Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

thegamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 421 posts

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#301

Post by suspended_state »

Hamuko wrote: post #72
thiht wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s incredibly harsh. A blanket ban on AI generated assets is dumb as hell. Generating placeholder assets is completely acceptable.

The problem of allowing "placeholder AI assets" is that any shipped asset found to be AI is going to be explained away as being "just a placeholder". How are we supposed to confirm that they never meant to ship the game like this? All we know is that they shipped the game with AI assets.

Shouldn't there be an argument for best effort? If the issue has been removed as soon as it has been detected, doesn't it count for something?

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#302

Post by Kim_Bruning »

There's an interesting question about scope.

The IGA FAQ states, in its entirety on this topic: "Games developed using generative AI are strictly ineligible for nomination." [1]

Sandfall probably interpreted this reasonably: no AI assets in the shipped product. They say they stripped out AI placeholders before release (and patched the ones they missed). But the IGA is reading it strictly: any use during development disqualifies.

If that's the standard, it gets interesting. DLSS and OptiX are trained neural networks in an infrastructure-shaped raincoat—ML models generating pixels that were never rendered. If you used Blender Cycles with OptiX viewport denoising while iterating on your scenes, you "developed using generative AI."

By a strict reading, any RTX-enabled development pipeline is disqualifying. I wonder if folks have fully thought this through.

[1] https://www.indiegameawards.gg/faq (under "Game Eligibility")

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#303

Post by itishappy »

culturestate wrote: post #80
mvdtnz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It literally is shipping AI generated content in the product.

> It literally is shipping AI generated content in the product. When someone goes three miles per hour over the speed limit they are literally breaking the law, but that doesn’t mean they should get a serious fine for it. Sometimes shit happens.

"Sometimes shit happens" should be viable in a courtroom sometimes, but by nature competition rules leave less room for interpretation.

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#305

Post by Filligree »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #302

There's an interesting question about scope. The IGA FAQ states, in its entirety on this topic: "Games developed using generative AI are strictly ineligible for nomination." [1] Sandfall probably interpreted this reasonably: no AI assets in the shipped product. They say they stripped out AI placeholders before release (and patched the ones they missed). But the IGA is reading it strictly: any use during development d…

Before people chime in to claim "That isn't what we meant"...

DLSS and Cycles denoising are, well, denoising. It's the same process as denoising in Stable Diffusion, essentially, and was trained in the same way.

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#306

Post by NeutralCrane »

fooqux wrote: post #207
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #200

The game won GOTY on its merits. Then the AI disclosure came out and it got stripped. If AI use produces obviously inferior work, how did it win in the first place? Seems like the objection is to the process, not the result. Doubly so if the usage was de minimis. I think it's the artists, not the tools, that make the art. Overuse of anything is gauche; but I am confident that beautiful things can be made with almost…

> I think it's the artists, not the tools, that make the art. I've never liked this argument. If AI is a tool, then having my own personal woodworker on staff makes me a woodworker too.

We do make this argument all the time though. Film is probably the number one example in my mind. After actors, we celebrate directors more than any other individual in film. Directors often don’t write the script. They don’t handle the camera or the lighting or sound. They don’t create the music. They don’t do the editing in post. They don’t do the acting. But they do direct all of the people doing those things to achieve an overall vision, and we recognize that has significant artistic merit. Directors are not artists, or cinematographers, or composers, or actors, or visual effects artists, or sound technicians. But they are still artists, because art is more than the technical skill to produce something.

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#307

Post by orwin »

fooqux wrote: post #207
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #200

The game won GOTY on its merits. Then the AI disclosure came out and it got stripped. If AI use produces obviously inferior work, how did it win in the first place? Seems like the objection is to the process, not the result. Doubly so if the usage was de minimis. I think it's the artists, not the tools, that make the art. Overuse of anything is gauche; but I am confident that beautiful things can be made with almost…

> I think it's the artists, not the tools, that make the art. I've never liked this argument. If AI is a tool, then having my own personal woodworker on staff makes me a woodworker too.

I dislike this argument only when taken to the extreme 'GenAI allows anyone to create arts'. It's like saying 'Ikea allow anyone to be a woodworker'!

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#308

Post by orwin »

ahartmetz wrote: post #7
hambes wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but that is a different issue. The use of generative AI for art is being rightfully criticised because it steals from artists. Generative AI for source code learns from developers - who mostly publish their source with licenses that allow this. The quality suffers in both cases and I would personally criticise generative AI in source code as well, but the ethical argument is only against profiting from artists…

> Generative AI for source code learns from developers - who mostly publish their source with licenses that allow this. As far as I'm concerned, not at all. FOSS code that I have written is not intended to enrich LLM companies and make developers of closed source competition more effective. The legal situation is not clear yet.

To me, if the AI is trained on GPLv3/AGPL code, any code it generate should be GPLv3/AGPL too, the licence seems clear imho.

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#309

Post by tpoacher »

matt_kantor wrote: post #260
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, even though I'm not in favour of gen ai. It was a terrible mistake letting placeholder assets get out in the final release, but it shouldn't actually count as shipping AI-generated content in your product.

> representatives of Sandfall Interactive agreed that no gen AI was used in the development of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 Even if all the AI-generated content had been replaced before release, this would still be a lie.

not really. the spirit of the (dumb) rule is that AI was not involved anywhere in the creative process. placeholder textures don't even come close

it's like having doping rules in sports and then disqualifying someone for using caffeine in their gym plants.

Re: Clair Obscur having its Indie Game Game Of The Year award stripped due to AI use

#310

Post by mrwrong »

NeutralCrane wrote: post #306
fooqux wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's the artists, not the tools, that make the art. I've never liked this argument. If AI is a tool, then having my own personal woodworker on staff makes me a woodworker too.

We do make this argument all the time though. Film is probably the number one example in my mind. After actors, we celebrate directors more than any other individual in film. Directors often don’t write the script. They don’t handle the camera or the lighting or sound. They don’t create the music. They don’t do the editing in post. They don’t do the acting. But they do direct all of the people doing those things to a…

just because auteur theory is popular doesn't mean it's correct
Post reply on HN