Coding assistants
category: code [glöplog]
Vibe-code a demo about it.
Quote:
Quote:For me personally, it is important that the NFO and Beamslide make it clear whether material comes from third parties, whether it is AI-generated, or where the inspiration comes from. We disclose the use of demo tools and other things, so why shouldn't we also be transparent about the rest? People can then judge the production according to their own (moral) standards.Quote:Seconded.We have this process of voting to sort out what is liked or not liked or controversial or boring. That's totally sufficient.
Indeed.
Force people to disclose the exact nature of how things are done. Its done for graphics entry, why not disclose every single tool used as part of the demo's creation?
Disclose whether LLM content is used in any form in the generation of tooling, code, etc.
That way, people can kick to the curb whoever they don't like. Simple.
Quote:
As I said before, politically, some people simply do not give a shit and to them the mere existance of LLMs is enough to make a stand to not worry about restricting others. Its their moral standards, or the highway.
You paint this thing one-sidedly. But I get it, you've obviously faced some sort of aggression.
[/quote]
No no no, I personally have not and I don't have a problem if people do give aggression to others if they use LLMs or not. Its their moral choice how they act, not mine. People themselves have the choice how they act to their moral compass.
Quote:
What I want to say is that "the highway" goes both ways. Meaning that there are folks who are willing to hit the highway themselves if AI continues to penetrate the scene, and if the scene agrees to it.
I agree. Thats their choice. They can do what I did and just leave the scene entirely if they feel their work is not up to scratch personally, even without LLMs. Happened numerous times that sometimes their personal work doesn't measure up to what the Scene expects, so they fucking leave themselves.
Quote:
So how do we deal with this? Is it a "majority vote", or what? Things cannot stay like this, I don't think the scene can survive like that, and I think people feel that, that's why there's so much drama.
This might expose some of my background, but the 0day scene had 0day release standards. They were a codified set of rules for any sort of content created. That groups were forced to be accepted by to be accepted by others in The Scene.
There is nothing stopping certain groups and parties ratifying acceptable demo standards like the warez scene did. Anything less is considered heresy and thus entire groups banned from participating, ever.
Same can be done for the demoscene, honestly.
Quote:
There's no point in accusing individuals of enforcing their moral standards, because you as an individual have your own moral standards, right? What counts are the SCENE STANDARDS, whatever they are, but they have to be DEFINED.
Then do what I suggested, and ratify those scene standards. Warez scene had it downpat for a few years until memory-loading patches are now considered acceptable, and so it fell apart.
Ratify a minimum set of quality standards that demos must stick to for demos to be considered demos. Otherwise they can go elsewhere.
Quote:
Force people to disclose the exact nature of how things are done.
Yeah, but some people will just lie. Believe me, I’ve heard lies and I’ve seen things like fake workstages even from some high ranking blue chip graphicians.
Quote:
Force people to disclose the exact nature of how things are done
fuck that, that's even cumbersome without using any form of AI :D
Quote:
Quote:Force people to disclose the exact nature of how things are done
fuck that, that's even cumbersome without using any form of AI :D
Indeed, but people can always resort to disassembling binaries to find how things are done. Never doubt how resourceful people can be when motivated.
Quote:
Ratify a minimum set of quality standards that demos must stick to for demos to be considered demos.
Yes this is great, you should draft a specification and send it to ISO!
Quote:
Quote:Ratify a minimum set of quality standards that demos must stick to for demos to be considered demos.
Yes this is great, you should draft a specification and send it to ISO!
And I should eat my own adv.....oh wait, I kinda did. Hence no prods for 5+ years.
It was just a pun that I couldn't resist making, I don't mean to stop you.
Quote:
It was just a pun that I couldn't resist making, I don't mean to stop you.
Hehe, which is funny, since internally I did.
For about 5 years I strongly thought that art is only good if it surpassed your own work, every single time in terms of quality. And if its not good enough, its not worth releasing anywhere, at any point, at any time. Hence why for 5+ years nothing got done for me. Because I kept setting a internal benchmark of perpetually improving and not releasing for fun and that it had to be somehow objectively better, always, to be considered a demo. And in that case, mediocre stuff to your own standards can never be released or considered acceptable.
I learn the hard way art itself doesn't work that way. Even Picasso had some shitposts and stuff that was mediocre and we are not perfect as people.
Funny that you mention Picasso, cause he's one of the few famous artists that I am hard pressed to think of any works that I would like. That combined with his shitty way of treating women makes me think he's not worth emulating in any way.
Quote:
Funny that you mention Picasso, cause he's one of the few famous artists that I am hard pressed to think of any works that I would like. That combined with his shitty way of treating women makes me think he's not worth emulating in any way.
The point was that famous artists even did some shit ones in the past. Perpetually chasing perfection means shit never got done. And for me never got done in 5+ years, and now counting, just because I kept thinking about so called "scene standards", and that somehow if a demo never got in the top 3 anywhere, its not worth even bothering to make.
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of it mutating into “what is art“ approaches one.
Quote:
And yet, they will remain demos regardless of anybody's standards.Ratify a minimum set of quality standards that demos must stick to for demos to be considered demos. Otherwise they can go elsewhere.
everytime I go on pouet
i see the same 4-5-6 people yap about AI
Btw., what was the story of BITS? Was BITS banned because of missing demo quality standards, or what was the reason?
Quote:
Blueberry, you're trying to find a too easy way out - for coders to stay in their comfort zone and reserve possible criticism or cancellation attempts to the other domains.
You got me. Loudest voice fallacy.
From discussions like this one, it is all too easy to get the impression that if compo rules don't restrict all kinds of AI content, creators and viewers alike will boycott the compo en masse. But that's just speculation. I have been trying to find a compromise against this strawman opinion.
Quote:
We have this process of voting to sort out what is liked or not liked or controversial or boring. That's totally sufficient.
We have both that process and the process of post-release feedback.
For blatant use of AI-generated graphics in a demo, we have all seen how vicious the backlash can be. Thank you for the insightful observation that this does not mean that it was wrong of the authors to do so, nor that it should be the job of compo rules to shield creators from such backlash.
The discussion about AI in a competitive environment has only just begun.
Or rather, it was decided right from the beginning. Image, music and code generators can produce any amount of grunt work, and you can spend your limited time to add a few artistic touches, and conceal the origins.
I fail to see how unenforcable rules could ensure great art AND winning compos at the same time. At best it can produce an illusion, and at worst the distrust that some winner has been using generators anyway.
A possible alternative could be to relax this competitive edge. Today I see compos only as some kind of folkloristic backdrop, some tradition which is kept with tongue in cheek. No prize or fame in a compo, unfair or not, could justify spending 100 or 1000 hours into a production, except for the triumph over one's own or the machine's limitations, and following through with an idea to demonstrate that something can be done...
Or rather, it was decided right from the beginning. Image, music and code generators can produce any amount of grunt work, and you can spend your limited time to add a few artistic touches, and conceal the origins.
I fail to see how unenforcable rules could ensure great art AND winning compos at the same time. At best it can produce an illusion, and at worst the distrust that some winner has been using generators anyway.
A possible alternative could be to relax this competitive edge. Today I see compos only as some kind of folkloristic backdrop, some tradition which is kept with tongue in cheek. No prize or fame in a compo, unfair or not, could justify spending 100 or 1000 hours into a production, except for the triumph over one's own or the machine's limitations, and following through with an idea to demonstrate that something can be done...
Laws that are not enforceable are not laws, imho it's that simple, so whatever anyone decides to put into writing we're only bound by the code of honor derived from our individual morals. People were able to (and did) rip code, graphics and music since forever, the advent of large language and diffusion models doesn't really change anything in that regard, it only makes it harder to spot.
Imho, in the context of coding as savourable art / skill, having AI do "the gruntwork" is a slippery slope, at first it'll be having AI write the things one has written a hundred times before ("I could write this in my sleep in all possible permutations"), then it'll be having AI "figure out" the minor implementation details ("I could write this with not too much thinking involved"), then it'll be having it figure out the implementation of a well known algorithm ("I understood the algorithm but not how to actually implement it"), then it'll be having it suggest and implement the algorithm ("I had the AI suggest applicable algorithms and implement the one i chose") and so on and so forth. Each step leads to drastically shallower and shallower knowledge and retention of it. I'm fearing a lot of people are prone to giving in to the provided comfort and the illusion that "i could do this myself if I wanted to spend the time", only that "the time" actually becomes a couple of years of actual experience at some point.
Imho, in the context of coding as savourable art / skill, having AI do "the gruntwork" is a slippery slope, at first it'll be having AI write the things one has written a hundred times before ("I could write this in my sleep in all possible permutations"), then it'll be having AI "figure out" the minor implementation details ("I could write this with not too much thinking involved"), then it'll be having it figure out the implementation of a well known algorithm ("I understood the algorithm but not how to actually implement it"), then it'll be having it suggest and implement the algorithm ("I had the AI suggest applicable algorithms and implement the one i chose") and so on and so forth. Each step leads to drastically shallower and shallower knowledge and retention of it. I'm fearing a lot of people are prone to giving in to the provided comfort and the illusion that "i could do this myself if I wanted to spend the time", only that "the time" actually becomes a couple of years of actual experience at some point.
Quote:
For me personally, it is important that the NFO and Beamslide make it clear whether material comes from third parties, whether it is AI-generated, or where the inspiration comes from. We disclose the use of demo tools and other things, so why shouldn't we also be transparent about the rest? People can then judge the production according to their own (moral) standards.
Fully agree. This is a reasonable expectation. It is problematic, though, if the rules governing this disclosure are too rigid. Case in point:
Last year at Revision, there was a checkbox on the submission form to indicate whether the production contained AI-generated content. There were several problems with this:
1. It's a binary choice, which doesn't say anything about the amount of content, which kind of content it is, how AI was used etc. There is no meaningful way the audience can interpret this information.
2. It was unclear what the information was going to be used for. Was this going to display a big warning label on the beamslide? Would it be used by the organizers to possible disqualify the submission?
3. The requirement for this disclosure was not mentioned in the compo rules. Productions had been developed without the expectation that this information had to be supplied.
At the minimum, it must be crystal clear what information is given as a disclosure to the audience, and what is given to certify that the submission follows the rules.
My nightmare scenario would be to have to supply detailed documentation of every step in the development process and then risk having all my hard work disqualified in the last moment because some part of my workflow does not live up to some arbitrary standard. With such a setup, I wouldn't bother and would bring my demo to a different party.
This almost happened for Evoke last year due to their overly broad "Usage of AI is prohibited." formulation. Fortunately, the Evoke organizers were reasonable people who responded positively to a friendly, proactive inquiry.
Quote:
For me personally, it is important that the NFO and Beamslide make it clear whether material comes from third parties, whether it is AI-generated, or where the inspiration comes from. We disclose the use of demo tools and other things, so why shouldn't we also be transparent about the rest? People can then judge the production according to their own (moral) standards.
I can see this imagined scenario possible: You disclose some AI usage in your excellent prod. People deduct some points from their vote accordingly. The other group/scener goes with fully AI generated prod, minimal manual retouch. Doesn’t disclose it. Their prod is objectively a bit less excellent than yours. But the voters don’t penalize AI usage because it wasn’t disclosed. Injustice.
Just something to bear in mind / try to supress by design.
Personally, I like bifat’s idea of doing away with the competitive edge altogether. It’s worth pondering on. I don’t know if this would demotivate some, so it would certainly need somme surveying. And yes, I know, some will say that this would “end the scene as we know it”. But thus giving birth to the new, potentially better one.
What bifat describes sounds to me like the Demoscene we know today. Demo compos are friendly games, not professional sport. Openness, sportsmanship and entertainment value are more important than codified fairness.
Quote:
Openness, sportsmanship and entertainment value are more important than codified fairness.
Indeed. I agree. However, not everybody thinks/acts so. One can easily check this claim by spotting the sheer number of undislcosed AI assisted gfx in compos. Fake workstages. Cases of shameless outright denial of the obvious. Even by blue chip artists. What’s more, this situation brought by some dishonest guys will eventually lead to false/mistaken accusations against the straight up guys. Yay.