These awards are behind the times and risk irrelevance.
What software in 2025 is written without AI help?
Every game released recently would have AI help.
41–50 of 421 posts
These awards are behind the times and risk irrelevance.
What software in 2025 is written without AI help?
Every game released recently would have AI help.
I think it's more the fact that they lied before nomination than the AI usage itself. Any institution is bound to disqualify a candidate if it discovers it was admitted on false grounds. I wonder if the game directors had actually made their case beforehand, they would have perhaps been let to keep the award. That said, the AI restriction itself is hilarious. Almost all games currently being made would have programme…
> That said, the AI restriction itself is hilarious. Almost all games currently being made would have programmers using copilot, would they all be disqualified for it? Where does this arbitrary line start from? AI OK: Code AI Bad: Art, Music. It's a double standard because people don't think of code as creative. They still think of us as monkeys banging on keyboards. Fuck 'em. We can replace artists.
Is anyone else detecting a phase shift in LLM criticism? Of course you could always find opinion pieces, blogs and nerdy forum comments that disliked AI; but it appears to me that hate for AI gen content is now hitting mainstream contexts, normie contexts. Feels like my grandma may soon have an opinion on this. No idea what the implications are or even if this is actually something that's happening, but I think it's…
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.
Is anyone else detecting a phase shift in LLM criticism? Of course you could always find opinion pieces, blogs and nerdy forum comments that disliked AI; but it appears to me that hate for AI gen content is now hitting mainstream contexts, normie contexts. Feels like my grandma may soon have an opinion on this. No idea what the implications are or even if this is actually something that's happening, but I think it's…
People were told by other people to dislike LLMs and so they did, then told other people themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> rightfully criticised because it steals from artists. Generative AI for source code learns from developers The double standard here is too much. Notice how one is stealing while the other is learning from? How are diffusion models not "learning from all the previous art"? It's literally the same concept. The art generated is not a 1-1 copy in any way.
It's a double standard because it's apples and oranges. Code is an abstract way of soldering cables in the correct way so the machine does a thing. Art eludes definition while asking questions about what it means to be human.
The game is art according to that definition while the individual assets in it are not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a double standard because it's apples and oranges. Code is an abstract way of soldering cables in the correct way so the machine does a thing. Art eludes definition while asking questions about what it means to be human.
I love that in these discussions every piece of art is always high art and some comment on the human condition, never just grunt-work filler, or some crappy display ad. Code can be artisanal and beautiful, or it can be plumbing. The same is true for art assets.
After the huge impact on the PC gaming community, it's logical to despise AI and ban it from any awards. First cryptocurrencies pumped huge price raises on GPUs, then prices won't return to normal due to AI and now it's impacting RAM prices. Next year a lot of families will struggle to buy a needed computer for their kids' school due to some multibillion techs going all-in.
Awards that focus on quality is too desired to not be a thing.
I expect generative AI to become a competitive advantage taken up by the vast majority.
Is anyone else detecting a phase shift in LLM criticism? Of course you could always find opinion pieces, blogs and nerdy forum comments that disliked AI; but it appears to me that hate for AI gen content is now hitting mainstream contexts, normie contexts. Feels like my grandma may soon have an opinion on this. No idea what the implications are or even if this is actually something that's happening, but I think it's…
This is not a winning PR move when most normal people are already pretty pro-artist and anti tech bro