this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
368 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

77904 readers
2669 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 day ago (2 children)

People keep saying the problem 'wasnt that they used AI placeholder assets, it's that they lied on the disclosure', but boy does that still seem like a reach

When you have dozens of people working on a huge creative project, it would take an almost omniscient creative director to know where every asset in every scene came from with certainty. It isn't hard to imagine a designer somewhere on the team sneaking an AI asset into a pre-release build and forgetting about it. The fact that it was later disclosed suggests that whoever was applying for the award wasn't aware of that asset being used and then replaced at the time of submission.

I dont mind having some awards dedicated to genAI-free works, but people really need to stop getting their pitchforks out at every mention, otherwise they risk turning into a lynch mob. This doesnt sound like an intentional omission to me.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't know where you got the idea that they just didn't know. They were DQ'd because they DID KNOW there was AI used.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm still not arguing against their disqualification, I'm saying people need to lay off the sauce - it's not hard to imagine how this could have been accidental and not malicious.

We don't need to torch an effigy every time a studio mentions AI in an interview.

[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No one is claiming that it's malicious that I'm aware of.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago

"They lied" implies intent to deceive.

[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am inclined to agree except it wasn’t intentionally later disclosed. From my understanding, they gave an interview and mentioned it briefly. If they did end up disclosing it to the awards, it wasn’t until the day that they were announced as the winner. That’s kind of icky.

But I do agree with you that whoever spoke to the award committee probably didn’t even know about it.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago

Still, there's a lot of room there for some grace. I don't think it's unreasonable to strip them of the award, but the level of outrage I'm seeing in this thread and elsewhere isn't proportionate to the offense.

People really need to chill with this.