Comment on Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 loses Game of the Year from the Indie Game Awards
korendian@lemmy.zip 1 day agoIt kind of is. They didn’t use the final model in the game, just for prototyping. How is that different from pulling together different models as inspiration, or using a premade asset as a placeholder? How is it plagiarizing to use an algorithm that synthesizes different things together to get the ball rolling on the creative process? These are all different approaches to doing the same thing, but apparently using AI is a sin so bad that the entire game is now condemned for it?
zbyte64@awful.systems 1 day ago
I would say that this is conflating different issues. The original issue is whether or not the entry followed the stated rules, they did not. Then you brought up whether using any tool at all is cheating or plagiarizing, obviously it is not. Now we are on a 3rd issue which is whether using genAI for placeholders is actually creative, obviously it is not because it isn’t part of the final creative product. And a 4th issue as to whether using AI is a “sin” or not, that is less obvious not because it depends on one’s moral framework and their values. For instance, if one values authenticity then they would likely agree using AI as part of the process makes a less authentic product, while someone who values profit or time more than authenticity would not see an issue with its use.
korendian@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I don’t think it is conflating any issues. I am aware that the rules said no use of AI. The issue is that such a rule is silly, because it is based on the idea that somehow using AI is inherently bad. I didn’t bring up the issue of whether AI is plagiarizing, you did, or someone else did, I haven’t been keeping track, but it was a response to the claim that using AI is plagiarism, which it patently is not. All of these “separate” issues were simply things I was responding to by commenters.
Your claim that using AI will inherently result in a less authentic product is something I disagree with. Again, especially in the way it was used here. Would you assert that using existing art work as an inspiration for your art work results in an inherently less authentic product? How about using a pre-made asset as a placeholder to get the development process rolling? That is my point, it was not like they tried to pass of an AI generated piece of artwork as their own, they just used it as inspiration to start the process. I don’t see why this is any different from any of the other methods I mentioned.
zbyte64@awful.systems 1 day ago
Like I said, when talking about morality you’re talking about a subjective perception of value. All the other issues I mentioned, like them not following the rules, have objective criteria to say “yes they broke the rules”. If your perception of authenticity includes gathering inspiration not from the originator but from a tool that samples art for you, then you would obviously conclude the end result is authentic. If however you define authenticity as something uniquely in the domain of the living, then they would not agree with you.
korendian@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I never said they didn’t break the rules, but that doesn’t mean that the rules are idiotic.
I would again point to utilizing pre-existing assets as placeholders. Do you think that that is an ok thing to do, and if so, why is that ok, but using an AI generated placeholder is not?