Expedition 33 is definitely a good game. I’m sure the Indie Game Awards judges would still heartily agree with you on that, too. None of that has anything to do with lying about GenAI use on a disclosure form for an awards show that specifically forbids GenAI use.
I get that you love the game and by extension the studio, but this was still a mistake on their part. They broke the rules, they lose the award. Letting them cheat this would’ve seriously undermined the integrity of the IGA, not to mention further enabling the use of AI in game dev.
I can see what you mean, it could’ve easily slipped through the cracks. I feel like the Indie Game Awards (much smaller than the regular Game Awards) had to do it on principle since genai is a disqualification
Yeah this is kind of a hard thing to have an opinion on. On one hand I want people in that industry employed and getting to do the job that has turned out to be pretty elusive and arduous to pursue. On the other I really appreciate the art that got made even when time was saved on making some assets.
But where does it lead? Where’s the line drawn between having the machine make some grass and rocks and having it do work a person should have done? First I thought it was okay but now I don’t know how much of a door opener or a gatekeeper these tools will be going forward
Yeah I guess that’s my biggest hangup too, the training process I mean. It’s hard to examine the datasets and be certain this wasn’t stolen from somebody who won’t be getting paid or if it’s being operated from a facility that’s actively siphoning water from a drought affected community.
But I want artists to have tools to pursue the desired scope of their project. But I don’t want scope inflation to be incentivized by a tool that business people are proving to be impossible to not see as an infinite money glitch. And that lawmakers are refusing to regulate
The generated assets in e33 were minor and patched out so the project could’ve been made without them. This gives me hope for their future projects, they seem to know how to manage a decently sized team and had a fitting scope for their resources.
Good discussion! The audience clearly doesn’t like or trust the tech so the risk of backlash will hopefully scare off publishers and investors, the sooner the bubble pops the better.
What a mistake. Best game is best game. A few background assets that were replaced days after launch.
Expedition 33 is definitely a good game. I’m sure the Indie Game Awards judges would still heartily agree with you on that, too. None of that has anything to do with lying about GenAI use on a disclosure form for an awards show that specifically forbids GenAI use.
I get that you love the game and by extension the studio, but this was still a mistake on their part. They broke the rules, they lose the award. Letting them cheat this would’ve seriously undermined the integrity of the IGA, not to mention further enabling the use of AI in game dev.
I can see what you mean, it could’ve easily slipped through the cracks. I feel like the Indie Game Awards (much smaller than the regular Game Awards) had to do it on principle since genai is a disqualification
Yeah this is kind of a hard thing to have an opinion on. On one hand I want people in that industry employed and getting to do the job that has turned out to be pretty elusive and arduous to pursue. On the other I really appreciate the art that got made even when time was saved on making some assets.
But where does it lead? Where’s the line drawn between having the machine make some grass and rocks and having it do work a person should have done? First I thought it was okay but now I don’t know how much of a door opener or a gatekeeper these tools will be going forward
The best argument against it I’ve seen is “why should I care about the thing you didn’t care enough to put the work in yourself”
Which is also why I support using assets. You still have to find things that match what you need, but the human isn’t left out of the process.
Also that the unethically trained llms are an abuse of social contract for profit
Yeah I guess that’s my biggest hangup too, the training process I mean. It’s hard to examine the datasets and be certain this wasn’t stolen from somebody who won’t be getting paid or if it’s being operated from a facility that’s actively siphoning water from a drought affected community.
But I want artists to have tools to pursue the desired scope of their project. But I don’t want scope inflation to be incentivized by a tool that business people are proving to be impossible to not see as an infinite money glitch. And that lawmakers are refusing to regulate
The generated assets in e33 were minor and patched out so the project could’ve been made without them. This gives me hope for their future projects, they seem to know how to manage a decently sized team and had a fitting scope for their resources.
Good discussion! The audience clearly doesn’t like or trust the tech so the risk of backlash will hopefully scare off publishers and investors, the sooner the bubble pops the better.