I’m OK with that tbh. If we normalise disclosures for any use of AI, ever, the some AI vibe-code slop gets declared the same way as a meticulously crafted game (but the devs used AI for research/brainstorming), or even ‘devs used Google and they may have been inspired by the search AI’ etc
I think AI as a tech is pretty cool. I think using AI is less cool, since it is using far more resources than we can afford to give it, so I avoid using AI at all, even if I think the tech itself is morally neutral.
And I think the way we’re using AI is horrifying. Not just how companies push it, but the common use, too. People are outsourcing their thinking and comprehension to AI, and their own personal development is stagnating. This is particularly terrifying in children and college students. Would I rather than a doctor/social worker/financial advisor that gained a degree through AI and couldn’t adapt to real world struggle? Or none at all? Hmm.
I think there is a space for devs to use AI and not have it undermine what they’re doing, is what I mean. And so I don’t want to label those people the same as the ones who’ll get AI to do everything. Otherwise, with how much AI is used on our behalf even without consent, the AI label will become the norm… at which point, it ceases to mean anything.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
I dunno…
If I make a mock up of a cake using toxic ingredients, then throw that out and make my cake from scratch using food safe ingredients, do I need to disclose that “toxic material was used when making this cake”? I don’t think so.
Of course this kinda falls apart when they shipped with quickly replaced textures. But I also wouldn’t expect them to disclose the game as unfinished if they forgot to replace blank textures with the proper assets until just after release.
HollowNaught@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This is less like making a new cake from scratch after disposing of the previous one, and more like making a new cake using the same unwashed cake tin and utensils
No matter what, the AI replacements would have affected how the artists made the final products as, whether they liked it or not, they had a point of reference in the form of the AI texture
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Not necessarily. If I use an anthropomorphic cat as an asset for a character who in the end is a robot, can you really say it took inspiration?
Granted, I haven’t seen any of the assets. But placeholders aren’t inherently inspiration. They can easily just be random things to look at before proper assets are made.
And even if they did take inspiration, that isn’t the complaint. Would there be a need to disclose if they used a generative AI to generate a picture, and they used that as inspiration? What if they saw an gen AI image someone else posted and used that as inspiration? Inspiration isn’t the problem, it’s the “use of AI in development” which seems silly when these could have potentially been wire frames and result in the exact same final product.
HollowNaught@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
And yet, as we seem to be skirting around my original point of, this wasn’t disclosed when sold
I’m against AI in video games, but what I dislike here is the action of deceit. Of not allowing buyers to make an informed choice
Dremor@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s is still their own artistic sensibility that made the art, not the AI. You will always be inspired by other things while doing anything requiring creativity.
Would being inspired by Picasso suddenly make one art worthless? Of course not. So why would being inspired by an AI generated example make it any different ?
HollowNaught@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
To compare using AI to getting inspired by Picasso is wild
JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
If you’re applying for an award that asks “were toxic ingredients used at any point while making this cake” because part of the culture of the award is not using toxic ingredients, then yeah, you need to disclose that you used toxic ingredients.
pbjelly@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
At the end of the day, this is just an award. It’s not up to the award giver to define and micromanage what a “safe and acceptable, or appropriate amount of gen AI” can be used in the dev process.
When competing against other titles that haven’t, regardless of how it was used, an award show is going to draw a very hard line.
I’m sure they didn’t have to go the route of using gen AI, but they chose it, and did not disclose it.