安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
I suppose you're thinking of an A.I. that searches the internet for game guides and walkthroughs to help answer your queries? That's pretty easy to do.
I kinda prefer the olde school way personally.
Same. If someone already wrote the guide I'm looking for, I can ctrl+f in it and find what I want. If they haven't, I need to ask real people who made or have played the game.
Shoving autocomplete in there as a middleman doesn't really help with anything (unless you're trying to get investor funding).
I mean, there's something similar on xbox game bar with copilot, but I think Valve would do it better, maybe it could even reference those community guides.
I ditched Windows specifically to get away from that kind of thing, but if you like it, knock yourself out I guess.
Ignoring cost and effort required: where would you even get training data? Steam guides? If that's where the information is, then just read the Steam guides. Throwing autocomplete into the mix doesn't make the information better.