u/CryZe92

Can't wait for Pokemon REUNITE

Yeah he is excited that AI will allow people to focus more on game design and less on the "tasks". And he's thinking we are entering a great era where everyone can make games now.

Also being called a project lead

EOS is just an automated mistranslation of Aeos

/cope

So the reason why we are not getting any leaks is simply because the game hasn’t been updated. The next update is scheduled for October 27 (we’ve known this since early September or so), which is also when the supposed End of Service announcement would come. Though chances are there’s still some more content / battle passes.

There's also a quote of him saying that he thinks we are entering a good era now that more people can create games, so he's certainly "for" AI. But of course his argument is more nuanced and he also sees the risks. But it's crazy to me that people think he's somehow mostly anti AI, when he's mostly pro AI with some nuanced takes on how we need to be careful that we still need to be involved in the game creation process, especially in the designing phase.

Well I provided direct quotes of him praising AI, you didn't provide any proof of this being somehow wrong. So it's on you to disprove it.

Oh and he also straight up said:

今はゲームデザイナーでなくてもゲームが作れる。…いい時代になったと思います。

which translates to:

Nowadays, even people who aren't game designers can make games. … I think we've entered a good era.

so yeah good luck trying to spin this any other way.

That's what he is saying: humans provide the original ideas and creative direction, while tools help execute them.

He explicitly compares generative AI to earlier technologies that automated technical work, allowing people's actual design abilities to shine through. He calls AI taking over more of that work "a very good thing."

You can disagree with his reasoning, but that doesn't change what he's saying.

You completely misunderstood almost everything he's saying. He's saying that the "programming" / "performing tasks" aspect accidentally leads people to believe they created something valuable because it was enjoyable for them to code ("The tricky part is that these tasks are actually quite enjoyable") when the actual game itself isn't enjoyable ("The danger, however, lies in becoming so satisfied with these tasks that one mistakenly believes, "I’ve created something quite good.""). So the "creative design process" and the "performing the task" should be separated according to him ("We always distinguish between "creating" and "performing tasks.""). And that he thinks AI will help separate these two things and he thinks it's a good thing ("That is why, as AI takes over more of these tasks, it offers everyone an opportunity to reflect seriously on what it truly means to "create." I believe this is a very positive development."). And that historically they fell into the trap of simply implementing something and thinking it was good rather than working at the intent / design level ("Even in the past, there were likely designs that came into existence through nothing more than copy-pasting, but such things never endure. At the heart of any design lies an individual’s intent; the computer is simply there to assist with the tasks required to realize that intent.").

He even gives an example in the interview where in the past similar things happened where more automation previously led to people truly being able to become more creative ("Only when these tools took over the technical aspects of the work did an individual’s personal design sensibilities, such as a flair for layout, truly come to the fore. This led to many instances where, for example, a husband might have been the professional designer while his wife managed the household, only for it to emerge that she actually possessed the greater design talent. That is what it means for tools to change. I believe that is precisely what is happening now with generative AI.")

No, this is a mostly pro AI stance. He is saying that development is mostly two aspects "the design" / "creating" and "putting that design into code" / "performing tasks":

We always distinguish between "creating" and "performing tasks." When we set out to create something, we first establish a broad structure. Everything that follows—filling in the gaps, refining the details—is what I call "performing tasks."

He sees AI as positive as you can focus more on the design and thus you can explore more ideas:

That is why, as AI takes over more of these tasks, it offers everyone an opportunity to reflect seriously on what it truly means to "create." I believe this is a very positive development.

Even in the past, there were likely designs that came into existence through nothing more than copy-pasting—but such things never endure. At the heart of any design lies an individual’s intent; the computer is simply there to assist with the tasks required to realize that intent.

Yeah that's what he's saying. I don't think many people expected that.

It's great to see he has a nuanced take on AI and sees not just the risks. I didn't expect Nintendo to be so on board with AI just yet.

It's probably just because it can look at a ton of code at once and can see the problematic patterns much more easily than if a human would do it (as in, it would take more time and you can't as easily look at 100k lines of code at once).

This is just completely wrong. LLMs are finding new massive exploits multiple times a day now (Linux kernel, PHP, GitLab, Wasmtime, Plex2Shell, Nginx, Node.js, Railway, ...). You need to start accepting that they are generalizing beyond their training set nowadays.

It's almost like there's nuances to this.

They also deleted Hisuian Zoroark.

As long as it's not using PHP.

Can't hurt to check again

Mostly because they used a ton of AI for this. Which doesn't have to mean it's an invalid result, but people on Reddit hate AI a lot.

don't worry, you are not alone that's what half the people on Twitter and probably Reddit too think

So the thing is that over subscription you pay an immensely lower price for AI than over the API. The API is usually what they charge companies and there's insanely huge margins involved so they can train new models and stuff. The actual cost of running inference (as in using AI) is so much lower and that's roughly what you get over a subscription (there's probably still a margin). And usually (though this may be different from provider to provider) they use the sessions over the subscriptions to further train their models whereas over the API there's often zero data retention, which is also likely why you then instead have to "pay for the training directly" instead of via your "data". And yes it's literally the difference between 400k and 500 dollars.

unless maybe it’s as part of a new map

The chinese models are not that far behind and are open weight. It's really not that bad. Though I'd agree if the US or so starts banning them. But even then Nvidia, Facebook, Google, Mistral are still releasing open weight models too (even just today).

This but unironically. You can’t just keep going with whatever Phil was doing.

Yes and no. OP told them (and yes they are probably Claude or something) that they are fine with AI but a single PR was too big, so they (Claude or so) split up the PR into many smaller ones that are easier to review. So they complied with what OP wanted them to do. This is not abuse, but maybe miscommunication / OP not being sure how to deal with so many changes at once.

So yes, it is a lot and it is also hard to review and it also is a little dystopian to talk to a bot, but not technically abuse if the bot did exactly what OP told them to do.