Wouldnt the thing described in the wikipedia article not apply because of the description steam allows you to give and because 20% is not that high of a percentage?
Wouldnt the article linked on the post contradict your argument that there is no reason to add a way to disclose AI use because nobody is going to do that? There are a lot of games that admit to the use of AI
The year of the linux desktop will only happen if no one said that year is the year of the linux desktop
But its not too general. Steam allows you to give a description of the use of AI
If its common, it doesnt mean that every game is made like that and because something is notorious, it doesnt mean everyone knows about it
Assuming you have a 50% chance to double your money and a 50% chance to lose all of it, you would have a 97% chance to leave with no money and a 3% chance to leave with 3200% of your money
But there is a difference
Steam allows you to describe how you used AI
That kind of behavior should be disclosed too
Steam allows you to describe the use of AI
Also, if you know you are making a game for steam, why not just ignore the copilot suggestion? I dont think it will increase the time to make a game by that much time
Even if it is ignored by a lot of people, its better than not knowing at all
But it has meaning to some consumers. Not everyone can tell that an image has been majorly edited or created using a program created to replicate pictures
Because AI training and humans training are different
I wonder if water with more estrogen or water with less estrogen would sell more