AI this, AI that - you can't go anywhere without something trying to force AI on you. Usually a company trying to get you to buy into what they've wasted billions on. So indie devs have begun fighting back with their No Gen AI Seal.
I am pretty sure this is not what the people who made the seal are talking about.
Read their site. They’re talking about “pictures, movies, audio (music or voice action) and writing”. Code in itself, especially for simple tasks like basic game logic, is not art, and I am saying that as a developer.
I am still very doubtful AI can write quality code, but I really don’t care. I am sure it becomes a mess if you try to write very complex systems, but that’s not the case for most games. And if AI generated code is good enough for your use case, good for you.
Are you saying that AI trained on the output of humans is unethical, unless those humans are programmers?
Or, as a professional programmer, you understand the limitations of AI in your field so you don’t feel threatened by it while simultaneously assuming, on behalf of another profession, that AI in “artistic” fields is somehow far more capable and an actual threat?
Terrible programmers don’t become professional programmers because they subscribe to Copilot. It provides a crutch to absolute beginners, allowing even the least skilled individual to create some low quality output. For professionals, AI allows for some aspects of existing tools to perform slightly better but cannot replace the knowledge, experience and practice of a human when it comes to applying those skills in novel and interesting ways.
Terrible artists don’t become professional artists because they subscribe to Midjourney. It provides a crutch to absolute beginners, allowing even the least skilled individual to create some low quality output. For professionals, AI allows for some aspects of existing tools to perform slightly better but cannot replace the knowledge, experience and practice of a human when it comes to applying those skills in novel and interesting ways.
I am not “assuming” anything on anyone’s behalf. There is a clear difference that’s practically not even about AI at this point.
You’re not stealing from a programmer by frankensteining bits of their freely available code. As someone else said, it’s basically stack overflow with an extra step. There’s no secret sauce in coding, you can evaluate code quality, you can exchange tricks and techniques, but you’re not expressing yourself through code.
However, if you take bits of one or several cultural products without the creator’s consent and pass the whole thing as your own, that’s called plagiarism, and this is a special thing for a reason.
For AI, I don’t think anybody cares about a random beginner using it as “crutch”. People care about big entertainment companies deciding they need 90% fewer artists because AI does “good enough” (even when it does quite poorly, and even when it’s trained on the work of people like the ones they’re replacing).
I am pretty sure this is not what the people who made the seal are talking about.
Read their site. They’re talking about “pictures, movies, audio (music or voice action) and writing”. Code in itself, especially for simple tasks like basic game logic, is not art, and I am saying that as a developer.
I am still very doubtful AI can write quality code, but I really don’t care. I am sure it becomes a mess if you try to write very complex systems, but that’s not the case for most games. And if AI generated code is good enough for your use case, good for you.
I’m not quite sure I’m following.
Are you saying that AI trained on the output of humans is unethical, unless those humans are programmers?
Or, as a professional programmer, you understand the limitations of AI in your field so you don’t feel threatened by it while simultaneously assuming, on behalf of another profession, that AI in “artistic” fields is somehow far more capable and an actual threat?
Terrible programmers don’t become professional programmers because they subscribe to Copilot. It provides a crutch to absolute beginners, allowing even the least skilled individual to create some low quality output. For professionals, AI allows for some aspects of existing tools to perform slightly better but cannot replace the knowledge, experience and practice of a human when it comes to applying those skills in novel and interesting ways.
Terrible artists don’t become professional artists because they subscribe to Midjourney. It provides a crutch to absolute beginners, allowing even the least skilled individual to create some low quality output. For professionals, AI allows for some aspects of existing tools to perform slightly better but cannot replace the knowledge, experience and practice of a human when it comes to applying those skills in novel and interesting ways.
I am not “assuming” anything on anyone’s behalf. There is a clear difference that’s practically not even about AI at this point.
You’re not stealing from a programmer by frankensteining bits of their freely available code. As someone else said, it’s basically stack overflow with an extra step. There’s no secret sauce in coding, you can evaluate code quality, you can exchange tricks and techniques, but you’re not expressing yourself through code.
However, if you take bits of one or several cultural products without the creator’s consent and pass the whole thing as your own, that’s called plagiarism, and this is a special thing for a reason.
For AI, I don’t think anybody cares about a random beginner using it as “crutch”. People care about big entertainment companies deciding they need 90% fewer artists because AI does “good enough” (even when it does quite poorly, and even when it’s trained on the work of people like the ones they’re replacing).