Clair Obscur won multiple awards but used generative AI art as placeholders during production.
The Indie Game Awards revoked Clair Obscur’s Debut and Game of the Year after the AI disclosure.
IGAs reassigned the awards (Blue Prince, Sorry We’re Closed) and reignited debate on gen-AI use.
But this is like banning someone from a chess event because they experimented with caffeine 3 years ago and accidentally left a single Nespresso pod in their bag. That they also immediately threw in the trash when they noticed
Or like they submitted a game to an award that said no AI in development, said they didn’t use AI in development, when in reality they did.
Because they thought they didn’t and found out 3 year old in-house AI test assets ended up in the release version. And promptly replaced them with the actual art done by their own actual artists, the ones who did the AI experiment.
That’s fine, but they did use AI in development, so whether or not they removed the assets they should not be included in this award category.
You do acknowledge that “using AI during development” is a massive thing to ban games for.
How can they check for that in the future?
I don’t know. It’s not really up to me to figure that out, either. Companies should self-report on their AI usage.
Almoat… its like the rule said you cant have used caffeine for the past 5 years and you used some 3 years ago and then lied about it.
If we’re following the chess analogy the developers are allowed to use AI to train their skill but not to aide in the actual competition.
Is there a rule that chess players can’t train with caffeine?
Of course not. It’s not at all the same.
The indie game awards rule is equivalent to my example.
No AI can be used anywhere in the production in any capacity ever.
It’s not just “the released game can’t contain AI generated content”
I don’t understand your argument at all. Your first comment seems to disagree with the ban, but this one explicitly agrees with it.
Your example is weird because it doesn’t exist. There is no restrictions on how chess players train, only how they compete. All you’re doing is building a strawman, not an analogy.
And to be clear, they didn’t get banned for using AI. They got banned for lying about using AI. You can agree or disagree with the rule itself, but it’s not debatable whether it was in place when they entered the contest or whether the studio lied about it.
Nope they got banned for using. That’s the rule of the awards
If we’re following the chess analogy the developers are allowed to use AI to train their skill but not to aide in the actual competition.
Not according to this specific award. It’s all use of all ai during the whole production. Not just released assets.
Did I stutter? Aiding in the production is aiding in the competition.