Question - if you're using AI to write code that procedurally generates graphics in the game, would that fall under 'AI Generated Graphics' or 'AI Generated Code'?
Might seem silly but I think there's a clear distinction between 'I used Nano Banana to make all my game assets, trained on human art' and 'I used Claude Code to write a routine that dynamically generates a tentacle from polygons, trained on human code'. To me the source of the training data is the largest ethical quandary for AI use - the slow wheels of the legal system will resolve that one way or another - but I don't see nearly as many ethical problems with using it to help with straight code development given the history and nature of code use and sharing vs the personal expression involved in development of art.
Curious to see what other people's takes are.
Viewing post in Generative AI Disclosure tagging
That's an interesting question. I feel like it would have to be considered both.
EDIT: My reasoning is that if you were to pre-render graphics generated from AI code, then you wouldn't be shipping any AI generated code from that use, but it feels undeniable that AI generation is going on, so it would make sense to call it AI graphics.
If you would create images by a thing that is not a so called generative ai system, those images are not gen ai made.
If the thing contains ai code, is not relevant for this question. Neither is it asked, if the compiler used to create the executeable did contain any ai code. Or if the operating system used to develop the game did contain any ai code.
You were also not asked, if you developed the idea of the game by talking to an ai system and getting inspiration. Or if you used a gen ai system to develop play test scenarios.
Some viewpoints about ai remind me of vegans. Like a vegan going to a restaurant and ordering vegan food. But also requireing the waiter and cook to be vegans, the menu not be bound in leather and the candle on the table not be bees wax.
so it would make sense to call it AI graphics
Reverse the question and see if you would still feel so. Would a player seeking games with gen ai graphics aprove of the gen ai graphics tag?
If you promise ducks in a game, there better be some quacking and walking like a duck in the game.
It’s definitely AI Generated Code.
If it’s also AI generated art is a more complex issue, and depends on what the code is actually doing and how many of the creative decisions were left up to the AI. Do you understand the code? Did you pick or design the algorithms? Could you have coded it from scratch, given the time and effort? Would it have produced the same results if you did code it from scratch? If your answer to all these questions is “yes”, then it’s not AI generated art. I’ll just boycott it for containing AI generated code instead.
And if you would use an ocr to extract ai made code from an image and have it run, would that count as not having ai code in the files? The image is an image and not code, after all.
But your example is rather clear. Your assets are not the output of generative ai. They are the output of procedural ai.
Let's rephrase it. What if you have a pure human coded local ai system. You ship the system and generate ai images on the fly. Does the game contain the output of generative ai? Yes. Does your project contain output of generative ai? No.
There are games that can ask an online ai servcie for answers. How about them? I remember experimental games, where they would control an npc by an ai system. The game surely makes use of output of generative ai. But what type is it? Is it an asset? No. Is it code? No.
On a side note, the disclosure also does not ask, if the compiler contains any ai. But the executeable would have been literally created by a thing that has gen ai code in it.
For your point about how accepted ai is in a field, that does not really matter. Actually, any legal disputes would hit ai code even harder. Remember all that patent problems and other things certain software is burdened with? And a "copy" is much more clearer in text form. Copying a style and and ideas by machine learning might be ethically questionable, but not legally.