The issue is not that the game was disqualified. If the rules clearly and unequivocally state that at no point can generative AI be used (and also clearly state what, in the spectrum from algorithms -> machine learning -> chatbot slop, they consider to be unacceptable, which I don’t know if they did or not, guess what, they didn’t, but that’s not the point), then there is no controversy, and I’m not criticising that.
The issue is that the article completely disregards mitigating facts that counter the narrative. There are no credible sources linked in the article save for one that was grossly misrepresented. Critically, we don’t know what Sandfall actually said before the nomination or after, or how the decision to disqualify was made, only the second-hand account in the FAQ. The article presents circumstances in a biased way, leading the reader to interpret it with the assumption that there are AI-generated assets currently in the game. It is, frankly, sloppy journalism.
Do you know where those rules are? I’m genuinly interested in where exactly they draw the line. I constantly see people ranting about gen AI when used for art, but even simple, basic code autocomplete is AI under the hood these days. I can’t imagine developers not using autocomplete.
The rules are on the same page I linked (https://www.indiegameawards.gg/faq), under the “Game Eligibility” tab. I gave them the benefit of doubt and assumed that they had defined the exact terms of what is and isn’t allowed, but apparently I was wrong. Regarding AI, the document contains a grand total of one sentence:
Games developed using generative AI are strictly ineligible for nomination.
I’m assuming the definition of what that entails is “at their discretion”, meaning whatever they feel like at the moment. I see that sentiment reflected in this thread too.
It’s possible that potential nominees have to sign some kind of declaration that they’ve complied with the rules, and that might include a more detailed list of rules, but I have no evidence to support this.
Unfortunately the boundary between “AI” and “not AI” is the polar opposite of sharp and well-defined. I’ve used Allegorithmic Substance Designer a lot for CGI work (before Adobe ate the devs; fuck Adobe, all my homies hate Adobe), and it contains a lot of texture generator algorithms from simple noise to complex grunge textures. Things like Perlin noise and Voronoi diagrams are well-known algorithms and definitely not AI. Chatbot slop is right out, but in between those two, things get remarkably fuzzy and Heisenbergian. What about an algorithm that uses real-world samples, like an image? Or multiple images? Machine learning is not the same as AI, so is that allowed? Where’s the line? I’m reasonably certain that everybody has a different answer for different situations based on different criteria.
The issue is not that the game was disqualified. If the rules clearly and unequivocally state that at no point can generative AI be used (
and also clearly state what, in the spectrum from algorithms -> machine learning -> chatbot slop, they consider to be unacceptable, which I don’t know if they did or not, guess what, they didn’t, but that’s not the point), then there is no controversy, and I’m not criticising that.The issue is that the article completely disregards mitigating facts that counter the narrative. There are no credible sources linked in the article save for one that was grossly misrepresented. Critically, we don’t know what Sandfall actually said before the nomination or after, or how the decision to disqualify was made, only the second-hand account in the FAQ. The article presents circumstances in a biased way, leading the reader to interpret it with the assumption that there are AI-generated assets currently in the game. It is, frankly, sloppy journalism.
Do you know where those rules are? I’m genuinly interested in where exactly they draw the line. I constantly see people ranting about gen AI when used for art, but even simple, basic code autocomplete is AI under the hood these days. I can’t imagine developers not using autocomplete.
The rules are on the same page I linked (https://www.indiegameawards.gg/faq), under the “Game Eligibility” tab. I gave them the benefit of doubt and assumed that they had defined the exact terms of what is and isn’t allowed, but apparently I was wrong. Regarding AI, the document contains a grand total of one sentence:
I’m assuming the definition of what that entails is “at their discretion”, meaning whatever they feel like at the moment. I see that sentiment reflected in this thread too.
It’s possible that potential nominees have to sign some kind of declaration that they’ve complied with the rules, and that might include a more detailed list of rules, but I have no evidence to support this.
Unfortunately the boundary between “AI” and “not AI” is the polar opposite of sharp and well-defined. I’ve used Allegorithmic Substance Designer a lot for CGI work (before Adobe ate the devs; fuck Adobe, all my homies hate Adobe), and it contains a lot of texture generator algorithms from simple noise to complex grunge textures. Things like Perlin noise and Voronoi diagrams are well-known algorithms and definitely not AI. Chatbot slop is right out, but in between those two, things get remarkably fuzzy and Heisenbergian. What about an algorithm that uses real-world samples, like an image? Or multiple images? Machine learning is not the same as AI, so is that allowed? Where’s the line? I’m reasonably certain that everybody has a different answer for different situations based on different criteria.