Move comes after Druckmann publicly disavowed some quotes: "This is not quite what I said."
See full article...
See full article...
Sony removes interview that quotes Last of Us creator lauding AI tools
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
It is one thing if you want to paraphrase a response for clarity and to be more concise. However, you do not put the paraphrasing into quotes.
Upvote
110
(110
/
0)
Never let PR put out something attributed to you without checking it first. If they have a concept of honesty, it doesn't match ours.
Upvote
86
(86
/
0)
So, if I can paraphrase what you wrote here, Kyle, is that Sony intends to use AI to create all games going forward and their staff is completely on-board with it?
Upvote
148
(149
/
-1)
That's strange, I got "Star Wars was a mistake" out of it when I read that ...
Upvote
43
(43
/
0)
Guess what kind of tool they probably used to condense his original thoughts, with a few company specific talking points input as additional variables to pepper in where possible.
Upvote
75
(76
/
-1)
- Add bookmark
- Featured
- #8
Having been the victim of misquoting where a public retraction had to be made, I have this request to make to PR orgs:
Please, PLEASE always send copy to the stakeholders and leave enough time for them to read it and respond before you publish. It will not only foster a better relationship with them, but it could stave off a PR disaster when one of them says "er, that's not quite what I said" later on. Sign-off is IMPORTANT.
Please, PLEASE always send copy to the stakeholders and leave enough time for them to read it and respond before you publish. It will not only foster a better relationship with them, but it could stave off a PR disaster when one of them says "er, that's not quite what I said" later on. Sign-off is IMPORTANT.
Upvote
80
(81
/
-1)
Condensed version not quite reflecting the actual content, generic-sounding language, not-so-subtle promotion of AI: Sony simply used AI to rewrite the interview! It all makes sense!
Edit: ninjaed!
Edit: ninjaed!
Upvote
52
(54
/
-2)
Anyone who has had the, uh, privilege of working with corporate PR know that this is really, sadly, quite normal.
It’s just that studio folks of lesser gravitas would not dare contradict them publicly.
It’s just that studio folks of lesser gravitas would not dare contradict them publicly.
Upvote
39
(40
/
-1)
Yeah, it’s one thing for an outside reporter to hilariously alter what an interviewee said. It’s PR 101 for an internal interview to provide a final draft to the interviewee to ensure they agree to what was said. I mean, 3/4 of the time the PR people are putting words in the mouths of that person. But it’s common courtesy to make sure they‘re okay with those words.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
I'm genuinely shocked that Sony, of all companies, issued a retraction-slash-apology.
It isn't quite "Nintendo acknowledges that they've been total assholes about everything from OST remixes to emulating 20-year-old games" or "Samsung finally repairs all of the things they were obligated to repair under warranty without demanding detailed background checks on its customers", but Sony's definitely in my top five "utterly and unjustifiably arrogant douchebags" list.
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
Yeah; I suspect some heads are going to roll in the PR department. Someone obviously didn't follow protocol here, and that's the reason we get the public retraction/apology, because they have liability that has to be covered.
And you reminded me that Sony never actually made it off my "avoid their products" list -- I usually set a 5 year statute of limitations on that, as a company is generally not the same beast 5 years after their last gaffe... but Sony's been pulling things regularly enough between 1989 and today that I only had one three year period in the mid-2000s where they hadn't done something I considered unconscionable. Maybe I can use this retraction/apology as a negative weight on that, for their games org anyway.
Upvote
6
(8
/
-2)
Tell me that Sony's PR revised the interview without telling me that PR was involved...
The best practice of reputed media outlets is to make note when an interview is "edited for length and clarity" and request the edited version to be checked by the source before publication. However, that practice is rarely followed by (large) corporations, regardless of the source being internal or external to the company. And when PR is involved in the process, then it is almost certain that the edited version will include fabrications and misrepresentations. The only surprising part about this story is that Sony somehow acknowledged the problem.
The best practice of reputed media outlets is to make note when an interview is "edited for length and clarity" and request the edited version to be checked by the source before publication. However, that practice is rarely followed by (large) corporations, regardless of the source being internal or external to the company. And when PR is involved in the process, then it is almost certain that the edited version will include fabrications and misrepresentations. The only surprising part about this story is that Sony somehow acknowledged the problem.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
This AI makes 13 or 14 more major mistakes and I will really be steaming angry!
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
Turdpolish can be quite corrosive when applied to other things, but when in PR, with a 100 gallon Powersprayer of turdpolish, everything looks like shit.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Out-sourced PR client now looking for new customer while Sony's PR reps work overtime re: damage control.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Nobody is asking to interview me, but I would insist on recording the interview myself in addition to whatever recording method the interviewer uses. There are too many stories of interviewees taking issue with the article/story written about them to not protect yourself with a simple recording.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Companies really want to push the narrative that the people they're trying to replace with AI are super excited to be unemployed, and that AI is actually ready for prime time right now so they can go ahead and cut those workers ASAP...
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
So if I'm getting the gist of this article it says that a naughty dog ... created... a "'carefully crafted'... dream project... using AI tools... that 'could redefine mainstream perceptions of gaming." Am I right?
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Yes that's what it seems like Kyle is trying to mislead people into thinking but if you read the whole article the statements have nothing to do with AI they just over paraphrased the interview and added absolutely nothing about AI that is a completely made up narrative by Kyle.
Upvote
-7
(0
/
-7)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
"We sent a copy to the stakeholders but they didn't immediately respond" is what it'd probably end up as.
I despise it when news or other publications have the "they didn't immediately respond" in the article, they wave it around like a get out of jail card.
Upvote
-6
(0
/
-6)
Gomez Addams
Ars Praetorian
I saw it first hand once. My band was interviewed by the local newspaper about the release party for our second album. The next night we were playing a benefit show regarding a ballot measure. The interview almost completely ignored our album release and did a horrendous job of quoting us regarding the measure. We didn't give them another interview.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
It seems you're trying to mislead people into thinking that Kyle is trying to mislead people. Your narrative that he's inserting a narrative about AI when there was no mention of AI misses paragraph three, which is where the AI kerfuffle appears.
The bloke interviewed by sony complained that sony's paraphrase differed wildly from what he actually said and posted an example BUT this is not related to either of the two pro-AI snippets referred to in paragraph three.
The "attracting attention" link explains the uproar in more detail.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Weird...I was expecting to find AI discussed in the quote and the summary, but no...
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.
SONY: Do you like working for Sony?
ARTIST: Well, [I have never felt so artistically fulfilled.]
SONY: Is art, in general, good?
ARTIST: Yes [but you know what's even better? Rootkit-based DRM! We should give that another shot.]
SONY: Do you like working for Sony?
ARTIST: Well, [I have never felt so artistically fulfilled.]
SONY: Is art, in general, good?
ARTIST: Yes [but you know what's even better? Rootkit-based DRM! We should give that another shot.]
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
You're conflating two different things here. When a journalist reaches out to a third party for comment and to notify them they're going to be mentioned in an article, that's a courtesy. If they get no timely response, they're perfectly fine to add that comment. It means anyone reading the article knows that there might be more information forthcoming once this information starts getting views.
But when PR push something out, they're pushing out material that their company needs to have the rights to publish. And as part of that, they need to get sign-off from those who created the content. In this case, comments made by a contracted employee were manipulated to say something that was incorrect. A quick "here's what we're going with; let us know if it's correct by tomorrow at 11:30" should have been enough to avoid all this public mess.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
It's possible that current AI tools could be used in the development pipeline for [new] games. To give inspiration for different ideas, or help out in generation of some [simple] art assets, or even logic outlines of how to accomplish certain things. But that is likely the extent of it. For triple A games, so much of the process still needs to be vetted by teams of people, otherwise the statement "garbage in - garbage out" will apply. I've seen recent independent developers rely on AI to generate content and use it without modification in the final product. Either the game is complete garbage, or what it does do well enough becomes so duplicated that the game itself is boring.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
One of my relatives was heavily involved in the Militant-aligned trade unions in the 1970s and 80s, and would always insist on being interviewed in front of a clock. Nowadays that wouldn’t prevent edits, but it would prove bad faith if their recording doesn’t match yours.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)