• VerseAndVermin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    They replaced the art later, but shouldn’t the bar be high like this? Otherwise, the caution won’t be there. It also could be abused, like games only getting adjusted post-launch if a certain measure of success hits. Plus the final product is not the only part of matters in the was-AI-used discussion, it is also about the process. If AI is the product of stolen human artwork being fed into a machine, and then that machine is used during creation, then AI has been used in the process that led to the final product no less than the concept art that may not be seen in game but was important in steering the ship.

    Maybe someone can share their thoughts though. I’m still formulating mine and this is where I am at the moment.

    • Sal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      There is no use of Gen AI in an indie game that should be tolerated. Period.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That’s just not going to happen.

        Nearly any game with more than a few people involved is going have someone use cursor code completion, or use one for reference or something. They could pull in libraries with a little AI code in them, or use an Adobe filter they didn’t realize is technically GenAI, or commission an artist that uses a tiny bit in their workflow.

        If the next Game Awards could somehow audit game sources and enforce that, it’d probably be a few solo dev games, and nothing elsex

        Not that AI Slop should be tolerated. But I’m not sure how it’s supposed to be enforced so strictly.