Ok

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.

They should send a cease and desist to this app then.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zen.web.tools.browser

It is opt in, this article is click bait.

Directly from the horses mouth:

"In Firefox, you’ll never be locked into one ecosystem or have AI forced into your browsing experience. You decide when, how or whether to use it at all. You’ve already seen this approach in action through some of our latest features like the AI chatbot in the sidebar for desktop or Shake to Summarize on iOS.

Now, we’re excited to invite you to help shape the work on our next innovation: an AI Window. It’s a new, intelligent and user-controlled space we’re building in Firefox that lets you chat with an AI assistant and get help while you browse, all on your terms. Completely opt-in, you have full control, and if you try it and find it’s not for you, you can choose to switch it off."

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/ai-window/

You should actually read their statements, rather than a headline from an article with a clear agenda. They are making these features optional and unobtrusive.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/ai-window/

I don’t know if the zen browser on the play store is the same as this one, but I just tried it out and got hit with an unskippable full screen 10 second ad. Not the experience I was hoping for.

Not sure if the article covers it, but hypothetically, if one wanted to poison an LLM, how would one go about doing so?

Delusional

Highlights the idiocy of dividing people up by generation, they just totally skipped Gen X, because there was no neat little stereotype they could come up with.