Great movie, but every time I watch it, I get upset thinking if americans weren't so trigger happy, the whole movie wouldn't have happened.

Well that was interesting for sure, and this guys bring some nuance to it to. What I take from this is that the energy consumption for this is absolutely ridiculous, and the water usage is strangely vastly outranked by agriculture, which has a sizeable portion of it aimed at producing ethanol fuel..

Non-engineers trying to use ai without understanding what's happening can probably make some quick prototype, but definitely not something production ready. Too many mistakes still.

If it's on SO or GitHub, it's by definition publicly available for other developers to play with. Especially on SO, the goal is making other dev's life easier. I have never a single dev whine the ways artists (legitimately) do about this.

1. Any code that's copyrighted simply cannot be found on the internet. The rest is available on purpose.

2. You cannot replace a developers with ai. Ai is a tool used by developers.

3. Environment is real a concern, but you can say that of many inventions improving productivity.

Beyond the fact you simply cannot enforce that kind of rule unless someone who wants to hurt the dev is denouncing them, why is it a problem to use ai in source code, exactly?

You cannot apply the same logic as with images.

Yet, if it was proven they voluntarily used ai generated assets in the final version of their game, and if those assets weren't hidden in a corner of the map in the first section of the game, I would understand.

I think this is a mix of bad faith, enjoying playing the "love to hate a popular thing" game and visceral rejection of AI as whole.

After all, it's so much easier to say anything that's been even remotely in contact with AI has been "tainted" and should be shamed.

Even if placeholders were 100% plagiarised from another game, it would still be ok.

I can understand the concern over the environmental impact though. Not a strong enough argument to loose an award over imho, but let's agree to disagree on this one I guess.

And what impact is that, exactly? Every video game starts with placeholders until it's completely finished. You do understand what a placeholder is, right?

Have you actually fact checked anything you've been reading on social media? And by fact-checking, I don't mean reading a an opinion piece. I mean checking direct statements made by Sandfall, without them being reported/commented by someone else.

Yep, don't fabricate false excuses based on evidence available before your nominations even started to exclude a game you don't like but felt compelled to nominate anyway to keep your credibility.

Okay, but like I answered another person before then blocked me for it: why are people assuming those were left on purpose, and pretend 99% of the human-made art and music that made the game great suddenly doesn't exist anymore?

Does it?

Due to backlash, or simply because it was a mistake? I see a lot of assumptions that they willingly put ai generated assets in the final product, hoping they'd get away with it.

Truth is, you don't know that. But you still assume they're guilty. Why is that?

When I read about E33's nomination on your website, it was very visible you didn't want to nominate it. I guess now you got the perfect excuse?

This feel like a witch hunt more than an honest take. If the ai generated assets never made it to final game, what difference does it make?

If you read past the title, this is about pilots training (like I said - looks like airspace was also taken into account), not the actual usage of the planes. The title is explained by two things: 1) clickbait 2) The french have this weird fetish of always trying to belittle Belgium for some reason.

I think he might be confused by the fact pilots are trained in the US, which as it's more time-efficient in a location where the weather is stable. Not sure whether the time frame makes sense or not though.