Yea, and those people are wrong and dumb. To completely disqualify a game for simply using placeholder AI art work is idiotic. You’re welcome to disagree as well, but I’m gonna call a spade a spade.

No, I’m pointing out the hypocrisy and nonsensical nature of such rules. GenAI is not allowed for giving an “unfair” advantage, but engines with a lot of tools and automations don’t? It’s just an arbitrary line.

You just highlighted perfectly how the rules are idiotic. Why are we treating game development like it’s some kind of competitive sport? Why should we restrict the tools people use to develop their games? Should we only say that people can use a particular game engine, because certain other game engines have a lot of tools and automation that make the development process easier? It’s a really a ridiculous way of thinking.

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?

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.

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?

So you’re telling me that no artist in history has looked at the work of others and used that for inspiration? Really?

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…

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.

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.

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.

Stupid fucking luddites.

O rly?

K

This is clearly a waste of time.

I have to give credit where credits due, I appreciate you fast forwarding the conversation. Where you start to lose me is where you say who gives a shit about what data structure you use. Is it not important to use efficient filtering algorithms so data is streamed quickly? Just because you would not think to present it that way does not mean another human would not. I’m not going to call you an ad hominem, I am just literally confused at what your point is, and why you can’t just acknowledge the work by humans that was clearly put into this.

Do you need me to link you to the specific aspects of the algorithm diagrammed above? Are you really that lazy that you can’t look over it yourself?

Lol, no. You are the supposed algorithm expert, so tell me how what I saw in the code is wrong. It looks right to me, so unless you explain what its missing, then you will the one taking the L and moving on. ✌️

Ok, I checked it. Looks legit. Now what?

I’m done with this circular argument. Let me know when you want to actually prove you know what the fuck you’re talking about by getting into the specifics of the mechanics of the diagram that are illogical, in detail as opposed to vague generalities. Why would someone not apply a bloom filter to filter out posts you’ve already seen? Why would you not use connecting lines to show the aspects that are impacted by the user? You continue to refuse to get specific, and just keep going back to “trust me bro”. If that’s all you plan on returning to, let me know so I can stop wasting my time here.