Do we know where the images for the historical events are sourced from? Reeeeally hoping they're not ai. Love the game but definitely do not want to play if it's using ai generated art.
-
-
LOL
Probably best to stay off the internet. AI is not only used everywhere for image creation, it's resulting in an explosion of web-centric programming, allowing complex app development using React and other JavaScript-based technologies that simply wasn't possible in recent years. -
God forbid I want to live in a world where a website with a paid option uses real human artists instead of the environment destorying plagiarism machineComment
-
looks like AI
Can admin confirm?
Comment
-
Ah, the cult of media-addled climageddon worshipers.
Combined with a minuscule knowledge of intellectual property law.
If there's one constant, it's progress. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean others shouldn't. AI is a wonderful tool and you really can't avoid it anymore unless you avoid connecting to anything.
I can't speak for the developer as to where the art came from. There are public domain sources, but they are limited in scope. And I assume the developer has enough understanding of intellectual property law not to take someone else's repository. It would make sense to use AI for a project like this.
However, if the developer decided to contract out all that work, which no sane person would do in the 2020s, I would think we'd be asked to pay a fairly significant sum to access this site. Given the extraordinary pace in updating and developing games lately, and the new look and feel, my guess is the developer is solidly in the category of embracing AI and the incredible progress it has made in the last couple of years alone in guiding programmers through complex web apps.Comment
-
"It's everywhere" is not a valid defense. Violence is everywhere but I don't want it on my puzzle website.
I do see a lot of AI fans referring to it as "progress". We don't actually have enough information to claim that yet. Progress can only be defined in retrospect once we see where events have led. AI as it is currently understood may become as ubiquitous as cars and the Internet, or it may become as ubiquitous as 3D movies and VR video games. After the dust has settled around the laws, court cases, investments, and social and economic ramifications, then we can talk about whether AI is true progress or an unsustainable fad.
But when I see people talking about AI, I tend to see that anti-AI folks critique the known, public information about the technology, while the pro-AI folks insult the anti-AI folks. I feel that if AI was truly defensible on its own merits, pro-AI folks would not need to fall back on trite fallacies like "everybody's doing it", "no sane person would avoid AI", or "the people who disagree with me are a cult", as though they have their own skills, finances, or personalities so wrapped up in it that they're unwilling or unable to engage in a reasonable discussion. Regardless of what role this iteration of AI plays in the future, I do think its most fervent defenders are loudly, voluntarily demonstrating that nobody should listen to them.
That said, I won't be playing this game. I don't like the art and I don't think it adds anything to the trivia-testing aspect.Comment
-
To be clear, my critique is specific to uniformed opinions related to the law and to the climate, so I reject your straw-man approach to this debate. Some who oppose AI resort to those uniformed opinions, which have nothing to do with the product itself.
As a programmer, I see, first-hand, AI transforming the profession. I can now tackle new projects with very little new training using complex tools that would have taken me months to master. Not only that, when I run into problems I don't know how to solve, I receive an immediate, informed response that I can test instantly rather than endlessly searching forums for half-answers.
The newest generation of AI, which is a little expensive so I don't use it, actually reads your code base so you merely have to focus its attention.
Programmer critiques of AI from even a year ago are being answered, rapidly.
My response has nothing to do with your straw-man at all. I don't say "everybody's doing it". I'm saying that if your goal is to avoid AI when you connect to the web in any way at all, you're going to have a lot of difficulty finding applications. And if you're a programmer, of course you can avoid it, but you will absolutely be at a competitive disadvantage.
Some could point out that all-of-a-sudden, new computer science graduates are experiencing 7-8% unemployment and the future seems more uncertain as the "learn to code" advice from ten years ago is widely mocked. But that's misleading. A lot of things have happened in education in the last ten years. It became a far more popular college major with all the new attention. And then COVID took a big chunk out of the educational process for millions of young people. Then politicians started removing math from curricula and college admissions departments stopped accepting SAT/ACT tests. Add in college grade inflation and, yes, students using AI to do their homework.
The result... a large percentage of new college graduates with computer science degrees can't program their way out of a paper bag. Even with AI. They simply don't understand the fundamental concepts. It's not just, "hey, AI, write a game called Past Master". It's understanding the building blocks that make up what we call an application.Comment
-
I like how you called it a straw-man approach when I quoted you. I don't think it's disingenuous to assign to you the views you explicitly stated. Perhaps you should consider that there are direct similarities between "AI is used everywhere for image creation" and "everybody's doing it"?
But perhaps that's conflating something else I see frequently. "It's okay to use AI to do the things _I specifically_ don't know how to do." You're a programmer, so you point out that AI is only good for programming if you understand the fundamentals. That's fair and valid. But you also say it's fine to use it for art rather than pay people who know art. Meanwhile, artists say you can't use AI for art, but you can use it for writing. Meanwhile, writers say you can't use AI for writing, but you can use it for programming. (These are not hypotheticals, these are documented parts of current curricula in higher education for art and writing.) Pro-AI folks seem to think it's fine to use AI to do things _except for_ the thing they themselves do, where AI will never work unless you understand the fundamentals first. I'm all three (a programmer, an artist, and a writer) so I hope you'll understand if I disagree with the implication that any one of them can be fully outsourced to a computer.
I do also have an issue with "[computer science] became a far more popular college major with all the new attention." That is an assertion not consistent with the evidence. The information I see says CS major enrollment has been dropping for two or three years, which is after COVID but consistent with the increase in AI focus.Comment
-
You seem to love using the straw-man, whether it's couched in "something else I see frequently" or in misquoting people. It's really quite disingenuous. There's no way to argue with someone who deliberately misconstrues your words. A real lack of integrity, Mssngr.
I said AI would be used for this type of art project. Which takes into account the exact nature of the project.
It is perfectly OK to use AI for what I do. In fact, I've seen it. There's no doubt whatsoever that I would have a very different career if AI had been around when I was graduating college. But the same can be said about any major advancement. Hiring managers are looking for candidates who are comfortable with these changes, perhaps having done projects on their own using AI. Because it's going to change a lot in the next few years.
Growth in computer science majors started in earnest in about 2013. There were more than 100,000 CS degrees awarded in 2021, for the first time. That continued to increase until 2024, and there has been a decline since then. You can look this up just as easily as I can. AI could be part of the reason. But grade inflation, a lack of testing and admissions standards and the refusal to fail students who can't do the work also has to have an effect. Meta just laid off a huge number of programmers. Not because they aren't in need of them, but because it's hard to know if a graduate can do a job without hiring him or her.
One thing you haven't countered, or understood. You can try and avoid AI on the internet. You can ask developers questions (good luck with that on a site that serves millions) or try and shame developers on smaller sites. But its use is increasing because it works. And if you don't understand why it's not theft (whether it's code or art or writing or any of the innumerable other uses), that's on you, not them.
The last couple of years have transformed many professions, and the need for skilled people who use AI to get better at what they do is enormous. Those who fight it should read about Mao and Stalin. For real, not just the sanitized Wiki versions.Comment
Comment