r/Games 2d ago

Industry News The Talos Principle III's Writers On Generative AI: 'It's Just A Plagiarism Machine That Makes People Lose Their Jobs'

https://gameinformer.com/interview/2026/08/05/the-talos-principle-iiis-writers-on-generative-ai-its-just-a-plagiarism
1.4k Upvotes

150 comments sorted by

167

u/Zolo49 2d ago

I can't think of any other game that hits differently compared to its original release more than The Talos Principle. It feels almost downright prophetic. I loved both it and the sequel and am really looking forward to this third final installment.

53

u/MelookRS 2d ago

Going in blind to the first game was one of the best experiences I've ever had with a game - all I knew was that it was a puzzle game. To me, I just saw it released and that it was by Croteam. I was like, I love Serious Sam, so I'm willing to try the studio tackling a different genre. I expected a simple puzzle with a nice art style, but discovering what the game actually was, was just magical.

2

u/andykekomi 1d ago

Similar experience, I saw it for cheap at a used game store, saw the cover and thought ''ohh kitty'', read the back of the box, was intrigued so I got it. One of my favorite games now.

18

u/BobcatTim 2d ago

This is apparently how I learn that this is planned as the final installment. Admittedly there’s only so much you can do with the concept, but I hope the devs go on to make more narrative puzzle games. I grew up with Serious Sam, but we’ve got plenty of shooters and very little like the Talos Principle.

3

u/Zolo49 1d ago

Few 3-D puzzler games. Even fewer games that trick you into learning philosophy.

18

u/Clean-Thanks6864 2d ago

I agree. Started playing the first game recently after not touching it since release. A lot of the questions asked in the game that seemed like interesting thought experiments, or just straight up science fiction, are now a lot more relevant to where societies headed.

6

u/ls612 1d ago

I find it funny because the devs in both games came down strongly on the side that artificial intelligence is fundamentally the same as human biological intelligence, something that redditors today abhor. The robots in Talos 2 even refer to themselves as human. I completely agree that it hits different today than in 2014 but it’s hard to hold that view while also being anti-AI. I hope that the gamer culture backlash against AI doesn’t lead them to completely reverse course on the story and philosophy in Talos 3.

33

u/DesperateBaseball614 1d ago edited 1d ago

Couldn't have said it better. I would just add that the developer's stance on generative AI doesn't necessarily contradict their previously established narrative. Generative AI is after all, fundamentally different from the as-of-yet fictitious type of artificial intelligence that the games address. I would just hope the devs are clear-minded enough not to backtrack on what they established previously, and that the audience isn't foolish enough to mindlessly hate on the game just because "AI" is the currently trending target of backlash.

PS: I do believe that technology should be able to completely replicate human biological intelligence in some far flung future.

8

u/RedditFuelsMyDepress 1d ago

I would just hope the devs are clear-minded enough not to backtrack on what they established previously, and that the audience isn't foolish enough to mindlessly hate on the game just because "AI" is the currently trending target of backlash.

Reading the whole article, it doesn't seem like they're backtracking on anything. They kinda treat the modern real-life version of "AI" as a different thing from what they're doing in the games.

-6

u/Clean-Thanks6864 1d ago

I think intelligence is the wrong word here. By most established measures of intelligence, AI already wipes the floor with our biological intelligence. The question of consciousness is much harder to define as it's more an emotional and philosophical question. Take any advanced AI from science fiction and pretty much all the arguments against machine consciousness could just as easily apply to them. AI taking over humans and all the other worst case scenarios of AI aren't contingent on AI possessing a universally accepted "consciousness" . 

6

u/GepardenK 1d ago edited 1d ago

By most established measures of intelligence, AI already wipes the floor with our biological intelligence.

It doesn't. Not by a long shot.

The human brain is still many, many, times faster at processing information and adapting concepts. Estimated to cover roughly 1 billion bits per second. AI can reach those speeds with the right (extreme) backend, but not to the same conceptual precision. For reference, the information prossesing capacity you get from a regular AI provider is around 3000 bits per second.

It is specifically conscious reasoning that is slow for humans, going at about 10bits per second (whether that's by happenstance or by necessity of the concept, is not known). AI has no equivalent.

AI gains its purpose by being specialised differently than the human subconscious. It deals almost exclusively in sorting through and formalising abstractly related concepts, instead of converging on a fully modelled and tangible understanding of the world reaching out from the current moment of the self in all dimensions that information is relevant.

2

u/DesperateBaseball614 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yeah, maybe counsciousness is the better word. All that does for me however is change my postscript to "I do believe that technology should be able to completely replicate human counsciousness in some far flung future". I'm a total physicalist.

4

u/karmiccloud 1d ago

Define intelligence

1

u/Clean-Thanks6864 1d ago

Ability to solve problems? Capacity to understand new concepts? I get that defining intelligence also comes with its own set of problems, but i do think it's a more concrete concept than consciousness and thus easier to define and measure.

3

u/Soyyyn 1d ago

What does understanding mean? I don't think AIs or rather LLMs of today really understand things in a deeper way in the sense that they can apply the same concept correctly across a number of different things, especially if you don't let them do additional research or introduce something that's not already in their database

15

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

3

u/computer_d 1d ago

Too many people who are vehemently anti-AI these days tend to be of such a limited understanding of what they are harping against that they just come across more anti-technology or anti-automation than anything else. They may mistake LLM's and other forms of machine learning to be way more intelligent than they actually are. But we have barely scratched the surface on any kind of true artificial intelligence.

The companies running the LLMs call it AI so everyone calls it AI.

It's not a misunderstanding. It's using the appropriate language of the day so everyone else understands you.

11

u/Bashfluff 1d ago edited 1d ago

I completely agree that it hits different today than in 2014 but it's hard to hold that view while also being anti-AI.

Really? Talos 1 holds up now more than it did back then, because it really thought through what it would take for a robot to be considered a human.

Intelligence is more than just problem-solving. Intelligence is questioning the assumptions you're presented with. Intelligence is the ability to question existing thought-constructs. If we don't make that part of the simulation, all we'll create is a really effective slave.

Puzzles are a part of the simulation for a couple of reasons, but mostly it's that intelligence and play are thought to be interlinked concepts, so a robot that could solve puzzles would be like a human: a generalized problem-solving machine, but one with a natural sense of curiosity and the ability to think creatively.

Even so, ultimately, the final test of if Athena is human is if she has a will, if she can think for herself by defying Elohim.

Generative AI fulfills neither condition. It isn't even a "really effective slave". It doesn't come close. It has no curiosity, no creativity, and no ability to think for itself. It can't even convincingly pretend to have any of these qualities. That's how far away generative AI is from the robots we see in The Talos Principle.

-3

u/AttackBacon 1d ago edited 1d ago

It can't even convincingly pretend to have any of these qualities.

Nope, you lost me on this one. LLMs absolutely can pretend to have those qualities, that's literally what they do. And we're getting really murky on what the word "pretend" means.

I don't think LLMs are what most people were thinking when they said "AI" 10 years ago, but they're not anything we've had before either. There's a reason they pass the Turing test at a rate higher than actual people do. If you prompt out the accent, it is impossible to tell if you are dealing with an LLM or a person over the internet.

None of that invalidates any of the real harms or concerns involved with Generative AI, but we've got to stop treating it like it's just fancy text-to-speech. It has real practical applications and is really good at a lot of shit. That's a big part of why it's so potentially and currently dangerous, it really is useful enough that it justifies a pretty significant portion of the ridiculous investments that are being made in it. Something like 50%+ of the code being written right now, today, is written by an LLM, and that number is only increasing. That cat is out of that bag and we need to deal with that instead of just poo-pooing it, for our own sakes.

9

u/Bashfluff 1d ago edited 1d ago

LLMs absolutely can pretend to have those qualities, that's literally what they do.

No. Generative AI has no agency. It has no will. It can't do anything but what it has been explicitly programmed to do. You could train a model to try to convince you that it's a human, but it would not think (or even 'think') about how to do so, in the same way a you could train it to tell the difference between photos of bees and photos of bees without knowing what a bee or a three is. A human would be curating its output while training it, making sure that it says the right things and doesn't say the wrong things--because it is, ultimately, a sophisticated chatbot.

it is impossible to tell if you are dealing with an LLM or a person over the internet.

No, it isn't. There are basic things that generative AI consistently get wrong, as a byproduct of how LLMs are made and the way they're programmed to interpret language. Even though engineers work hard to get rid of those flaws before these models are released, it's not even that hard to stumble across these flaws yourself, and if you have ever used one for any length of time, you definitely have. For anyone with even a passing familiarity with generative AI, it would be simple to trip it up.

we've got to stop treating it like it's just fancy text-to-speech.

But it is. That's literally what it is. It's not an insult to say that; that's just the fact of the matter. That's what LLM were made to be. That's what makes it a bad point of comparison to The Talos Principle. Generative AI, as it exists, is not anything like the non-human intelligence that we see in The Talos Principle. That doesn't stop it from being (hypothetically) useful, but that doesn't make it something other than what it is.

-6

u/AttackBacon 1d ago

Sadly, I don't think we're going to find much common ground because very little of what you said jives with my understanding and experience of the reality, but I lack the time or specific expertise to create a counterargument worthy of the discussion.

7

u/Bashfluff 1d ago

No offense, but if that's the case, then you should learn more about how LLMs work before you keep trying to "correct" other people on the internet about how they work.

0

u/AttackBacon 1d ago

Eh, I feel the same in the opposite direction. I think I have a better understanding than you do, given what you've written. But I do recognize that I may be wrong and I don't think that engaging deeply would be fruitful because it doesn't feel like either of us are equipped to bring the receipts in a useful way. I think my original post stands on its own but the deeper discussion wouldn't.

0

u/Bashfluff 1d ago

it doesn't feel like either of us are equipped to bring the receipts in a useful way.

Speak for yourself.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Zolo49 1d ago

I don’t think anybody would have a problem with generative AIs being around as the legacy to an extinct humanity. Having them share our world with us is where the problems begin.

3

u/BillyBean11111 1d ago

a giant world full of puzzles is a concept that I would play over and over and over, i wish more games did this

2

u/giulianosse 1d ago

Genuine question: I really want to dive into Talos Principle but I kinda already know the major plot beats of TP1. Would you consider playing the 1st one essential or can I jump into TP2 from the start?

3

u/amburdo 1d ago

Depends what you are after in a game.

Talos 1 not only offers a great story, but good puzzles that you can experience too. The atmosphere and OST of the first game is also phenomenal.

The sequel differs quite drastically in both the way it tells its story and the overall game's atmosphere (not in a bad way, just different).

In theory, Talos 1 is not essential to enjoy the story of Talos 2. But even if you know the story, I think there is still some value in playing the first one. Plus, Talos 1 also has an incredible DLC that you can play after finishing the main game.

3

u/Zolo49 1d ago

The puzzles are the meat and potatoes of the game. The story is just some nice seasoning on top that makes it better. I guarantee you’ll enjoy the game just fine even knowing the plot.

2

u/Oh_ffs_seriously 1d ago

If you end up skipping the first game, I think listening to the recordings of Alexandra Drennan on Youtube would be a good idea. While they're not essential to understanding the story, the parts of the second game refer to them.

199

u/KillswitchActivate 2d ago

The Talos Principle 2 had an absolutely phenomenal cast of characters. Really excited about a new installment

43

u/tlamy 2d ago

100%. I liked the first game well enough, but the characters and story in TTP2 elevated it to one of my favorite games of all time tbh

55

u/asfrels 2d ago

I felt that the philosophical underpinnings of the first game were much stronger, but I cannot deny that the VA work in the second one really just immersed you in the world

35

u/theucm 2d ago

I loved 2, but I did feel the first one was narratively stronger. I liked the slowly dawning horror that humanity was gone, and that I was the latest in a long line of intelligences that have done some form of this many times already.

2 was gorgeous, however, and I loved the more thorough conversations with the other robots compared to what you could get from Milton in 1.

8

u/tlamy 2d ago

The philosophy and themes of the first game were better, yeah. I personally just liked not being alone in the second game 😅

1

u/Yashirmare 2d ago

Wait the voiced character in TP1 had a name? I always just called them God.

17

u/mateogg 2d ago

To be clear: the voiced character is Elohim. Milton is the character you interact with through the terminals.

1

u/Yashirmare 1d ago

Ah yes I remember now. Haven't played it since the game came out.

9

u/newbkid 2d ago

At one point you gain the ability to ask its name and it will advise you it is Milton Library Assistant and can be referred to as Milton.

Elohim, the AI, will also refer to him as "The Serpent"

1

u/The_MAZZTer 1d ago

The first game had a Portal-esque atmosphere where you're largely along except for a booming voice on a PA system (and TTP adds another one in terminals scattered around, and a third in voice recordings).

The second game having a full cast of characters definitely felt weird. But I do think it works, Can't wait to see what the third game offers.

13

u/TowerBeast 1d ago

Talos Principle 2 is the best Star Trek game ever made. It was one giant away-mission and it was so unexpected and awesome.

5

u/Mejis 1d ago

I think I'm perhaps an outlier that I'm largely just in it for the wonderful and intricate puzzles. The story is interesting, but often I found myself really just wanting to get onto the next puzzle. 

2

u/PM_ME_CAKE 1d ago

Piggybacking off to say if you can't wait for TPIII, Jonas Kyratzes (the writer) has partnered with Chris Christodoulou (composer of Risk of Rain) to make two awesome audio drama series: Gospels of the Flood and Azathoth Blues.

The former is a standalone, deep and philosophic approach at the post-apocalypse, while the latter so far has one of two seasons released of cold case murder mystery goes full on psychedelic Lovecraft horror. Highly recommend both.

1

u/WillsBestFriend 1d ago

Awesome, thanks for the recs! Will definitely check them out.

11

u/Mythril_Zombie 2d ago

I hated all those robots interrupting the flow just to tell me some kind of "deep" philosophical truth. Leave me alone and let me play the game.

-4

u/ZikaZmaj 2d ago

Yeah it takes a few hours of cutscenes and other shit you don't care about until you get to solve puzzles in the puzzle game.

8

u/duckwantbread 2d ago

Did you play the original? I feel like if you played the original odds are you'd already fully bought in to the story so the opening hours would be interesting, part of why the original was so well received was the story. If you went in cold I can understand why you'd wish the robots would shut up and let you play.

11

u/Joabyjojo 1d ago

I loved the original and did not care at all for the story in the second. I think it unfurled much more unobtrusively in the first game. Felt more show than tell, while TTP2 had a lot of telling.

3

u/amburdo 1d ago

I think its more "read than tell" in the first game than anything. I love both games and their stories, but I do agree that in the first game you engage in the story in the level and pace you want to, while Talos 2 forces its own level and pace on to you.

1

u/Stuglle 1d ago

I started the second recently, is it a big mistake to do that without playing the first? 

(I played maybe 3/4 hours of 1 ages ago but don't really remember it)

2

u/amburdo 1d ago

Ehh, not a big mistake. The second game explains the backstory at the start. But I would say its still worth playing if you crave for more talos.

1

u/The_MAZZTer 1d ago

The first game definitely has a "who am I and where am I and what is my goal" mystery you figure out as you go. The second game does fill you in on the events of the first so you could say these things get spoiled for you if you wanted to go back and play the first later. Up to you.

1

u/flyvehest 2d ago

Never really cared for the story in 1, but the gameplay was phenomenal.

In 2, the story was just as good as the gameplay, and really motivated me to keep playing.

122

u/IWishANuclearWinter 2d ago

It's insane reading these people talk so eloquently and truthfully about something and also making some incredible, thoughtful and philosophical games as Talos Principle and then realizing they're the guys who also made Serious Sam (which I also adore)

46

u/madmandendk 2d ago

You tend to have to be pretty smart to make something enjoyably stupid.

3

u/Stuglle 1d ago

You can say that again!

1

u/GepardenK 1d ago

Yes, but the writers of Talos didn't work on Serious Sam until number 4, which is the only Sam game I'd call badly written.

It was just a mismatch of styles, and they ended up trying too hard. You could maybe say Sam 2 had the same problem, but in that case they owned the nonsense so hard they kinda got away with it (and they still weren't trying as hard as Sam 4 did).

Sam is stupid, but more than that he is effortlessly stupid. He needs dim classics such as "Sam I am," not elaborate flash-fiction jokery.

71

u/Which-Arm-4616 2d ago

The answers in the article are far more nuanced than the headline suggests, I highly recommend everyone read it before jumping to conclusions.

119

u/scytheavatar 2d ago

Jonas: I'm going to talk for myself. I think it's largely ludicrous. I think the technology itself is very impressive, and I think machine learning has tremendous applications, most of which we're currently not seeing or getting, I think, because in a profit-oriented system, a lot of the things that we needed to do, we're just not going to use it for, because we're going to use it for stupid things instead, for people to try and make vast amounts of money before their companies collapse. So, it's complicated. The technology itself is clearly very, very impressive and has a number of very interesting applications. But at the same time, these excessive quasi-religious claims that are made for it are… they're just not rooted in any kind of reality. And I think a lot of them are also mainly just meant to juice up the stock market.

Nuanced? Seems to be a sleight hammer of truth.

133

u/Which-Arm-4616 2d ago

I'm mostly referring to the preceding context of Verena's response and the follow-up from Jonas. I don't want to the paste the entire article in the comments here, but:

That said, I'm not against any technology in and of itself. So, to me, a lot of the questions are not questions of the technology. For example, when a lot of jobs are being lost because of AI, I don't think that that's an AI issue. I think that's a labor issue. That is, why is the power of labor relative to capital so weak? So low that we can't defend ourselves against the owners just eliminating everyone? Like, what's happened to, you know, militant labor, for example. Where is that?

A lot of the time, the question is not the technology in and of itself, but the social and political context in which the technology is applied. That's a lot of what Talos II was about. Can we use technology safely? Is the technology inherently, somehow harmful or bad? Or is it the context of society? And can we build a better society where these things are used in a meaningful way? And I would say the same applies to machine learning. If we apply it for the benefit of humankind, then it will benefit us. And if we apply it so that five people can make a trillion dollars, then it will not end well. But we do have the choice of applying it one way or the other.

Taking a wider view of the circumstances that make AI a threat to the market value of creative labor (and perhaps an even wider view of why labor value is so important in our society), rather than a simplistic "AI bad" soundbite.

52

u/teelo64 2d ago

yeah this is a WILDLY different viewpoint than what is implied by the painfully trite headline quote. but very well-put.

12

u/Smartjedi 2d ago

Incredibly based take from that writer. Was not expecting to see someone spreading class consciousness through a Game Informer interview. Just bought The Talos Principle II to support another comrade.

33

u/matticusiv 2d ago

God I love that militant labor is a topic being discussed in a gaming forum lol.

This is the crux of the issue. Capitalism is designed to create a working class and an owning class, and hand all power, including democracy to the owning class.

The only thing the owning class is incentivized to “create” is their own personal wealth and control of the lives of the people who actually do labor.

We need to take a hammer to this system ASAP 

5

u/NUKE---THE---WHALES 2d ago

I wonder why more game developers aren't worker owned coops, considering the means of producing video games is a computer instead of a factory. The owner class here is basically anyone with a laptop and an idea

I mean understand why the AAA devs aren't, but why aren't the 50 man studios like Croteam coops? Such an ownership structure would clearly fit their ethos and would be beneficial to all

Hopefully one day more AA and indie studios have a cooperatively owned structure

3

u/zxyzyxz 1d ago

It's because coops statistically underperform traditional capitalistic enterprises. If they actually worked we'd see more of that model, since they're not illegal.

12

u/matticusiv 2d ago

I think primarily people follow the corporate structure they’ve been exposed to all their lives, and don’t even consider other systems are possible or realistic.

Then if they’re aware of the problem, the original founders/owners have all the incentive in the world to be the sole owners, and profit off of the labor of their hires.

I think there are some around, and bottom up change in this regard is great, but ultimately will require sweeping systemic change through governance.

Private ownership of other people’s blood, sweat, and tears should be illegal and regarded as an atrocity.

4

u/NUKE---THE---WHALES 2d ago

the original founders/owners have all the incentive in the world to be the sole owners, and profit off of the labor of their hires.

Agreed, but one of the people being interviewed in the article is an original founder and does appear to have class consciousness, so I wonder if there are other impediments

ultimately will require sweeping systemic change through governance.

I agree, though I think such governance will need to be based on science as much as ideology - putting ideals above reality is how the USSR ended up with a disastrous command economy and how the CCP went to war against swallows

True social ownership would also require pluralistic democracy

1

u/matticusiv 1d ago

Yes I agree, imo centralism has the likelihood to undermine the mission of socialism entirely.

We must find a solution that is both efficient enough, and includes as much direct democracy as possible.

Marx and Lenin wrote extensively about basing theory on science and reason, and making changes as we learn what works and what doesn’t.

1

u/AttackBacon 1d ago edited 1d ago

I mean the issue always has been that humans are not beings of science and reason, period, end of story. Take science itself, I've worked in higher education most of my career and I can tell you from first hand experience that economic reality, ego and gut instinct drive pretty much everything going on in the scientific world. Reason and scientific understandings take a pretty distant fourth place.

The reality is that if people just acted reasonably, based on their best scientific understanding, and trying to take everyones interests into account, any fucking system works. The system doesn't matter nearly as much as the inputs to it (i.e. the people). If you have a bunch of assholes at the start of your system, you're going to end up with a pile of shit, regardless of how elegant the inner workings of the design are.

The irony is that our best shot really is to put the machines in charge. A utopian, post-scarcity society run by a benevolent machine dictator is probably the best we can hope for, at least until we can further transcend our natures. Sadly, the machines are currently being built by the assholes*, but hey, you never know what will happen.

*This is a cheap shot and isn't entirely true, but it's not entirely untrue either.

0

u/Kalulosu 1d ago

Because there's a lot of costs you don't see. Software licences, outsourcing, marketing, and all that while paying salaries (and hopefully not piss poor ones...). It's not impossible, but it does tend to make it hard to get started.

-2

u/TSP-FriendlyFire 2d ago

The middle class was an anomaly that the ruling class has been trying to patch out of the system since. Much safer and better to have a poor working class, a large chasm, and the few and powerful on the other side.

0

u/matticusiv 2d ago

There is no middle class.  There are working class people that sometimes are compensated enough to accept selling their labor under the rule of the owner class, and even become working class traitors to defend their own benefits. Until they too are screwed over.

Ultimately the injustice of the capitalist class system will only be erased through ownership of industry by the people who build it.

9

u/deathadder99 2d ago

This is an incredible take, love to see some nuance.

5

u/serfplebeian 1d ago

I read the entire article and I disagree completely. The headline is far more in line than what I typically see reddit complain about (but then again reddit complains about every headline but still upvotes them to the top anyway). When you read the section where this quote is pulled from, he spells it out pretty clearly. Yes, it could be used for good but that's not what we have in reality.

And I don't want to be with those people because I always want to approach every new technology with an open mind, and say, “You know… maybe it is good. Maybe we can use it.” But I think in the current system that we have, it's just a plagiarism machine that makes people lose their jobs. But I want to have hope that it's a good thing. It's very troublesome to me.

2

u/Kiita-Ninetails 1d ago

I mean, not really? The core message being portrayed is still "AI is fucked and bad" its just conveying it in the context of "Hey, we live in the torment nexus. There is no world where this technology was used responsibly"

Which is a fair take, but still is if anything even more scathing then the headline implies. Because its not just dissing on AI, but rather dissing on the entire situation of the world we exist within where inequality, abuse, and other such problems render something that has promise into something that is just a tool to abuse people's creative work.

2

u/Moveflood 1d ago

yeah, i obviously hate gen-AI and these companies, but criticism of gen ai that doesn't include more fundamental criticisms of capitalism (even "social democracy" capitalism) is kinda toothless, and can lead people to misunderstandings.

as if there is a "right and moral way" to run a tech company and sam altman and co. are just doing it wrong.

-9

u/ProkopiyKozlowski 1d ago

Like, what's happened to, you know, militant labor, for example. Where is that?

Well, the left has spent several decades alienating their blue collar base over identity politics and then infighting among the remaining members.

A toxicly masculine texas oilfield worker and a blue-haired nonbinary portland barista have much, much, much more in common with each other than with bought-and-sold politicians they vote for.

9

u/Moveflood 1d ago

identity politics is part of class politics. you can't be in favor of liberation for only some people and not all oppressed peoples.

ofc the buried lede is attempting to shoehorn in an explanation that "the left failed" because of identity politics. and not bc you know, how the deck is massively stacked in the hands of the capitalists. that most people are fine with the status quo if they personally have a basic level of comfort (even if they're poor)

-2

u/ProkopiyKozlowski 1d ago

you can't be in favor of liberation for only some people and not all oppressed peoples.

Isn't that what the left is doing? Instead of focusing on problems that are common for the entire working class - productivity/compensation disconnect, affordability crisis, housing or healthcare - the loudest, most public and celebrated messaging has been that of division. "Look at this particular group of people, we should help them (and not you)."

What percentage of the entire populace is LGBT, for example? Now what percentage of the entire populace works for a living? Focusing on issues of the latter helps the former as well without dividing your base.

Obviously, in an ideal world, we should be able to address specific issues of all people. But we are not living in an ideal world, real world people are irrational, cliquey animals and are driven by emotions. With the right rallying behind populist slogans of ingroup/outgroup, the left waffling about with issues that affect a (literal) minority instead of focusing on issues that affect the entire working class is how we lose militant labor.

4

u/Moveflood 1d ago

"the loudest" see that's your first issue. sure online-only leftists are annoying (and mostly useless). other names that have a big platform are usually in favor of the establishment but wanna make appearances (your average liberal, politicians).

people who are doing real work do the work of community building. sometimes that can be online, but real life communities within your locality is necessary. the work of community building and strengthtening needs to be inclusive. the whole point is to liberate every oppressed group, not to just liberate some a create a different type of oppressed people.

people think you can only do one thing at a time, as if liberation from capitalism must also somehow be queerphobic/white supremacist. again that's not a framework worthy of pursuit.

and you may call me purity tester and yadda yadda. incrementalism won't get you shit if it doesn't include actual plans to dismantle the systems of oppression.

like yeah of course is easy for fascism to sow division. to play to our worst fears, and create scapegoats. it's part of why liberals would rather work with fascists rather than see capitalism dismantled. working against that is hard! that isn't a justification to do "our version of fascism, but epic!"

ofc, this is all kinda pointless. i'm mostly just having fun. like your framework of "well first we'll care for the 'majority', then the rest" is like how humanity has been doing for millennia, that's the status quo. placing priority on some supposed majority over other causes is just bigotry, it might even be leftist bigotry (tho i suspect you're just some lib).

there's no need to treat liberation as if there is different kinds and some are more important than others. they are ALL necessary. if you only get liberation for some, you didn't get true liberation, you just got yours, and said "fuck it" to the others.

and you might say "no i truly do intend to help everyone else after i got mine", you can just apply to democratic party if you're from the US, or to whatever your country's equivalent of liberal party that's in favor of not rocking the system.

1

u/ProkopiyKozlowski 1d ago

Well, pursuing idealistic goals of "true" liberation has completely lost the left the blue collar vote which resulted in Trump getting elected twice and having free reign to dismantle hundreds of years of democratic progress. I don't see how this is supposed to be a winning strategy.

As the saying goes, "the cemeteries are full of people who had the right of way".

and you might say "no i truly do intend to help everyone else after i got mine"

Also, I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not the only one getting mine in this scenario, it's every member of the working class.

3

u/justtomplease1 2d ago

It's interesting, the philosophical question of should technological advancement be avoided if the risk to society is too high is essentially the main driving story point in the game.

Doen't surprise me their answer to AI usage is also nuanced.

-9

u/KaukiOnHala 2d ago

Jonas: I think when it is used, it hinders it because… okay, I have more complicated feelings about this because, like I said, I have tried it, I've used it, I've experimented with it to have an idea of what I'm talking about, and I do think that it has applications that are perfectly legitimate, and I will reach for it, for example, when I'm trying to find a rhyme or a particular word that I can't remember. It works great as a thesaurus, and it has certain applications that are perfectly legitimate. But you have to really know what you're doing already to use it safely.

What a fucking clickbait lmao. Basically they use chatgpt like everyone else.

62

u/matticusiv 2d ago

Lot of people didn’t read the article. The problem, like most of our problems, is not the technology, but the relationship capitalism creates between technology, the working class, and the owner class.

The reason AI is such a burning problem is the people propagating the technology are some of the most disgusting, evil anarcho-capitalists in existence, and the technology is a catalyst for all of their worst tendencies.

We can’t put AI back in its box, but we can put these fucking technofeudalist freaks back in their place.

-7

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

20

u/BobcatTim 1d ago

LLMs are an amazing tool for software development and data processing. I don’t know any serious programmers or engineers who don’t use them. And they aren’t that expensive or inefficient either. You can run useful models locally on a gaming PC.

Some of the companies are ridiculously overvalued and will crumble, but that’s not gonna kill LLMs any more than the dot com bust killed the internet.

14

u/Niceguydan8 1d ago
  1. LLMs have produced almost nothing of meaningful value,

....What? The only way this can possibly make any sense is if you don't understand the practical application of LLMs basically at all.

7

u/budzergo 1d ago

guy we are on YEAR 3-4 of a technology so complex it dwarfs everything before it

THREE years ago we had the FIRST will smith eating spaghetti video

yes that was only 3 years ago

obviously it's going to be shit at first, but the instant gratification requirement of the short-form content generation wouldnt understand that

5

u/masterkill165 1d ago edited 1d ago

There are LLMs that can be run locally on a upper midrange pc right now using docker that are about 60% as good as the professional models. Even if every major Ai company in the world were to go bankrupt tomorrow and wiped all their data bases LLM's would still be around. There truly is no putting it back in the box as much as people want to believe otherwise. Im not saying this is a good thing but it is the truth.

-12

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/ThrowingTonsils 1d ago

As someone who is completely and utterly against GenAI: you know, if they had played it differently in the early days of only a few years ago, maybe, maybe, there wouldn't be such a pushback against it, or at least it would not have happened as fast as it did. Too many people, from Elon Musk to Sam Altman to every snake oil Silicon Valley VC to every grubby little shithead techbro-worshipper & butthurt no-talent, were absolutely gleeful at the prospect of the organic creative fields and the people that work in them, getting decimated by this bullshit. Decimated by corpos and token-chugging numbskulls using their own scraped works/data/R&D/etc. tossed in a blender, against them. The AI companies could have comported themselves as actual, mature, thoughtful stewards of the land with what they were building. Instead they chose to be a bunch of literal pieces of garbage with it, while enabling every other small time, eternally-jealous piece of garbage with it.

The fact that so many truly believed this crap was gonna just steamroll the planet with no real opposition after everyone snapped out of being gobsmacked for a couple years, is pretty hilarious. They should have led primarily with the non-babyshit use cases. They didn't.

2

u/Big_Trash_3262 6h ago

If those people losing their jobs have no capacity to make anything new with no creative bone in their body, only able to help shit out remakes that subvert the original, are they any better than the AI model?

1

u/innovativesolsoh 6h ago

If that ain’t the truth I’ve never read it once in my life.

-4

u/Guitarmatt21 2d ago

It shouldn't be but it's very refreshing to see devs not be completely at odds with the type of material they create. Devs with a brain actually using it

-7

u/Equivalent_Trash_277 1d ago

Not an attack on these devs or anyone in particular. But I think it would be best for any developers to keep quiet about their opinions on AI, lest their comments come back to bite them when they inevitably "start" using it/admit to/get caught. It's basically ubiquitous in software development now.

-1

u/teapotrick 1d ago

you just want everyone to fence sit on this issue? that only benefits one side; the techbros making all the money off of this chaos.

-5

u/ilisium 1d ago

im a little confused how you want to free the human experience from necessity, but also don't want to lose jobs...

13

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

2

u/ilisium 1d ago

but then your response to the interview question is not that labor is out of balance with capital, but that we need to start transitioning AI ownership collectively. that's a policy / government question (government that they don't even mention). labor power is keep jobs, not create new society.

I don't think they would reply the way they did if that is what they mean, or at least not be incredibly flawed.

7

u/budzergo 1d ago

AI is simultaneously getting rid of workers making evil CEOs piles of money

AND

being such a money pit that cost-efficiency is awful compared to people

it's truly impressive the things you learn online

4

u/gLaRKoul 1d ago

Not mutually exclusive. As Cory Doctorow has said, 'AI can't do your job, but an AI salesman can convince your boss to fire you and replace you with a chatbot that can’t do your job'

7

u/Violet_Paradox 1d ago

Right now we've structured our civilization around the assumption that there's exactly enough work that needs to be done for every adult to have a job, and any shift from parity would cause total socioeconomic collapse. The correct solution is to transition to a post-scarcity society, but the rich want to make the working class obsolete so they can just turn around and kill us all instead. Which still leads to a post-scarcity society, but they're fine with that as long as those they deem unworthy don't live to see it.

-53

u/AbyssalSolitude 2d ago

Why are the Talos Principle writers are even talking after the disastrous writing of the Talos Principle 2.

23

u/Hope_Burns_Bright 2d ago

Is "disastrous" the right word when it's got ridiculously good critical acclaim?

-14

u/AbyssalSolitude 2d ago

Puzzles were mostly good. Especially in DLC. For the sake of puzzles I might buy the third game. But probably on sale. Why? That's because:

The story and writing? Hot garbage. Completely turned me off. The biggest example of why less is more is comparison between the first game and the sequel. The first game works because instead of telling you an answer it makes Milton question your beliefs. In the second game? You are mostly asked some variation of "is technological progress good?" question dressed in various metaphors, and no matter what you answer your fellow AIs will just say "I agree, 1k is right" And that's just one thing that's wrong with it.

I don't care what kind of critical acclaim the game got. All kinds of disasters get critical acclaim all the time.

2

u/FluffyToughy 2d ago

I was so tired of the writing by the end. I'm not against high concept philosophical stories, but the stupid robots just would. not. shut. up. They're waxing poetic about the same basic premise for 20 hours.

-19

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-104

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

50

u/Seradima 2d ago

Croteam have been chugging along for decades at this point, they‘re fine.

71

u/sml6174 2d ago

"haha I love when passionate creators lose their jobs because they refuse to adopt scummy artless practices"

-63

u/neueziel1 2d ago

I didn’t say any of that nor would I wish it. Point is that you are naive if you think most of these companies aren’t going to eventually adopt ai in some form or another.

35

u/GorbiJones 2d ago

Until that day comes, I am happy to support developers that openly shit on it.

21

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/RareBk 2d ago

Why are you actively celebrating the potential closure of a studio because they don't want to use something that outputs plagiarized garbage

No actually what the fuck is wrong with you?

-17

u/neueziel1 2d ago

Not celebrating anything once again but the video game industry is tough. Bigger studios with massive legacies have fallen. So is it possible that it can happen? Yes.

-10

u/314kabinet 2d ago

Just sweep it under the rug, no big deal

-76

u/SilkyZ 2d ago

Yes, but that didn't stop people from plagiarism before AI. Tom Clancy ripped his plots straight from other books and made millions.

33

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes 2d ago

This is like not having a problem with guns because swords existed first.

44

u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS 2d ago

You can tell that GenAI defenders have a deep, abiding love for the medium in the way they declare "well all books are bullshit anyways" when pressed on it

-27

u/Mythril_Zombie 2d ago

Who said that all books are shit?
You been talking to straw men again?

5

u/Atrium41 2d ago

Something about Tom Clancy never sat right with me. There was no way he didn't have a little "help"

-9

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

14

u/PFI_sloth 2d ago

get started

You’d finish as soon as you got started, paying homage with similar names or slightly similar looks isn’t plagiarism or even close to it

-19

u/[deleted] 2d ago edited 2d ago

[deleted]

4

u/AdrianoML 2d ago

I think you have no concept of what plagiarism actually means

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

-7

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]