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

61–70 of 421 posts

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

#61

Post by pona-a »

hambes wrote: post #4
danielbln wrote: post #2

I bet if they'd only used AI assisted coding would be a complete non-event, but oh no, some inconsequential assets were generated, grab the pitchforks!

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.

I always believed GPL allowed LLM training, but only if the counterparty fulfills its conditions: attribution (even if not for every output, at least as part of the training set) and virality (the resulting weights and inference/training code should be released freely under GPL, or maybe even the outputs). I have not seen any AI company take any steps to fulfill these conditions to legally use my work.

The profiteering alone would be a sufficient harm, but it's the replacement rhetoric that adds insult to injury.

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

#62

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

andrewstuart wrote: post #41

Well that’s a rule that makes no sense. 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.

> Every game released recently would have AI help.

For indie games in particular, that is very much not true. In fact, Steam has a 'made with AI' label, so it's not even true on that platform.

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

#63

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

thiht wrote: post #59
skibidithink wrote: post #21

The AI witch hunt claims its first victim, apparently over some placeholder textures. https://english.elpais.com/culture/2025-07-19/the-low-cost-c... > Sandfall Interactive further clarifies that there are no generative AI-created assets in the game. When the first AI tools became available in 2022, some members of the team briefly experimented with them to generate temporary placeholder textures. Upon release, insta…

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

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.

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

#64

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

protimewaster wrote: post #5

I wonder what definition of AI they're using? If you go by the definition in some textbooks (e.g., the definition given in the widely used Russell and Norvig text), basically any code with branches in it counts as AI, and thus nearly any game with any procedurally generated content would run afoul of this AI art rule.

Their FAQ only states:

> Games developed using generative AI are strictly ineligible for nomination.

I haven't found anything more detailed than that; I'm not sure if anything more detailed actually exists, or needs to.

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

#65

Post by booleandilemma »

blackbrokkoli wrote: post #14
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #12

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.

You're just someone who can't see the beauty of an elegant algorithm.

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

#67

Post by magicalhippo »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #52
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #12

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.

IMO, this is key to the issue, learning != stealing. I think it should be acceptable for AI to learn and produce, but not to learn and copy. If end assets infringe on copyright, that should be dealt with the same whether human- or AI-produced. The quality of the results is another issue.

> I think it should be acceptable for AI to learn and produce, but not to learn and copy.

Ok but that's just a training issue then. Have model A be trained on human input. Have model A generate synthetic training data for model B. Ensure the prompts used to train B are not part of A's training data. Voila, model B has learned to produce rather than copy.

Many state of the art LLMs are trained in such a two-step way since they are very sensitive to low-quality training data.

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

#68

Post by stinkbeetle »

hambes wrote: post #4
danielbln wrote: post #2

I bet if they'd only used AI assisted coding would be a complete non-event, but oh no, some inconsequential assets were generated, grab the pitchforks!

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…

> 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 works that draw from that learning. So if the AI is also just learning from things, then it is not stealing from artists.

On the other hand if you claim that it is not just learning but creating derivative works based on the art (thereby "stealing" from them), then you can't say that it is not creating derivative works of the code it ingests either. And many open source licenses do not allow distribution of derivative works without condition.

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

#69

Post by Ekaros »

delichon wrote: post #66

To be consistent, if you wish to protect workers by rejecting artificially produced assets, you should feel the same about textiles produced by industrial machinary. Either this decision was wrong or the Luddites had a good point.

If the product is not made from material dug out from ground or plants or animals by only bare hands. And I mean bare hands. Is it even worth buying?

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

#70

Post by ahartmetz »

glimshe wrote: post #45
ahartmetz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

FOSS code is the backbone of many closed source for-profit companies. The license allows you to use FOSS tools and Linux, for instance, to build fully proprietary software.

Sure, that usage is allowed by the license. The license does not allow copying the code (edit: into your closed-source product). LLMs are somewhere in between.
Post reply on HN