistic quality of the work. I think that if you are using a translation engine to translate the content of your game, you should inform your audience because of that distinct difference.

Similarly, copiloting assistance in programming does not have the same kind of interaction or experience that an individual developer can provide. In fact, copiloting assistance has generally been correlated with decreased quality of code. A big part of this is because the creator is no longer really creating a large part of their own work.

Compare this with using AI assisted grammar assistance. The writer still has full control over the language of the document. They can ignore suggestions made by the editor. And unlike something like a copilot development mode, grammar can be checked independently of the production of the content itself. While its nice to have correct grammar, it’s not essential to the delivery of the product, unlike code, translation etc. I also think it can just be very difficult for creators to trace the influence of AI generated content through something like grammar checks, while using a translation service, ChatGPT generated text, AI generated images etc. are a lot more obvious because you are trying to replace the production of a critical part of game creation.

Ultimately there is some level of all of this that relies on some level of honesty. After all some cases of AI generation can be hard for audiences to tell apart. However, personally, and I think most people would agree with me on this, I much more value my integrity as a developer and a creator to not lie about the technology that I used to create my game, especially if its one as controversial and impactful to the labor force of game production as AI.

Reply
redonihunter5 days ago

I think you overestimate the compexity of language translations. A creative process can help, but is not necessary. And if you use a translation website you actually do not know the tech used. Unless of course you use a site like chatgpt - and I am not even sure, if they use the actual llm capacity for translation. It is very likely, but it might also be, that they use the llm to understand what you want from it and use a different engine underneath for the actual task of mere translation to save computing power.

In it's core, a translation is not new content. The computer system does not know how freely it is allowed to translate. What you describe would be more accurately be called localisation and not translation.

If I upscale an image using an ai, or use a filter, that is not new content either. But all the new pixels were created using "ai". Maybe even the kind of ai that was trained on data. But I would not consider it "content produced" by the ai. And neither would I consider a grammar check or a translation as such.

Now, if you were to tell the ai prompt to generate a translation of your text and use the writing style of a certain author in that new language - or rewrite it in your own language in a different writing style - that would be new content.

In the context of the topic, it is about generated content. So I try to apply both words. It should not only be generated but it should also be content. A gen ai translation might be ai generated, but I do not consider it (new) content.

to not lie about the technology that I used to create my game

Fair point, but it is actually not about the technology used to create the game, but about the content and who initially created it.

Reply
AboutFAQBlogContact us
Copyright © 2025 itch corp · Directory · Terms · Privacy · Cookies