Comment by bob1029

2 days ago

I've been working with a partner on a game and we decided that AI assets are acceptable to use for targeted scenarios like localization and accessibility (text-to-text, text-to-speech).

The red line is AI cannot be the prime generator of content. For example, the text that is to be localized must be authored by a human. Using ChatGPT to generate scripts from a brief prompt and then feeding that into another AI tool is an example of strictly prohibited use.

You can have an actual human redo the translations or voice lines without much frustration (i.e., if we actually make any money). Anything further than that gets a lot more invasive in terms of rework.

3 comments

bob1029

Reply
dwroberts  2 days ago

> like localization

I think you’re making a big mistake with this one. Assuming it’s being used for anything other than eg placeholder before real translation/localization.

Even decent professionally translated games get this stuff wrong sometimes and irritate their audiences, I can’t imagine how badly AI will bungle it

  • dghlsakjg  2 days ago

    I think in this case the choice is between AI localization and no localization at all. If that is the case, I actually think that users will appreciate localization with minor issues over doing things in English.

    Anecdotally, I have found AI translation to be perfectly acceptable for the languages that I do know, on par with a human translation service, at least. This may be different in a game with e.g. fantasy vocabulary that is made up.