QAing a game built on a framework where fundamental mechanics are non-deterministic and context-sensitive sounds like a special kind of hell. Not to mention that once you find a bug there's no way to fix it directly, since the source code is an opaque blob of weights, so you just have to RLHF it until it eventually behaves.
Seems like there's already a lot of slop on steam and I really doubt it will be difficult for quality content to be highlighted even if the amount of games increases 1000x or more
That has been the case since art was first industrialized with the printing press. Most of them don’t survive but a significant fraction, if not the vast majority, of books printed in the first century were trashy novels about King Arthur and other fantasies (we know from publisher records and bibliographies that they were very popular but don’t have detailed sales figures to compare against older content like translated Greek classics). Only a small fraction of content created since then has been preserved because most of it was slop. The good stuff made it into the Western canon over centuries but most of the stuff that survives from that time period were family bibles and archaic translations.
I don’t see why AI will be any different. All that’s changed is ratio of potential creators to the general population. Most of it is going to be slop regardless because of economic incentives.
Are game ratings reliable on Steam? If yes, then it will be easy to avoid the slop. Or are they overrun with clickbots, like Amazon, where people give five stars for some crap product?
So I see the most likely outcome is a lot of dogshit and Steam being forced to make draconian moves to protect the integrity of the store.