372
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 loses Game of the Year from the Indie Game Awards (www.xda-developers.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
189 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Clair Obscur won multiple awards but used generative AI art as placeholders during production.

The Indie Game Awards revoked Clair Obscur’s Debut and Game of the Year after the AI disclosure.

IGAs reassigned the awards (Blue Prince, Sorry We’re Closed) and reignited debate on gen-AI use.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -9 points 8 months ago (21 children)

But this is like banning someone from a chess event because they experimented with caffeine 3 years ago and accidentally left a single Nespresso pod in their bag. That they also immediately threw in the trash when they noticed

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    Or like they submitted a game to an award that said no AI in development, said they didn't use AI in development, when in reality they did.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    Because they thought they didn’t and found out 3 year old in-house AI test assets ended up in the release version. And promptly replaced them with the actual art done by their own actual artists, the ones who did the AI experiment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    That's fine, but they did use AI in development, so whether or not they removed the assets they should not be included in this award category.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    You do acknowledge that “using AI during development” is a massive thing to ban games for.

    How can they check for that in the future?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago* (6 children)

    it’s irrelevant whether you agree with the rule or not… the award is for games that didn’t use AI during development. the game should not have originally been in contention for the award

    i tend to agree this is the right way to use AI assets, but this isn’t the award for them… it doesn’t matter if it was accidental, if it was removed before release, or anything else

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Yes it’s their rule. It’s a stupid rule.

    But how do they intend to police said rule in the future? Since it clearly isn’t just for released art assets but THE WHOLE PROCESS.

    If it’s just self reported what’s the point?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    that’s all irrelevant though… the rule is the rule and they got caught

    people should be allowed to have awards for games which only use humans, and if a game is caught cheating they should be disqualified

    if they want to compete for some awards, these aren’t the awards for them: there are others

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Yes yes. They used AI, they lost the award. I’m over it. Next topic:

    How do they (indie awards) enforce this in the future? Please read, understand and explain:

    The rules say no AI can be used in ANY stage of the development for ANYTHING. How do they check it? Where do they draw the line? Is it just art assets? Voices? Code?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    You know, any studio today that cares about winning the indie award as much as you seem to would probably just ask the award coordinators for clarification.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    TBH this is the first time I heard about these awards 😅

    My flavour of neurospicy just doesn’t understand vague rules with massive issues with how to interpret them.

    So you’re perfectly fine with vague rules like that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    That would make a lot of sense.

    Scientific fields obviously put a lot of effort into tackling this problem, but philosophically, it is not possible to be specific enough to do away with vagueness. At some point, you have to use language like "a reasonable person" and just leave judges to interpret the spirit of what's being restricted.

    So you’re perfectly fine with vague rules like that?

    Yes. I don't even feel it's that vague.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Is there a rule that chess players can't train with caffeine?

    Of course not. It's not at all the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    The indie game awards rule is equivalent to my example.

    No AI can be used anywhere in the production in any capacity ever.

    It’s not just “the released game can’t contain AI generated content”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    I don't understand your argument at all. Your first comment seems to disagree with the ban, but this one explicitly agrees with it.

    Your example is weird because it doesn't exist. There is no restrictions on how chess players train, only how they compete. All you're doing is building a strawman, not an analogy.

    And to be clear, they didn't get banned for using AI. They got banned for lying about using AI. You can agree or disagree with the rule itself, but it's not debatable whether it was in place when they entered the contest or whether the studio lied about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    If we're following the chess analogy the developers are allowed to use AI to train their skill but not to aide in the actual competition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •