In my country we say ajajajajajjjj
It’s your funeral
Be prepared for Square Enix games to fail even EA’s QA standards in the near future 😅
Oh. Gross.
So their games will cost 70% less right?
A lot of hate in the comments but IMO this is one of the few things that LLMs are actually really good for. It’s a shit job nobody wants to do that LLMs are really good at. Notice that they said 70% and not 100%. Yeah that means they’re probably going to have 30 people doing the work that 100 people used to do but people are still in the picture overseeing things. Automation isn’t, by itself, bad. The bad part is that our whole society is built on the idea that your entire value as a person is based on being able to work and make money and job loss is way worse than it should be.
70% by what metric?
Is that going by bugs identified, fixes implemented, headcount?
So… im a big supporter of squeenix, buy everything they make… but this tells me the quality of their games is going to go down the toilet. Knowing AI it’ll come up with fake lists of bugs that didn’t happen and all the real bugs will not be listed and they’ll release the buggies shit. One thing I LIKE about square, being one of the few companies I do pre-orders from still, is that their products are fairly bug free on launch FFXVI had some graphics optimization issues, but I’ve been happy with most of what I got the past few years.
FFXIV saved them and they don’t ever put any money back into the game. It’s their cash cow that pays for all their other bad ideas.
Great graphics and legacy. But some crappy ideas about what the players want.
Look at their payment systems for subs. It’s so confusing for no damn reason.
Believe it or not FFXI was even MORE confusing to sub
Moment for silence for David “Ribs” Carillo 🪦
Well their goes FFXIV, that will be their end
I will continue ignoring anything they make
deleted by creator
Ew, sounds like a great reason to not buy any Square Enix games…
Not even from an ethically standpoint. Color me shocked if these games are like, playable
Exactly, as I don’t expect QA done by something that can’t think or feel to know what actually needs to be fixed. AI is a hallucination engine that just agrees rather than points out issues, in some cases it might call attention to non-issues and let critical bugs slip by. The ethical issues are still significant and play into the reason why I would refuse to buy any more Square Enix games going forward. I don’t trust them to walk this back, they are high on the AI lie. Human made games with humans handling the QA are the only games that I want.
AI is a hallucination engine
Whiplashed by one of the works by great bassist and producer Bill Laswell being inadvertently mentioned in discussion of AI.
Exactly, as I don’t expect QA done by something that can’t think or feel to know what actually needs to be fixed
That is a very small part of QA’s responsibility. Mostly it is about testing and identifying bugs that get triaged by management. The person running the tests is NOT responsible for deciding what can and can’t ship.
And, in that regard… this is actually a REALLY good use of “AI” (not so much generative). Imagine something like the old “A star algorithm plays mario” where it is about finding different paths to accomplish the same goal (e.g. a quest) and immediately having a lot of exactly what steps led to the anomaly for the purposes of building a reproducer.
Which actually DOES feel like a really good use case… at the cost of massive computational costs (so… “AI”).
That said: it also has all of the usual labor implications. But from a purely technical “make the best games” standpoint? Managers overseeing a rack that is running through the games 24/7 for bugs that they can then review and prioritize seems like a REALLY good move.
They’re already not paying for QA, so if anything this would be a net increase in resources allocated just to bring the machines onboard to do the task
Yeah… that is the other aspect where… labor is already getting fucked over massively so it becomes a question of how many jobs are even going away.
I would initially tap the breaks on this, if for no other reason than “AI doing Q&A” reads more like corporate buzzwords than material policy. Big software developers should already have much of their Q&A automated, at least at the base layer. Further automating Q&A is generally a better business practice, as it helps catch more bugs in the Dev/Test cycle sooner.
Then consider that Q&A work by end users is historically a miserable and soul-sucking job. Converting those roles to debuggers and active devs does a lot for both the business and the workforce. When compared to “AI is doing the art” this is night-and-day, the very definition of the “Getting rid of the jobs people hate so they can do the work they love” that AI was supposed to deliver.
Finally, I’m forced to drag out the old “95% of AI implementations fail” statistic. Far more worried that they’re going to implement a model that costs a fortune and delivers mediocre results than that they’ll implement an AI driven round of end-user testing.
Turning Q&A over to the Roomba AI to find corners of the setting that snag the user would be Gud Aktuly.
Converting those roles to debuggers and active devs does a lot for both the business and the workforce.
Hahahahaha… on wait you’re serious. Let me laugh even harder.
They’re just gonna lay them off.
The thing about QA is the work is truly endless.
If they can do their work more efficiently, they don’t get laid off.
It just means a better % of edge cases can get covered, even if you made QAs operate at 100x efficiency, they’d still have edge cases not getting covered.
They’re just gonna lay them off.
And hire other people with the excess budget. Hell, depending on how badly these systems are implemented, you can end up with more staff supporting the testing system than you had doing the testing.
The repetition of “Q&A” reads like this comment was also outsourced to AI.
I was going to say, this is one job that actually makes sense to automate. I don’t know any QA testers personally, but I’ve heard plenty of accounts of them absolutely hating their jobs and getting laid off after the time crunch anyway.
What does Q&A stand for?
Quality and assurance
Usually Questions and Answers.
Ugh. QA. Quality Assurance. Reflexively jamming that & because I am a bad AI.
Regardless, digital simulated users are going to be able to test faster, more exhaustively, and with more detailed diagnostics, than manual end users.
They already have a really cool solution for that, which they talked about in their GDC talk.. I don’t think there’s any need to slap a glorified chatbot into this, it already seems to work well and have just the right amount of human input to be reliable, while also leaving the “testcase replay gruntwork” to a script instead of a human.
That’s a stupid idea. You’re not supposed to QA or debug games. You just release it, customers report bugs, and then you promise to fix the bugs in the next patch (but don’t).
No better testing than in production.
Or do the Bethesda thing and let people playtest their slop and fix it for free.
Literally not how any of this works. You don’t let AI check your work, at best you use AI and check it’s work, and at worst you have to do everything by hand anyway.
You don’t let AI check your work
From a game dev perspective, user
Q&AQA is often annoying and repetitive labor. Endlessly criss-crossing terran hitting different buttons to make sure you don’t snag a corner or click objects in a sequence that triggers a state freeze. Hooking a PS controller to Roomba logic and having a digital tool rapidly rerun routes and explore button combos over and over, looking for failed states, is significantly better for you than hoping an overworked team of dummy players can recreate the failed state by tripping into it manually.That’s not generative AI though. Generative AI is the SLOP machine.
There’s plenty of room for sophisticated automation without any need to involve AI.
I mean, as a branding exercise, every form of sophisticated automation is getting the “AI” label.
Past that, advanced pathing algorithms are what Q&A systems need to validate all possible actions within a space. That’s the bread-and-butter of AI. Its also generally how you’d describe simulated end-users on a test system.
I mean, as a branding exercise, every form of sophisticated automation is getting the “AI” label.
The article is specifically talking about generative AI. I think we need to find new terminology to describe the kind of automation that was colloquially referred to as AI before chatgpt et al. came into existence.
The important distinction, I think, is that these things are still purpose-built and (mostly) explainable. When you have a bunch of nails, you design a hammer. An “AI bot” QA tester the way Booty describes in the article isn’t going to be an advanced algorithm that carries out specific tests. That exists already and has for years. He’s asking for something that will figure out specific tests that are worth doing when given a vague or nonexistent test plan, most likely. You need a human, or an actual AGI, for something on that level, not generative AI.
And explicitly with generative AI, as pertains to Square Enix’s initiative in the article, there are the typical huge risks of verifiability and hallucination. However unpleasant you may think a QA worker’s job is now, I guarantee you it will be even more unpleasant when the job consists of fact-checking AI bug reports all day instead of actually doing the testing.
Not all AI is generative.
If it does the job better, who the fuck cares. No one actually cares about how you feel about the tech. Cry me a river.
The problem is that if it doesn’t do a better job, no one left in charge will even know enough to give a shit, so quality will go down.
its *
Ironically, that’s definitely something AI could check for.
Spell check? Yeah fair enough. The misspelling has historical value now though so I have to keep it in :P
Ask it for many R’s there are in strawberry
