91–100 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
You think many are built without any assistance for coding? My impression was that people were mostly concerned about game assets like graphics and music
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
You will literally get a fine for going three miles per hour over the speed limit in many countries.
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.
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.
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.
If some creator with intentionality uses an AI generated rock texture in a scene where dialogue, events, characters and angles interact to tell a story, the work does not ask questions about what it means to be human anymore because the rock texture was not made by him?
And in the same vein, all code is soldering cables so the machine does a thing? Intentionality of game mechanics represented in code, the technical bits to adhere or work around technical constraints, none of it matters?
Your argument was so bad that it made me reflexively defend Gen AI, a technology that for multiple reasons I think is extremely damaging. Bad rationale is still bad rationale though.
Before we know it we will have entrusted a lot to AI and that can be both a good or a bad thing. The acceleration of development will be amazing. We could be well on our way to expand into the universe.
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.
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.
Great opportunity for a new award body that allows AI use.
I think you’ll find most of the small teams making popular indie video games aren’t going to be interested in winning a pro-AI award.
those guys worked in AAA studios and they got a 10 millions budget
how "indie" is that?