• termaxima@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    Be prepared for Square Enix games to fail even EA’s QA standards in the near future 😅

  • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

  • razzazzika@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

  • Grass@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 days ago

    it’s a bit late in the game to be making idiotic claims but I guess the default state for corpos is being out of touch

      • LostWanderer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 days ago

          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.

          • osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 days ago

            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

            • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • binarytobis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 days ago

          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.