Connect with us

Tech

AI Slop Is Ripping Off One of Summer’s Best Games. Copycats Are Proving Hard to Kill

Published

on

AI Slop Is Ripping Off One of Summer’s Best Games. Copycats Are Proving Hard to Kill


Getting clones taken down can be an exhausting process for developers. Small studios have less time, energy and resources to dedicate to this process, and they’re at the whims of the digital distribution platforms these games exist on.

Wren Brier, Unpacking’s creative director, says that since the game’s release in 2021, developer Witch Beam has reported over 80 clones. “It feels like whack-a-mole sometimes,” Brier says. These are games that are not just similar in nature, but “blatant copyright infringements” that lift the game’s assets, or even its name. “The majority have been extremely low-effort scams using Unpacking’s name or imagery to trick players into downloading something that isn’t even a game, just a series of ads,” she says.

When it comes to many AI-made clones, Brier says there’s a misconception about what that means. “They’re not AI-made games, they’re AI-generated marketing images attached to a completely unrelated hastily-slapped together barebones skeleton of a game,” she says. “They are literally a scam: They are trying to trick players into buying a crappy product by using misleading imagery, and by pretending to be a real game that the player might have heard of.”

Clones don’t always threaten a developer’s profits—Aggro Crab is confident about its bank account, thanks to Peak’s massive success—but the damage can be widespread in other ways. Brier says that AI-clones hurt developers the same way AI books hurt authors: “Flooding a storefront with garbage that no one wants to play makes it impossible for players to organically discover indie games.” Game certification, the process of getting onto a platform, used to be stricter.

“It’s not a problem just for the games that get cloned, it’s a problem for all of us,” Brier says.

For developers, there aren’t many options to fight clones, regardless of how they’re made. Intellectual property attorney Kirk Sigmon says clones are already difficult to tackle legally; copyright protection doesn’t extend to a genre, aesthetic, or even gameplay mechanics. “[AI] definitely makes slop generation faster, but the issue has been around for well over two decades,” he says. “All that’s really happened is that the bar has moved ever so slightly lower for new entrants because you can make an AI model pump out stuff for you faster.”

The easiest case for copyright infringement typically happens when a cloner lifts work from the game directly—as happened with Unpacking. “It’s not uncommon for knockoff games to accidentally (or intentionally) copy assets from the game they are knocking off,” he says.

In fact, Sigmon says, AI-generated games might actually be better protected from copyright infringement lawsuits. “After all, if knockoff developers are savvy, they’ll use AI models to develop unique assets/code, rather than steal it from another game or just download it from some random Internet source,” he says. “That’ll make it much harder to go after them in court, for better or worse.”

Platforms ultimately hold the power when it comes to ridding a storefront of clones, though smaller developers bear the brunt of the work in filing a report and sorting out who to talk to. Sometimes that process is quick and wraps in a few days; sometimes it can take weeks. Social pressure may be the best defense a developer has. Sigmon says that complaining to storefronts or enlisting fans are workable solutions. “I don’t know many gamers who are a fan of half-hearted slop games,” he says.

Aggro Crab and Landfall are taking this route. “We’re not really the type to be litigious,” Kamen says. Instead, they’re being outspoken in their distaste. In early August, the company posted on X that it would rather users “pirate our game than play this microtransaction-riddled [Roblox] slop ripoff,” in reference to one copycat. Landfall tweeted that the company has “been reporting a bunch of these AI slop things” in response to a screenshot of another game called “Peaked Climbing.” It was available on the PlayStation Store before being removed; Peak has only released on PC. WIRED has reached out to PlayStation, Roblox, and Steam and will update accordingly.

“I consume media because it’s made by humans,” Kamen says. “I want to experience a piece of art, whatever it may be, another human has made and get their perspective and their outlook on the world. If AI is used to make the game, then you’re removing that from the equation. There’s no value in it.”



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tech

Two Thinking Machines Lab Cofounders Are Leaving to Rejoin OpenAI

Published

on

Two Thinking Machines Lab Cofounders Are Leaving to Rejoin OpenAI


Thinking Machines cofounders Barret Zoph and Luke Metz are leaving the fledgling AI lab and rejoining OpenAI, the ChatGPT-maker announced on Thursday. OpenAI’s CEO of applications, Fidji Simo, shared the news in a memo to staff Thursday afternoon.

The news was first reported on X by technology reporter Kylie Robison, who wrote that Zoph was fired for “unethical conduct.”

A source close to Thinking Machines said that Zoph had shared confidential company information with competitors. WIRED was unable to verify this information with Zoph, who did not immediately respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

Zoph told Thinking Machines CEO Mira Murati on Monday he was considering leaving, then was fired today, according to the memo from Simo. She goes on to write that OpenAI doesn’t share the same concerns about Zoph as Murati.

The personnel shake-up is a major win for OpenAI, which recently lost its VP of research, Jerry Tworek.

Another Thinking Machines Lab staffer, Sam Schoenholz, is also rejoining OpenAI, the source said.

Zoph and Metz left OpenAI in late 2024 to start Thinking Machines with Murati, who had been the ChatGPT-maker’s chief technology officer.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Tech Workers Are Condemning ICE Even as Their CEOs Stay Quiet

Published

on

Tech Workers Are Condemning ICE Even as Their CEOs Stay Quiet


Since Donald Trump returned to the White House last January, the biggest names in tech have mostly fallen in line with the new regime, attending dinners with officials, heaping praise upon the administration, presenting the president with lavish gifts, and pleading for Trump’s permission to sell their products to China. It’s been mostly business as usual for Silicon Valley over the past year, even as the administration ignored a wide range of constitutional norms and attempted to slap arbitrary fees on everything from chip exports to worker visas for high-skilled immigrants employed by tech firms.

But after an ICE agent shot and killed an unarmed US citizen, Renee Nicole Good, in broad daylight in Minneapolis last week, a number of tech leaders have begun publicly speaking out about the Trump administration’s tactics. This includes prominent researchers at Google and Anthropic, who have denounced the killing as calloused and immoral. The most wealthy and powerful tech CEOs are still staying silent as ICE floods America’s streets, but now some researchers and engineers working for them have chosen to break rank.

More than 150 tech workers have so far signed a petition asking for their company CEOs to call the White House, demand that ICE leave US cities, and speak out publicly against the agency’s recent violence. Anne Diemer, a human resources consultant and former Stripe employee who organized the petition, says that workers at Meta, Google, Amazon, OpenAI, TikTok, Spotify, Salesforce, Linkedin, and Rippling are among those who have signed. The group plans to make the list public once they reach 200 signatories.

“I think so many tech folks have felt like they can’t speak up,” Diemer told WIRED. “I want tech leaders to call the country’s leaders and condemn ICE’s actions, but even if this helps people find their people and take a small part in fighting fascism, then that’s cool, too.”

Nikhil Thorat, an engineer at Anthropic, said in a lengthy post on X that Good’s killing had “stirred something” in him. “A mother was gunned down in the street by ICE, and the government doesn’t even have the decency to perform a scripted condolence,” he wrote. Thorat added that the moral foundation of modern society is “infected, and is festering,” and the country is living through a “cosplay” of Nazi Germany, a time when people also stayed silent out of fear.

Jonathan Frankle, chief AI scientist at Databricks, added a “+1” to Thorat’s post. Shrisha Radhakrishna, chief technology and chief product officer of real estate platform Opendoor, replied that what happened to Good is “not normal. It’s immoral. The speed at which the administration is moving to dehumanize a mother is terrifying.” Other users who identified themselves as employees at OpenAI and Anthropic also responded in support of Thorat.

Shortly after Good was shot, Jeff Dean, an early Google employee and University of Minnesota graduate who is now the chief scientist at Google DeepMind and Google Research, began re-sharing posts with his 400,000 X followers criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration tactics, including one outlining circumstances in which deadly force isn’t justified for police officers interacting with moving vehicles.

He then weighed in himself. “This is completely not okay, and we can’t become numb to repeated instances of illegal and unconstitutional action by government agencies,” Dean wrote in an X post on January 10. “The recent days have been horrific.” He linked to a video of a teenager—identified as a US citizen—being violently arrested at a Target in Richfield, Minnesota.

In response to US Vice President JD Vance’s assertion on X that Good was trying to run over the ICE agent with her vehicle, Aaron Levie, the CEO of the cloud storage company Box, replied, “Why is he shooting after he’s fully out of harm’s way (2nd and 3rd shot)? Why doesn’t he just move away from the vehicle instead of standing in front of it?” He added a screenshot of a Justice Department webpage outlining best practices for law enforcement officers interacting with suspects in moving vehicles.





Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

A Brain Mechanism Explains Why People Leave Certain Tasks for Later

Published

on

A Brain Mechanism Explains Why People Leave Certain Tasks for Later


How does procrastination arise? The reason you decide to postpone household chores and spend your time browsing social media could be explained by the workings of a brain circuit. Recent research has identified a neural connection responsible for delaying the start of activities associated with unpleasant experiences, even when these activities offer a clear reward.

The study, led by Ken-ichi Amemori, a neuroscientist at Kyoto University, aimed to analyze the brain mechanisms that reduce motivation to act when a task involves stress, punishment, or discomfort. To do this, the researchers designed an experiment with monkeys, a widely used model for understanding decisionmaking and motivation processes in the brain.

The scientists worked with two macaques that were trained to perform various decisionmaking tasks. In the first phase of the experiment, after a period of water restriction, the animals could activate one of two levers that released different amounts of liquid; one option offered a smaller reward and the other a larger one. This exercise allowed them to evaluate how the value of the reward influences the willingness to perform an action.

In a later stage, the experimental design incorporated an unpleasant element. The monkeys were given the choice of drinking a moderate amount of water without negative consequences or drinking a larger amount on the condition of receiving a direct blast of air in the face. Although the reward was greater in the second option, it involved an uncomfortable experience.

As the researchers anticipated, the macaques’ motivation to complete the task and access the water decreased considerably when the aversive stimulus was introduced. This behavior allowed them to identify a brain circuit that acts as a brake on motivation in the face of anticipated adverse situations. In particular, the connection between the ventral striatum and the ventral pallidum, two structures located in the basal ganglia of the brain, known for their role in regulating pleasure, motivation, and reward systems, was observed to be involved.

The neural analysis revealed that when the brain anticipates an unpleasant event or potential punishment, the ventral striatum is activated and sends an inhibitory signal to the ventral pallidum, which is normally responsible for driving the intention to perform an action. In other words, this communication reduces the impulse to act when the task is associated with a negative experience.

The Brain Connection Behind Procrastination

To investigate the specific role of this connection, as described in the study published in the journal Current Biology, researchers used a chemogenetic technique that, through the administration of a specialized drug, temporarily disrupted communication between the two brain regions. By doing so, the monkeys regained the motivation to initiate tasks, even in those tests that involved blowing air.

Notably, the inhibitory substance produced no change in trials where reward was not accompanied by punishment. This result suggests that the EV-PV circuit does not regulate motivation in a general way, but rather is specifically activated to suppress it when there is an expectation of discomfort. In this sense, apathy toward unpleasant tasks appears to develop gradually as communication between these two regions intensifies.

Beyond explaining why people tend to unconsciously resist starting household chores or uncomfortable obligations, the findings have relevant implications for understanding disorders such as depression or schizophrenia, in which patients often experience a significant loss of the drive to act.

However, Amemori emphasizes that this circuit serves an essential protective function. “Overworking is very dangerous. This circuit protects us from burnout,” he said in comments reported by Nature. Therefore, he cautions that any attempt to externally modify this neural mechanism must be approached with care, as further research is needed to avoid interfering with the brain’s natural protective processes.

This story originally appeared in WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending