AI tooling in the Demoscene
category: code [glöplog]
To stick to the topic, important questions for me would be:
Where to draw a line between tedious framework tasks and creative work?
How much do the technical intricacies behind a framework or tool inform the content that's being made with it?
As a creative, I appreciate transparency. As a non-coder, I need agreeable specificity as consensus. To be able to vote accordingly as a partygoer, and viewer.
Where to draw a line between tedious framework tasks and creative work?
How much do the technical intricacies behind a framework or tool inform the content that's being made with it?
As a creative, I appreciate transparency. As a non-coder, I need agreeable specificity as consensus. To be able to vote accordingly as a partygoer, and viewer.
Regarding compos, i think the one and only thing you can do is writing something into the rules that says "We would appreciate human created content. If you use AI to generate assets and/or code, please be honest about it and tell us what was created this way, and how." Because "banning" it will just not work, at all.
Quote:
Regarding compos, i think the one and only thing you can do is writing something into the rules that says "We would appreciate human created content. If you use AI to generate assets and/or code, please be honest about it and tell us what was created this way, and how." Because "banning" it will just not work, at all.
I like this a lot and it is a very probable outcome.
What groepaz said
What groepaz said is pretty much exactly the potential compromise I had in mind.
I think that's probably OK for 256b, 4k, 4k gfx, 8k, 64k compos. For the other compos, especially music/graphics, I'm just not involved enough.
If you use AI (for content and/or tooling), tell us. Be honest. Let's all learn together how stuff is done. In case we figure out that you were dishonest about your AI use, you will be disqualified. Simple.
If there happens to be a demand for "pure manual only" competitions in the future, they will happen. But I'm not really seeing that demand currently.
I think that's probably OK for 256b, 4k, 4k gfx, 8k, 64k compos. For the other compos, especially music/graphics, I'm just not involved enough.
If you use AI (for content and/or tooling), tell us. Be honest. Let's all learn together how stuff is done. In case we figure out that you were dishonest about your AI use, you will be disqualified. Simple.
If there happens to be a demand for "pure manual only" competitions in the future, they will happen. But I'm not really seeing that demand currently.
Quote:
Regarding compos, i think the one and only thing you can do is writing something into the rules that says "We would appreciate human created content. If you use AI to generate assets and/or code, please be honest about it and tell us what was created this way, and how." Because "banning" it will just not work, at all.
I'd welcome if this was mandatory slide information. Just like people also share when they made sth with cables, Tixl etcpp.
Quote:
Quote:Regarding compos, i think the one and only thing you can do is writing something into the rules that says "We would appreciate human created content. If you use AI to generate assets and/or code, please be honest about it and tell us what was created this way, and how." Because "banning" it will just not work, at all.
I'd welcome if this was mandatory slide information. Just like people also share when they made sth with cables, Tixl etcpp.
We did that last year but not very well :) we’re refining it as we go since the topic is also evolving.
In my editor I had a lot of use of AI for what I found to be tedious things like splines, fast fourier transforms etc that I'm too stupid or too lazy to learn. I want to focus on the interaction and logic of the thing instead. More my cup of tea. It wasn't perfect off the bat of course but I got it working as fast or faster than if I'd copy someones version from "the internet" anyway. And it's basically the same thing in the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD62BZD0AYU
(the slider with default snap is AI created too)
As for work, one thing I've used AI for is to create a pdf reader that you can set a scale on and then draw rectangles to get dimensions and areas from plans. I made that with AI in maybe two hours. Would have taken me at least the weekend just to get the pdf library right (which is half cheating anyway).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilGGvutQOCk
For play I made a program to randomize golf pairings in a tournament to both equalize hcp in team play but also split into groups where you play with as many people as possible.
Small tools like that is great to use with AI. Creative content for me is a bit meh, but if it can help me with theory I'm fine with it in my case since I need the help.
Just my 2c.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD62BZD0AYU
(the slider with default snap is AI created too)
As for work, one thing I've used AI for is to create a pdf reader that you can set a scale on and then draw rectangles to get dimensions and areas from plans. I made that with AI in maybe two hours. Would have taken me at least the weekend just to get the pdf library right (which is half cheating anyway).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilGGvutQOCk
For play I made a program to randomize golf pairings in a tournament to both equalize hcp in team play but also split into groups where you play with as many people as possible.
Small tools like that is great to use with AI. Creative content for me is a bit meh, but if it can help me with theory I'm fine with it in my case since I need the help.
Just my 2c.
I know, "make a demo about it"
If I would participate to compos, I probably wouldn't bother mentioning if I used some LLM for some tooling or if I've read some reference from one. It's not like some sort of stigma or tag that just stains your prod if you happened to see a single photon of LLM generated code while making it.
If I were to program something that actually uses the automatic optimization techniques, I definitely would shout that we use artificial intelligence.
Anyway the tools are here, best that you try to refrain from them yourselves and tell your friends & family that too. (especially those that you rent, instead of owning)
If I were to program something that actually uses the automatic optimization techniques, I definitely would shout that we use artificial intelligence.
Anyway the tools are here, best that you try to refrain from them yourselves and tell your friends & family that too. (especially those that you rent, instead of owning)
Tools aren't just means to an end. They shape the creative process.
One of my main takeaways from decades of toolmaking is that putting tools in the hands of users is matchmaking. Sometimes it just clicks: the tool fits the hands of the user perfectly, and magic happens.
Using AI for making tools does not take anything away from the creative process of creating the demo. On the contrary, it greatly shortens the path to unlocking the full creative potential of the tool users.
This effect will be even more pronounced for open source tools (which are getting more and more common). Not only is the tool available to everybody; any user can now ask an AI to add those personalized features which will make the tool fit their hands better.
I for one look forward to all the elevated expressions of human creativity that will come from this.
One of my main takeaways from decades of toolmaking is that putting tools in the hands of users is matchmaking. Sometimes it just clicks: the tool fits the hands of the user perfectly, and magic happens.
Using AI for making tools does not take anything away from the creative process of creating the demo. On the contrary, it greatly shortens the path to unlocking the full creative potential of the tool users.
This effect will be even more pronounced for open source tools (which are getting more and more common). Not only is the tool available to everybody; any user can now ask an AI to add those personalized features which will make the tool fit their hands better.
I for one look forward to all the elevated expressions of human creativity that will come from this.
Blueberry: Sucky spline code certainly adds some spice to some of our demos ;-)
Seems this is going to be an eternal debate. Rightfully so, since the boundary where AI ceases being a tool and turns into cheating is very blurry.
This is a debate we had about many technologies. When Photoshop came around, some pixel artists were outraged. Many years later, pixel art is recognized as a distinct genre. Same thing with tracker music versus modern tools. Then we had it with code when 3D accelerators appeared, or when DirectX, OpenGL and other APIs made visual coding "too easy". We could have the same conversation about using Unity or Unreal Engine for demos instead of coding it on the bare metal, whatever that may mean for whoever.
In the end, there was always a status quo. The new tool always created a new genre, which was related to the old, but not quite the same. On the other hand, the new tool always opened new frontiers. For example, generative intros. The first steps were taken around 1996-1997, with many early examples such as Jizz and Stash by TBL. Then came Farbrausch, Conspiracy and a whole list of others who took it to a next level every year. Generative intros wouldn't be what they are without an array of technologies that some purists would call outright heresy.
I remember a 4K intro by Mortal Compact which used the Gravis Ultrasound patch set to produce music. Tarkus, the coder was called out for this, and he argued that the patches are part of the sound card, therefore they can be used. I'm not aware of any other intro to attempt the same thing. I will not pass judgment on the matter, I just cited an example to technical ambiguity.
The way I see it, generally as a programmer, is that AI isn't a replacement for talent but rather a super efficient coding tool. Could I produce something like BoyC does, using Claude? No, I'm pretty sure I couldn't. Not like typing prompts until it looks like a Conspiracy production - in other words, vibe coding. But I can use the AI to gradually build something of that quality. Would that be the same thing? No - because it would be a learning process. I would need to understand what works how, what is worth doing and what isn't. That's still a gradual process, and the AI won't replace my understanding. Actually, it's not even less work with AI. It's just different work.
Recently I had to write a fairly complex utility in C++ for my Raspberry Pi cluster. I know C++ but have little practical experience. It would've taken ages to complete it by reading documentation, figuring out every single thing, learning about every obscure data type and gaining muscle memory. So I used Claude, but did not ask it to write it for me. Instead, I asked it to explain what we're doing, and revised the code on the go. It was more like pair programming with a very knowledgeable but mediocre programmer. The resulting code was as much as mine as Claude's, but importantly, I learnt a lot, and I understood every line of the code.
Now imagine if this was a demo. Would it be cheating? In what way? After all, I put real elbow grease and a lot of effort into it. Arguably more effort than it required. Is it the amount of effort that matters, or the quality of the effort? If the latter, then why don't we all code in assembly? Or even machine code?
Speaking of which, how many of you could actually write your code in pure assembly? And how long would it take?
AI usage will never be a technical question. It's an ethical matter. The question is not whether to use it or not, but how much to use. And this goes for pretty much every technology, ever.
This is a debate we had about many technologies. When Photoshop came around, some pixel artists were outraged. Many years later, pixel art is recognized as a distinct genre. Same thing with tracker music versus modern tools. Then we had it with code when 3D accelerators appeared, or when DirectX, OpenGL and other APIs made visual coding "too easy". We could have the same conversation about using Unity or Unreal Engine for demos instead of coding it on the bare metal, whatever that may mean for whoever.
In the end, there was always a status quo. The new tool always created a new genre, which was related to the old, but not quite the same. On the other hand, the new tool always opened new frontiers. For example, generative intros. The first steps were taken around 1996-1997, with many early examples such as Jizz and Stash by TBL. Then came Farbrausch, Conspiracy and a whole list of others who took it to a next level every year. Generative intros wouldn't be what they are without an array of technologies that some purists would call outright heresy.
I remember a 4K intro by Mortal Compact which used the Gravis Ultrasound patch set to produce music. Tarkus, the coder was called out for this, and he argued that the patches are part of the sound card, therefore they can be used. I'm not aware of any other intro to attempt the same thing. I will not pass judgment on the matter, I just cited an example to technical ambiguity.
The way I see it, generally as a programmer, is that AI isn't a replacement for talent but rather a super efficient coding tool. Could I produce something like BoyC does, using Claude? No, I'm pretty sure I couldn't. Not like typing prompts until it looks like a Conspiracy production - in other words, vibe coding. But I can use the AI to gradually build something of that quality. Would that be the same thing? No - because it would be a learning process. I would need to understand what works how, what is worth doing and what isn't. That's still a gradual process, and the AI won't replace my understanding. Actually, it's not even less work with AI. It's just different work.
Recently I had to write a fairly complex utility in C++ for my Raspberry Pi cluster. I know C++ but have little practical experience. It would've taken ages to complete it by reading documentation, figuring out every single thing, learning about every obscure data type and gaining muscle memory. So I used Claude, but did not ask it to write it for me. Instead, I asked it to explain what we're doing, and revised the code on the go. It was more like pair programming with a very knowledgeable but mediocre programmer. The resulting code was as much as mine as Claude's, but importantly, I learnt a lot, and I understood every line of the code.
Now imagine if this was a demo. Would it be cheating? In what way? After all, I put real elbow grease and a lot of effort into it. Arguably more effort than it required. Is it the amount of effort that matters, or the quality of the effort? If the latter, then why don't we all code in assembly? Or even machine code?
Speaking of which, how many of you could actually write your code in pure assembly? And how long would it take?
AI usage will never be a technical question. It's an ethical matter. The question is not whether to use it or not, but how much to use. And this goes for pretty much every technology, ever.
