AI crap in compo entries?
category: general [glöplog]
Curious on people's thoughts about this - a couple of prods in Revision had some obvious AI generated images stuck in: "TM2: Attack of the Ego Bots by ZMS" in the Amiga Demo category was an 8 minute slideshow of AI crap comic book, and then later "Back in Business! by Diverse Unified Business" the TRSAC invite in PC Demo had a more "ironic" use of it.
At least the Discord chat seemed pretty soured by these entries but I am wondering if there's any desire for parties to ban entries that contain these - weeding them out during pre-judging or disqualifying them from votes? Maybe an extension of the current "no copyrighted material without permission" rule to cover this as well?
Or do people just not care, let it ride?
At least the Discord chat seemed pretty soured by these entries but I am wondering if there's any desire for parties to ban entries that contain these - weeding them out during pre-judging or disqualifying them from votes? Maybe an extension of the current "no copyrighted material without permission" rule to cover this as well?
Or do people just not care, let it ride?
Gloom made a valid argument that since you cannot copyright the work generated by an image synthesizer, your entry automatically fails the compo rules.
AI. That explains a lot. Because I asked myself while watching TM2 how long it took to draw this amount of gfx.
About the topic: I think AI-stuff shouldn’t be forbidden, but it would be good if used AI-stuff would be mentioned by the creators. Like with the new ASD-demo.
I m planning writting a making-of of the new demo that will detail the use of "AI" and the moral dilemmas I had, in due course. Also post it here. It will be interesting for me to hear your views. I think it is not a clearly defined problem and the ethical and practical limits are not well established, yet, for many use cases.
The fact that I mention something doesnt absolve me from the responsibility to do the right thing, though...
The fact that I mention something doesnt absolve me from the responsibility to do the right thing, though...
The DUB demo was dogshit on purpose so then it’s fine. But that Amiga thing was just kinda passing it off as “real art” but it looked super inconsistent and you could clearly see it was AI. If you want to show off your cool image compression shit on A500, at least put some effort in the images.
aye, that amiga demo was the biggest buzzkill at a demoparty in years... fuck you! :P
Quote:
Gloom made a valid argument that since you cannot copyright the work generated by an image synthesizer
I'm not sure if I understand the argument. You can definitely copyright a work that contains uncopyrightable elements (nobody can copyright the single statement “++i”, but I can definitely copyright a work containing lots of them, assuming the work as a whole is substantial). But I don't know exactly what point of the rules this is supposed to be about anyway. And I'm not exactly an expert in the Revision compo rules :-)
The rules do have an AI provision, but it's pretty limited:
Quote:
No purely AI generated content in graphics and music compos. While we do recognize that AI generated content can provide assistance or inspiration it can not be used for these compos.
Quote:
Also reiterating my points from 2022.
I see I am retreading an old topic, oops :P however I also noticed this in that thread, from 2023
Quote:
I was delighted to see Revision make this provocative declaration:
Quote:Your entries must be free of AI generated or inspired graphics
where'd that go this year?
In future demopartys should require you to have in steps for your assets, just as in the gfx compos. Using AI is fine, but most be disclosed including info if it was trained on own data or not, must be credited, and must match what the orgas see as steps.
Problem solved, no drama needed IMHO.
Problem solved, no drama needed IMHO.
@hornpipe2: Where is this quote from?
Quote:
Problem solved, no drama needed IMHO.
I just wish people would fucking read what I already wrote a year ago.
Yes, it's still possible to cheat. There always have been and will be ways to cheat. Just hack partymeister = compowinner.
But having compo submission rules updated will make the entry barrier for being a cheater much, much higher.
But having compo submission rules updated will make the entry barrier for being a cheater much, much higher.
Mind you, I agree with you in the principle, I just think compo rules do nothing if the community doesn't unanimously reject it: Hacking Partymeister is a great example because if you'd get caught doing that, you'd be hung out to dry, not just by the organizers but by the community itself. People are getting caught with AI. Nothing is happening.
...or do you really think anyone would do the work of faking steps via AI just not to have to credit the AI?
I'm all good with AI content in the demo scene. But just as it makes a difference for me when trying to value a demo what tools have been used (ie own engine or not), for the visual stuff I also want to know. Creating nice art that fits the production using AI still is and always will be work, as is creating something in notch.
Again, I just want to know.
I'm all good with AI content in the demo scene. But just as it makes a difference for me when trying to value a demo what tools have been used (ie own engine or not), for the visual stuff I also want to know. Creating nice art that fits the production using AI still is and always will be work, as is creating something in notch.
Again, I just want to know.
Quote:
...or do you really think anyone would do the work of faking steps via AI just not to have to credit the AI?
Back then people created fake working steps for their scanned pictures, so...
At Revision, I constantly had his in my head: "Hm, this might haven been done by an AI. But what if not, then I would have done some artist some terrible injustice".
See that Amiga demo. Fashion told me that she thinks it's AI as we watched it, and I was like... "but what if in reality there had been a graphics artist sitting there for a year to pixel that gigantic amount of pictures?"
For the Amiga one it appeared to be obvious to many it seems. The authors should have known that. What would have been so bad about putting information about AI usage into their damn credits?
See that Amiga demo. Fashion told me that she thinks it's AI as we watched it, and I was like... "but what if in reality there had been a graphics artist sitting there for a year to pixel that gigantic amount of pictures?"
For the Amiga one it appeared to be obvious to many it seems. The authors should have known that. What would have been so bad about putting information about AI usage into their damn credits?
Quote:
@hornpipe2: Where is this quote from?
@gaspode https://www.pouet.net/topic.php?post=580806
Quote:
...or do you really think anyone would do the work of faking steps via AI just not to have to credit the AI?
Depends on how much that work is. If you can automate one image, you can automate many. If all a person has to add to the prompt is "also generate working steps", why wouldn't they risk it?
hitchhikr: At least at Breakpoint times it was very common for the very trained gfx compo organizer eyes to spot fake steps, and it was very common for the submitters to get called to the compo orga room to provide further proof. And some artists then internally were known that they basically had to agreed to a full strip search to have anything in the compo.
We do have people in the scene who have very, very trained eyes.
Just because *I* am not able to easily detect AI content, doesn't mean others aren't. I'd just like to have that task offloaded ;)
We do have people in the scene who have very, very trained eyes.
Just because *I* am not able to easily detect AI content, doesn't mean others aren't. I'd just like to have that task offloaded ;)
Gargaj: IMHO It's a big step between "Oh, I forgot to credit that" which we had for ages, and the active step of claiming to have created something that some"one" else has created.
I do believe that most sceners who if you'd like into their eye and ask "Have you done this all by yourself, or have you used AI based tools?" would not lie to you. We are friends, after all.
Right now it's just to easy to "forget" to credit.
I do believe that most sceners who if you'd like into their eye and ask "Have you done this all by yourself, or have you used AI based tools?" would not lie to you. We are friends, after all.
Right now it's just to easy to "forget" to credit.
idk there are a lot of philosophical reasons to reject this (ripping off artists or how do you credit it, can it truly be prevented vs is social stigma enough, and so forth) but mostly I just come back to "if you didn't take the time to actually draw that, then why should I spend any time looking at it?". It's LAME, the cardinal sin!
crap demos get in all the time but I think there's usually a reason - it's funny, or it's so bad it must be seen, or a favor from the organizer, etc - but idk it just feels like a waste of everyone's time to run a mostly generated demo because nobody bothered to round up a gfx artist for their group
crap demos get in all the time but I think there's usually a reason - it's funny, or it's so bad it must be seen, or a favor from the organizer, etc - but idk it just feels like a waste of everyone's time to run a mostly generated demo because nobody bothered to round up a gfx artist for their group
Quote:
hitchhikr: At least at Breakpoint times it was very common for the very trained gfx compo organizer eyes to spot fake steps, and it was very common for the submitters to get called to the compo orga room to provide further proof. And some artists then internally were known that they basically had to agreed to a full strip search to have anything in the compo.
I'm talking about a period when scanners first became affordable in the beginning/middle of the 90's.
Maybe you should read this: https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/ ?
Painter like Picasso (and others) had to adapt & went a tangent way.
besides, I kinda tolerate the grey area of e.g. a texture or simple backdrop being AI generated (imho similar to using the 5th image on google image search which happens too) but when AI content takes center stage in your production, it's obviously lame, bad, not in scene spirit, you name it.
raises the question, how much is center stage? there were also some other demo releases (also in PC) that had 2D art around effects that most likely were AI generated as well, just not as blatant. Makes me go 'urgh, AI. Yuck!', at least.
raises the question, how much is center stage? there were also some other demo releases (also in PC) that had 2D art around effects that most likely were AI generated as well, just not as blatant. Makes me go 'urgh, AI. Yuck!', at least.