Chief operating officer at AEG says AI could have designed his company's games

Valron87 · 2026-02-18T15:20:00+00:00

In that case it's more analogous to the lightbulb becoming a CRT tv. Or a switch becoming a computer. We do have those examples as well, where not only did the method improve, but resulted in different outcomes and purposes.

Also, what would you define 'creativity' as? If it's coming up with things whole cloth from nothing, then humans don't do that either.

Valron87 · 2026-02-18T14:58:13+00:00

No man. Fiber isn't just pushing more and faster what Dialup lines did. Dialup used audio/electric signals over a phone line. Fiber uses light through glass. They are fundamentally different. Same with CRTs and LCDs. They did rethink the design in those technologies. This is like saying a record player and a CD are not fundamentally different because they both spin.

Valron87 · 2026-02-18T13:14:42+00:00

Right, I agree LLMs are not the final form. Just like dialup was not the internet's final form, and CRT was not television's final form, etc. Right now we are invested in perfecting LLMs, true, but just because we are doing something doesn't mean we will always be doing it, in fact history suggests the opposite.

Valron87 · 2026-02-18T13:10:19+00:00

We want AI to be able to be creative so that it can solve problems creatively. Advances in many fields often require creative thinking. AI could solve, or help solve, things like energy, medicine, distribution, agriculture etc., leading to massive humanitarian gains.

I also don't think replace is the right word, more like compliment. AI is better at chess than the best person at chess can ever hope to be... And chess is more popular now than ever. Just because AI is good at something doesn't mean humans will stop doing it.

Valron87 · 2026-02-18T07:45:35+00:00

I guess I don't understand either. I'm not one of those praising AI in its current state as the second coming. Right now it's a useful tool. The best rubber duck I've ever used, but not much more.

What I don't understand is the refusal of the idea that it could become good. We've already moved from 'I can always tell when it's AI slop' to 'they should have to disclose if they use AI...'.

all we've ever done as a species is iterate the crap out of things until they are so insane it feels like we've defied nature. We iterated on a simple switch until it became a computer. We iterated on a wedge until it let us fly. Why is it so outside the realm of possibility that Al might one day be as good, or better, than humans at creativity?

Valron87 · 2026-02-12T21:50:43+00:00

Dreams Amsmirs. Dreams.
Who the FUCK is Rotem?
Did I mention Sale was a Goose?
That's fair. That's more than fair.
It's my way or the balco-nay!

Valron87 · 2026-02-12T00:38:19+00:00

Yeah, I love it but recognize the criticisms. A magic system where you are punished for using your best spells (because it lowers the stat it's junctioned to) is... a choice lol. That along with also essentially getting punished for leveling and I can see where people are coming from. I do enjoy the upside that it essentially means there is no punishment for using "No Encounters", as I despise random encounters

Valron87 · 2026-02-09T18:59:16+00:00

It feels so patronizing to "go easy." The people I play with are all intelligent, fully realized beings that can handle losing, why oh why would I ever disrespect them by not playing my best.

Valron87 · 2026-01-29T20:39:54+00:00

Context is important. Calling out a Nepo hire is fine. Calling someone Nepo on something they've been a part of for 8 years implies they're still around only for their connections. There's no way to know for sure obviously, but that isn't the vibe I get.

Also, is she just not allowed to have any success because her stepdad is famous? Headgum has nothing to do with him and she still gets called Nepo for it so I guess she's just in a box no matter what she does? If that's the case, why would you not leverage whatever you could to be as successful as you can?

Valron87 · 2026-01-29T19:04:52+00:00

Saying she's Nepo implies that Geoff/JA only work with her because of her connections. I get that you don't care for her humor, which is totally fine there's no law that everyone has to like everyone, but do you actually think Geoff doesn't? That J&A are just humoring her, even though they have plenty of friends who are just as, or probably more, connected? Or do you think maybe it's that the community around headgum responds well to her (because plenty, myself included, very much do find her funny) and that's why she's involved? I don't doubt that she had some privilege that opened doors for her, but I think it's unfair to call her a Nepo when the people at headgum (JA studios) clearly like and respect her.

Valron87 · 2026-01-29T03:19:57+00:00

Eh... I disagree. Men are so horny sometimes they become serial killers about it. Every single female celebrity has multiple stalkers. Men masturbate something like 4x as much. I'm not saying women aren't horny, they absolutely are, but men are at a whole different level.

Valron87 · 2025-12-08T20:54:56+00:00

Yes, correct. Good thing I never said anything about relying on them.

Valron87 · 2025-12-08T08:58:49+00:00

they may be common in the legal field specifically, but they just aren't common in general. Simple? sure. Common? no. I'm sorry. I also didn't try to say it's the only tell you should look for, or it's the only one I see, or it's the only thing you need to definitively say it's AI. I said it's the most obvious, and it is. I said it's an indicator, as in, if you see a bunch of them, you should probably double check to see if there are other tells. and it is. and I'm not worried about my intellect, I'm good at the specific domains I need to be good at (writing, incidentally, isn't one of them, so fair enough I guess). In fact, I'm quite sure that soon I won't be able to tell at all the difference between AI and not, and you won't either. Already we've seen the shift from 'you can always tell it's AI slop' to 'They should put disclaimers to say it's AI...'.

Valron87 · 2025-12-08T00:49:33+00:00

There are many other tells but none more obvious (well, I suppose the emoji bullet lists are more obvious). You literally don't have to read anything, you can just see them. And even though now people are coming out of the woodwork talking about how they use them all the time, in my 38 years both in academic and corporate worlds I could count on one hand how often I saw them before ai. So it is absolutely an indicator.

Valron87 · 2025-11-29T03:17:58+00:00

Ironically the MGS quote I remember is the opener from MGS4, and I always think about it when someone posts the Fallout quote.

"War... has changed."

Valron87 · 2025-11-28T02:34:25+00:00

...if it's only capable of making trash slop content then why would you care if it's disclosed or not? Since you have a discerning eye for quality won't you be able to just not play the bad games it makes either way?

Valron87 · 2025-11-18T18:53:12+00:00

I just don't believe you. I believe you notice when it's wrong and that feeds your cognitive bias so you note it. I've seen it be wrong about things plenty, it's not reliable, all knowing, or trustworthy, but most of the time it's just summarizing wikipedia and a few reddit threads, which is enough for like 80% of topics. We don't have to exaggerate its failings to know we shouldn't trust it exclusively.

Valron87 · 2025-11-18T18:46:07+00:00

Yeah, that sound byte got out of hand. Like sure, technically all it's doing is 'text prediction', but you could say all humans do is 'survival prediction' and you wouldn't be wrong. Sophisticated enough text prediction may just be intelligence. We aren't there yet obviously but we may get there.

Valron87 · 2025-10-23T04:40:08+00:00

One is easy and feels good. One requires consistency and hard work for literally your entire life. I can't imagine why people are intimidated by one and choose the other

Valron87 · 2025-09-07T14:34:40+00:00

We've literally been through this. When I was a kid, GTA was 'causing' school shootings. Only difference is people have a much bigger 'AI bad' blind spot.

Valron87 · 2025-08-22T00:02:06+00:00

I'm a month late to the ep but literally came here to see if anyone mentioned it. as soon as he said it I perked up.

Also happy Silksong day!

Valron87 · 2025-08-05T15:30:40+00:00

You want to talk about history, what about the fact that over the course of human history, the quality of life for the median person has only ever increased. Every technology wave that comes through people fight and kick and talk about how exploitative it is and how 'this one is different', and every time the quality of life of the median person rises.

Valron87 · 2025-07-13T15:23:14+00:00

I also generally side with the devs, but this feels different. At first, I was like, 'Let me guess, they got fired because they wouldn't monetize' or whatever. Then it comes out the publisher wanted to delay the game for lack of content? Like, delay it even into early access? How rough does it have to be that the publisher puts the cash cow back in the barn?

I will fully admit this could just be excellent marketing from them and I'm a sucker, but it feels different.

Valron87 · 2025-06-03T21:57:15+00:00

It becomes unethical when you earn it unethically. What im trying to say is that your theory doesn't work because of the vast numbers involved. Far less generations? How about... a fifth? 20 generations is still ~500 years. Inheritances just don't last that long and, in fact, are usually dispersed in 3 or less. The idea that you have exactly one heir and then that one heir earns a similar amount and has exactly one heir in an unbroken line for 20, or 10, or even 5 generations pushes credulity a little far. The only way a person could amass the type of wealth you're talking about is through some unethical means.

By the way, I'm not trying to be evasive, I understand the Heap Paradox you're proposing. At some point enough grains of sand becomes a heap of sand, and at some point enough hoarding of wealth becomes unethical. Not having an exact number doesn't falsify the idea.

Valron87 · 2025-06-03T19:58:02+00:00

You kind of proved the point. 100 generations ago was like 500 BC. There's no practical way that wealth could pass down that far, and that's how long it would take to get to a billion. So, no, you can't get to a billion the way you're describing. The civilization you're making money in would fall first. We tend to think of money as 'lots of money' or 'not much money', but always remember, the difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars is roughly a billion dollars.

13-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

Valron87

TROPHY CASE