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

Post by joquarky » Mon, Dec 22, 2025, 12:12 AM UTC

program_whiz wrote: post #326

stinkbeetle wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This reasoning is invalid. If AI is doing nothing but simply "learning from" like a human, then there is no "stealing from artists" either. A person is allowed to learn from copyright content and create w…

Everyone in this thread keeps treating human learning and art the same as clearly automated statistical processes with massive tech backing. Analogy: the common area had grass for grazing which local animals could freely use. Therefore, it's no problem that megacorp has come along and created a massive machine which cuts down all the trees and grass which they then sell to local farmers. After all, those resources we…

Post by VortexLain » Mon, Dec 22, 2025, 12:22 AM UTC

yallpendantools wrote: post #174

oliwarner wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But creating and picking those placeholders used to be somebody's job, maybe a junior artist. Now they're automated off the back of somebody else's work. And here we have an admission, but how many artists are being sidestepped in major games developers now? It won't be long before the EAs and Ubisofts of the world fire theirs. Then it'll be developers. Then it'll just be a committee of dolphins picking balls to feed…

> But creating and picking those placeholders used to be somebody's job, maybe a junior artist. Is it really though? After all it's just maybe a junior artist. I've had to work with some form of asset pipeline for the past ten years. The past six in an actual game though not AAA. In all these years, devs have had the privilege of picking placeholders when the actual asset is not yet available. Sometimes, we just lift…

Post by joquarky » Mon, Dec 22, 2025, 12:48 AM UTC

Ray20 wrote: post #116

m-schuetz wrote: post #82

People were against steam engines, tractors, CGI, self-checkouts, and now generative AI. After some initial outrage, it will be tightly integrated into society. Like how LLMs are already widely used to assist in coding.

Or not. Unlike all of the above, AI directly conflicts with the concept of intellectual property, which is backed by a much larger and more influential field.

Post by Eisenstein » Mon, Dec 22, 2025, 12:57 AM UTC

lieability wrote: post #364

kcb wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t care if the whole game from end to end is generative AI if it’s an incredible game. Having a moral stance against a specific use of floating point numbers and algorithms in a medium filled with floating point numbers and algorithms is strange.

Describing something so incredibly poorly, that it can be used to describe computing as a whole, only to avoid needing to take a moral stance is strange .

Post by jackothy » Mon, Dec 22, 2025, 1:19 AM UTC

PunchyHamster wrote: post #234

Anarch157a wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countries with sane laws include a tolerance limit to take into account flaws in speedometers and radars. Here in Brazil, the tolerance is 10%, so tickets clearly state "driving at speed 10% above limit".

and the rules of the contest did not include any sane boundaries. Like, using automatic lipsync is "generative AI", should that be banned ? Do we really want to fight with that purely work-saving feature ?