'We support the work of those who are trying to limit the harm generative AI is doing to videogames and our world, and apologise that Big Walk’s LLM usage may not meet their standards'
Why can’t they just come up with an actual definition of what constitutes too much AI use.
The problem here is they put out a statement without thinking about it, if they want to have a blanket ban on AI that’s their prerogative, but they really really should think about it before saying that. Alternatively they need to have a bit of a think about what they do and do not want to allow, and then right quite detailed documentation so everyone knows what’s up.
Firm agree that the blanket statement no compromise is the primary issue with it. Although, personally speaking, I don’t think it’s the role of the jurors to make judgment calls like that. I think that should be a statement that’s made by IGF as a whole prior to accepting money for submission.
Which is why I said that IGF is in a sticky situation here, because if they allow the jurors to make a public blanket statement like that it tells video game makers that the criteria for submission isn’t actually the criteria for submission, and that the jurors can at any point in time just decide to add restrictions onto submissions that will make it so they’re not going to win anything.
But if they step in, they’re gonna get burned at the stake by the Court of Public Opinion, which is AI bad.
The only reason this isn’t being ridiculed by the public is because it’s AI. If you hot swapped the topic AI out with any other subject, the jurors would have been under intense outcry. Like, this time it’s AI, but it could have very easily been, they don’t believe in Unity, so they’re not voting for any game that uses Unity Engine. Which is okay as a personal preference, but when your role is deciding game should be nominated out of a list that is already approved criteria, you shouldn’t be discrediting that game strictly because of a personal belief, you should be selecting the game based off of your experiences with said game. A restriction at that scale should be made prior to the submission process by the organization that is accepting the submissions not by the final stage of the awarding process after money’s been collected.
Why can’t they just come up with an actual definition of what constitutes too much AI use.
The problem here is they put out a statement without thinking about it, if they want to have a blanket ban on AI that’s their prerogative, but they really really should think about it before saying that. Alternatively they need to have a bit of a think about what they do and do not want to allow, and then right quite detailed documentation so everyone knows what’s up.
Firm agree that the blanket statement no compromise is the primary issue with it. Although, personally speaking, I don’t think it’s the role of the jurors to make judgment calls like that. I think that should be a statement that’s made by IGF as a whole prior to accepting money for submission.
Which is why I said that IGF is in a sticky situation here, because if they allow the jurors to make a public blanket statement like that it tells video game makers that the criteria for submission isn’t actually the criteria for submission, and that the jurors can at any point in time just decide to add restrictions onto submissions that will make it so they’re not going to win anything.
But if they step in, they’re gonna get burned at the stake by the Court of Public Opinion, which is AI bad.
The only reason this isn’t being ridiculed by the public is because it’s AI. If you hot swapped the topic AI out with any other subject, the jurors would have been under intense outcry. Like, this time it’s AI, but it could have very easily been, they don’t believe in Unity, so they’re not voting for any game that uses Unity Engine. Which is okay as a personal preference, but when your role is deciding game should be nominated out of a list that is already approved criteria, you shouldn’t be discrediting that game strictly because of a personal belief, you should be selecting the game based off of your experiences with said game. A restriction at that scale should be made prior to the submission process by the organization that is accepting the submissions not by the final stage of the awarding process after money’s been collected.