If you’re sending emails related to the development of the game you’re developing to other people developing that same game, you’re NOT developing the game? What kind of bullshit mental gymnastics is this?
Sending Emails related to development is still not development itself.
If youre washing your gymnastic dress, it’s not considered doing gymnastics. You are even allowed to wash them while high. Still wouldn’t get you disqualified from the Contest, just when you’re actually high while doing gymnastics.
Bad analogy. Communication is part of team development. If you’re pitching ideas, redefining requirements or requesting additional assets, you’re developing the game…
You’re clearly avoiding the spirit of what’s being said here, but I don’t mind biting the bullet anyway: Coworkers should not be using AI in their emails, either. Main reason being it’s obnoxious and makes you look illiterate.
It’s a weird gray area. Nobody really knows where the limit is. The current consensus is that for a fact the “AI” can’t own a copyright to anything.
How smart can an autocomplete be before it takes away your copyright? Does using snippets count? How smart can the snippet engine be at filling the template?
If I ask AI how to solve something but write the exact same code myself, is it mine?
It If I grab code from stack overflow, does it make it mine?
It’s not me saying it, it’s the lawyers. The jury is quite literally out own where the copyright lies on AI generated content. The only definite verdict has been that the AI itself isn’t it.
But whether it’s the one who created the model, prompted the model or the ones whose data was used to teach the model 🤷🏻♂️ Wibbly wobbly timey wimey
I get regular briefings about this at work, because we have really good lawyers who actually read contracts of the services we use. And have banned multiple ones due to … creative copyright clauses in their contracts.
As for your “generated code is plagiarism” argument, do you have any precedents on that because I’d be interested in reading the verdicts? If true it’s a massive game changer for many industries and open so fucking many companies to lawsuits.
Mate, you were asked if code that was written for you was in fact your code and you’re talking about copyright. You’re off in the woods. You are so deep in the poisonous bog, I don’t think it’s possible to pull you out.
I think you get regular briefings at work on how to be, like, a business narcissist. Much like Tommy Tallarico, the inventor of music in video games.
This time yes. But the rule ban any and all AI use during development. It doesn’t matter if it’s in the final product or not.
https://www.indiegameawards.gg/faq
You arent developing a game when you sennd Emails to someone. Same as you’re not a developer when you do the finances.
Thats part of the company that arent involved in game development.
Your argument is equal to me claiming piblishers are developers.
They might want to make it more clear for the purposefully ignorant people though.
If you’re sending emails related to the development of the game you’re developing to other people developing that same game, you’re NOT developing the game? What kind of bullshit mental gymnastics is this?
Sending Emails related to development is still not development itself.
If youre washing your gymnastic dress, it’s not considered doing gymnastics. You are even allowed to wash them while high. Still wouldn’t get you disqualified from the Contest, just when you’re actually high while doing gymnastics.
Bad analogy. Communication is part of team development. If you’re pitching ideas, redefining requirements or requesting additional assets, you’re developing the game…
You’re clearly avoiding the spirit of what’s being said here, but I don’t mind biting the bullet anyway: Coworkers should not be using AI in their emails, either. Main reason being it’s obnoxious and makes you look illiterate.
What about AI based autocomplete in an IDE, would that disqualify a game from this specific award?
Would you consider it your own code or Code that was generated by AI?
It’s a weird gray area. Nobody really knows where the limit is. The current consensus is that for a fact the “AI” can’t own a copyright to anything.
How smart can an autocomplete be before it takes away your copyright? Does using snippets count? How smart can the snippet engine be at filling the template?
If I ask AI how to solve something but write the exact same code myself, is it mine?
It If I grab code from stack overflow, does it make it mine?
This is a “no.” If you can’t just say yes, that’s a no, buddy.
You know, colleges figured this one out: it’s called “plagiarism.”
It’s not me saying it, it’s the lawyers. The jury is quite literally out own where the copyright lies on AI generated content. The only definite verdict has been that the AI itself isn’t it.
But whether it’s the one who created the model, prompted the model or the ones whose data was used to teach the model 🤷🏻♂️ Wibbly wobbly timey wimey
I get regular briefings about this at work, because we have really good lawyers who actually read contracts of the services we use. And have banned multiple ones due to … creative copyright clauses in their contracts.
As for your “generated code is plagiarism” argument, do you have any precedents on that because I’d be interested in reading the verdicts? If true it’s a massive game changer for many industries and open so fucking many companies to lawsuits.
Mate, you were asked if code that was written for you was in fact your code and you’re talking about copyright. You’re off in the woods. You are so deep in the poisonous bog, I don’t think it’s possible to pull you out.
I think you get regular briefings at work on how to be, like, a business narcissist. Much like Tommy Tallarico, the inventor of music in video games.
deleted by creator