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.
Not sure why you got so much hate, friend. You’re even technically correct. Emotional, but correct.
It’s not hate, I just think it’s sad when people diminish the work of others, simply because they used a particular tool. It would be like disqualifying an Olympic athlete for training using VR. Just because you don’t like the method they used doesn’t mean that person didn’t still put in the work to get the end result they did.
The point of hunan expression isn’t to have a “tool” do it for you
Oh, ok, so then people should stop using computers to design characters, and go back to pen and paper. Or wait, the pen and paper are a tool too, they should just imagine the character in their mind…
Did genAI help you write this response? Because that would explain not understanding the difference between using tools to be creative and using tools to plagiarize.
So you’re telling me that no artist in history has looked at the work of others and used that for inspiration? Really?
Yeah, that’s exactly what I am saying 🙄
It 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?
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.
My brother in Christ, that is one major reason people don’t like generative AI.
How does genAI diminish the work of others? It’s simply a tool, and if anything it enhances that work, allowing someone to rapidly prototype and develop their ideas.
Only if their creative process is to pull a slot machine handle over and over again.
I was in support of you, but I think in general it’s much better for the long version of your comment, it makes people less emotionally charged into judging :)
I know full well that the long version will be down voted as well. There is no nuance with those who have made up their mind about AI, and any use of it, for any reason, is despicable to them.
In some sense, you are doing the same by believing the whole group is against you, and therefore going less into a discussion and just swinging anger.
Made me think of this old song lol https://youtu.be/DwORzQxAXmU