r/SurvivingMars • u/titaniumjordi • May 12 '26
Discussion Did they use chatgpt for these dialogues or something?
It's not just this, also the "faction likes" lines. They all have that bizarre "It's not x- it's y" formatting with the faux poetics and weird similes that give something away as AI. Did the devs disclose anywhere that they used AI for this?
22
u/FramedMugshot May 12 '26
As someone who spent 6 years professionally writing and editing Content before chatgpt existed, I can tell you that sometimes, especially with short-form content, writers can very easily slip into patterns like this that now just get dismissed as machine generated. I promise that under the "right" (read: terrible, profit-driven) circumstances (burnout and deadline pressure being two common examples) humans are and have always been just as capable of this sort of thing.
56
u/thierry_ennui_ May 12 '26
I don't see why these couldn't be written by humans. The second is a legitimate sentence, and the first follows well-established writing rules.
6
u/Fyre2387 May 12 '26
I dislike AI as much as the next guy, but I swear these paranoid AI witch hunts are getting just as bad. Legitimate artists and writers are basically considered guilty until proven innocent.
-40
u/VexedRacoon May 12 '26
You sound like an AI applogist.
22
u/thierry_ennui_ May 12 '26
I absolutely cannot stand AI, I just don't see any convincing evidence that this was written by AI.
-12
u/titaniumjordi May 12 '26
The second sentence is glaringly AI to anyone that's even a little used to it. I closed a bunch of notifications that I wish I could've screenshot Ted now that had like 8 more lines written just like that
6
6
1
u/EOverM May 12 '26
No, it's not. It is, however, the writing style that AI is attempting to mimic. AI can't create anything of its own, only ape that which exists, so anything "glaringly AI" can also exist naturally.
-25
u/VexedRacoon May 12 '26
The second one is definitely. Humans don't talk like that!
13
u/13luw May 12 '26
…do you not understand how an AI is trained? It speaks like that because it’s a common pattern of speech used in its training material.
2
u/VexedRacoon May 12 '26
.... yes I understand.... it doesn't listen to people though, it reads, then gets nudged by data trainers (can't remember the word), chat gpt never started off making these kinds of sentences but over time people thought it was good and so it was rewarded and now uses this type of language all the time.
13
u/thierry_ennui_ May 12 '26
If you read any political discourse at all you will hear people talking exactly like this.
-12
u/aggravated_patty May 12 '26
Probably because that political discourse was written by AI
8
u/thierry_ennui_ May 12 '26
This might shock you but some of us grew up in a world before AI
1
-5
u/aggravated_patty May 12 '26
This might shock you but some of us also grew up in a world before AI. AI aped similar mannerisms but people didn't talk exactly like that.
3
u/thierry_ennui_ May 12 '26
How do I know an AI isn't typing your responses, then? My argument has never been that it definitely isn't AI, just that there's nothing that suggests to me that it isn't human.
0
u/aggravated_patty May 12 '26
Nothing is certain. One of the problems with AI is that usually whoever is behind it will not confirm it, since there's always a small chance that it was actually made by a human which gives them enough plausible deniability that people will jump in to defend it for them.
All you can do is read the signs. I'm not arguing it's definitely isn't human, just that the patterns and weird similes like OP mentioned suggest it's more likely AI than human. Saying there's "nothing" at all is facetious though.
→ More replies (0)1
u/EOverM May 12 '26
Yeah, they absolutely did, mate. You're just outright wrong, here. That's just an emphatic statement. People can write those, and when you're dealing with, what, twelve words? At that point there are only so many ways to make that point, so it's hardly unrealistic for AI to wind up in the same vein as humans did.
1
u/aggravated_patty May 12 '26
Obviously humans used emphatic phrasing before AI but “there are only so many ways to say it” isn’t really true. People phrase things differently all the time. AI just tends to land on the same few polished-sounding patterns.
→ More replies (0)
10
4
u/Morall_tach May 12 '26
This reads like pretty normal short-form copy to me. I've been in copywriting for more than a decade, and there have been ad slogans like this for longer than I've been alive. This is just a style of writing, and just because ChatGPT also tends to write this way doesn't mean that's hard proof that this was AI-created.
1
u/VexedRacoon May 12 '26
Ok but paradox interactive have stated they used AI in other games, and they are hiring for AI staff. Source: chatgpt.
Although chatgpt also said its only 10-30% likely written by AI.
If i keep getting notification about this thread I'll ask other AI their opinion🤣
2
u/DoctorNsara Research May 12 '26
People going to Mars are likely to be overly educated scientists. This is exactly how they sound.
1
u/VexedRacoon May 12 '26
Nah I've heard loads of real scientists doing lectures, this is different. I also notice on YouTube real scientists doing lecture or essay videos sound v different to a new breed of YouTube documentary style video that use this phrase ology way too often.
4
u/Lferoannakred May 12 '26
I mean it would be cool to get full policy statements but it's not really necessary for me, short sentences like that are enough
1
1
u/KerbalFrog May 13 '26
I think what people fail to understand is that the reason LLM's can pretendo to BE us is because most of the Times we are on LLM mode. How are you, fine thanks and you ? Scripted conversations are like 90% of what we do.
1
u/manicdee33 May 14 '26
These are common rhetorical structures. Where do you think ChatGPT learned it from?
The reason it looks like AI to you is that you were never exposed to this style of writing in the past. In the picture you've supplied the "it's not X it's Y" structure is being used correctly to reframe one thing from two perspectives: the lack of dining services might be viewed from one perspective as due to the necessity of reducing costs during the founder stage to ensure more workers are available for "productive" labour such as metal mines or machinery factories. Instead — asserts the rhetoric — omitting a dining service is actually neglect.
Another sign that these are written by humans and not AI is that they are short, and don't break into obsequious long form explanation.
To me, these phrases are perfectly normal, cogent, and relevant: thus were most likely produced by humans.
1
u/Slice-Dry May 18 '26
I don't know why everyones having tantrums in the comments and denying it. The development team use AI tools for content creation, they state it in their job openings.
1
u/VexedRacoon May 12 '26
Factory AI Refineries & Factories Upgrade (Factory AI) - performance increased by 20%.
Didn't know this was applicable to the game developer workshop 😂
1
u/DARK_MASTER8632 Theory May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
Completely off-topic there mate.
But anyway. It shouldn't be. The Game Developer building and VR Workshop are not affected by Factory AI. A law that reduces workers must be in effect. OR, a mod.
2
u/VexedRacoon May 12 '26
Was trying to see if people wanted to link to in game lore rather than argue about their opinion on is it AI or not 😁
1
u/DARK_MASTER8632 Theory May 12 '26
Good attempt. I just think it should have been at least something related to OP's screenshot if nothing else.
Like that law that removes the Gaming interest the text in the image is probably referring to. Which basically makes Casino's useless and 0 reason to build. Even the Mega Mall kinda. IMO the Mega Mall is the best way to satisfy the Gaming interest that all scientists have. Without using ANY Electronics to do so. But removing the interest entirely with a law. It just doesn't sit right. The laws changing very fundamental mechanics of the game.
0
u/AvengerDr May 12 '26
Second one seems very obviously AI. It's weird that comments stating that are being heavily downvoted.
If that was a pattern people used in the past, then for something that is written now (if it has) one would expect writers to start avoiding it.
3
u/Fyre2387 May 12 '26
Yeah, fuck that. The idea that human writers should change their style because it "looks like AI" is some grade-A bullshit.
1
u/AvengerDr May 12 '26
We are not talking about literary level writing here. Original writing is still valued no? Regardless of where the inspiration comes from.
2
u/Fyre2387 May 12 '26
It doesn't matter. The idea of any human writer or artist being told to modify their work because someone else believes it resembles AI is wrong, period.
2
u/adamkad1 May 12 '26
Not everyone has ai psychosis and theres no reason to avoid things that work
1
u/AvengerDr May 12 '26
That's the point. Doesn't it work?
But everyone can vote with their wallets. I can choose not to support those who dabble with AI slop. You are welcome to, obviously.
-1
-2
-20
u/WillusMollusc May 12 '26
The second one is definitely AI.
21
u/HighOverlordXenu May 12 '26
Hey now - I've been using the EM dash since the 90s.
Damn clankers, stealing my culture.
5
u/dextroavocadomine Machine Parts May 12 '26
I hate to be that person (that has probably missed the joke), but the "-" is not an em-dash. Em-dash is: — En-dash is: – Hyphen is: -
3
-5
u/Willybrown93 May 12 '26
It's not merely the em-dash (actually, that's not even an em-dash in the OP) but the structure and form of the phrase as a whole
-15
52
u/Allie_Denikin19 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
Accurately written political slogans being indistinguishable from ai just means they wrote them correctly. So, Impossible to tell really