All I’m really taking from this controversy is that I don’t think the IGF awards are aligned with what I think is important about games and I probably won’t pay attention to their awards because...
All I’m really taking from this controversy is that I don’t think the IGF awards are aligned with what I think is important about games and I probably won’t pay attention to their awards because they probably won’t be surfacing or platforming the best games. They’ll be awarding the best people can manage to do with a lot of effort for the sake of effort. Which is fine — people have a right to want only the finest artisanal bits and bytes made by free range programmers, but I’m not super interested in that personally.
No offense, but I'm getting the impression you haven't read the article. Which I can understand given the length and all, don't get me wrong! It's just that there's a great many sections pertinent...
No offense, but I'm getting the impression you haven't read the article. Which I can understand given the length and all, don't get me wrong! It's just that there's a great many sections pertinent to your comment here, and which might change your stance.
Again, I'd post them here, but I'd practically be tearing the article apart into little shreds to do it. Suffice to say that "best games" involves many things, that the IGF jurors care a lot about games, and that their reasoning is very nuanced.
EDIT: Actually, this one section might be enough, if only to highlight how important reading the article is:
At this point in time it was public knowledge that a great internecine fight had happened within IGF judging over the topic of AI, centering on a highly popular game having an AI disclosure. Shortly after those jurists released their statement, the information leaked that the game in question was House House's Big Walk. [...]
Two things about this are frustrating to me—I mean, everything about this is frustrating to me, but two things I want to point out are frustrating. One is that discussion of Big Walk and its merits will now overshadow a broader discussion. Another is that a lot of the arguments that took place in the 600-post IGF judge thread about Big Walk are now playing out over social media, recapitulating many of the worst misinformed and disingenuous arguments.
Also, just in case it should be mentioned: IGF judges/jurors do not actually control IGF itself. That's run by Informa, who invites them in turn.
No, I read the whole screed. I get it, the author hates AI and thinks that the existence of it is a “noxious political project” and any use of it at all crosses an “ethical boundary” so obvious...
No, I read the whole screed. I get it, the author hates AI and thinks that the existence of it is a “noxious political project” and any use of it at all crosses an “ethical boundary” so obvious even a 6-year old should understand. Users of AI are “unscrupulous actors” doing the moral equivalent of “lying” and “cheating” — anyone who doesn’t align with this belief should “fix their hearts”.
Firstly, people who are against LLM usage disagree that the effort is pointless (see recent stories about Humble Bundle's vibe coded redesign nightmare and the Proton CEO sabotaging his own...
Firstly, people who are against LLM usage disagree that the effort is pointless (see recent stories about Humble Bundle's vibe coded redesign nightmare and the Proton CEO sabotaging his own company through AI psychosis for examples).
Secondly, you're probably right that IGF awards are misaligned with whatever you thought they were. But that was already discoverable before any of this controversy. See this from their about page:
This independent review, finalist, and winner voting process is reflective of our own independent spirit that drives us to find and honor the incredible talent at the forefront of redefining what video games can be.
They're interested in awarding talent. Someone who codes an impressive game without LLMs is clearly demonstrating way more of that than a vibe coder who's just chatting with a bot to make theirs, no matter how the end products compare.
Yeah, I thought the other article was at least interesting enough as a philosophical argument for what IGF should be about. This felt more like - well your use of the word "screed" in the other...
Yeah, I thought the other article was at least interesting enough as a philosophical argument for what IGF should be about. This felt more like - well your use of the word "screed" in the other comment feels very accurate.
I think the are some interesting and difficult moral and aesthetic discussions to be had around LLMs. Many of those discussions are also intertwined with questions about our economic system and how we reward labour.
But at the same time, I think there's also a group of people that have made LLMs into a symbol of all that is currently wrong with the world, and I find it increasingly difficult to follow their arguments or understand their approach. And this feels like that sort of article. LLMs are simply bad, there can be no discussion or nuance, any attempt to touch them or interact with them in any way taints everything that you do, and if you do dare break rank, then you deserve everything you get. And I guess fair enough, if that's how the author feels, then they and their peers can judge this award however they like. But that's not where I'm at.
This is another long article on the current IGF/House House discussion going on, which I felt was worth posting given its quality and effort. This one comes from Bruno Dias, who's an IGF judge —...
This is another long article on the current IGF/House House discussion going on, which I felt was worth posting given its quality and effort. This one comes from Bruno Dias, who's an IGF judge — not a juror, to be clear. ≈250 to 300 judges turn submissions into nominations, while ≈50 jurors turn nominations into finalists into winners. The letter signed recently came from 19 of the latter group.
I recommend reading this one from end to end, as it's both very well written and covers a lot of ground. A consequence of that is that I can't really provide snippets or summaries here very well without misrepresenting the article by leaving too much out. It is split into two chunks though, so don't get too intimidated by the page length!
I hadn't realized that there was such a strong feeling in parts of the community around the ethics of LLMs. I hadn't much considered it myself only because I just don't really like them full stop,...
I hadn't realized that there was such a strong feeling in parts of the community around the ethics of LLMs. I hadn't much considered it myself only because I just don't really like them full stop, as in I have a distaste for using them, and avoid it if I can. So seeing arguments against using it at all from an ethical angle is a little newer to me than it might be to others.
I do wonder if there's a bit of a clash going on, with people on one side with ethical concerns as their primary focus, and people who dislike the quality of the output as their primary concern - it does seem like it.
I'll have to think about what this post is saying, but if anyone has a good link/article that goes over the ethical concerns in details, I'd appreciate it in the meantime, the OP sort of assumes the knowledge.
All I’m really taking from this controversy is that I don’t think the IGF awards are aligned with what I think is important about games and I probably won’t pay attention to their awards because they probably won’t be surfacing or platforming the best games. They’ll be awarding the best people can manage to do with a lot of effort for the sake of effort. Which is fine — people have a right to want only the finest artisanal bits and bytes made by free range programmers, but I’m not super interested in that personally.
No offense, but I'm getting the impression you haven't read the article. Which I can understand given the length and all, don't get me wrong! It's just that there's a great many sections pertinent to your comment here, and which might change your stance.
Again, I'd post them here, but I'd practically be tearing the article apart into little shreds to do it. Suffice to say that "best games" involves many things, that the IGF jurors care a lot about games, and that their reasoning is very nuanced.
EDIT: Actually, this one section might be enough, if only to highlight how important reading the article is:
Also, just in case it should be mentioned: IGF judges/jurors do not actually control IGF itself. That's run by Informa, who invites them in turn.
No, I read the whole screed. I get it, the author hates AI and thinks that the existence of it is a “noxious political project” and any use of it at all crosses an “ethical boundary” so obvious even a 6-year old should understand. Users of AI are “unscrupulous actors” doing the moral equivalent of “lying” and “cheating” — anyone who doesn’t align with this belief should “fix their hearts”.
I broadly disagree.
Firstly, people who are against LLM usage disagree that the effort is pointless (see recent stories about Humble Bundle's vibe coded redesign nightmare and the Proton CEO sabotaging his own company through AI psychosis for examples).
Secondly, you're probably right that IGF awards are misaligned with whatever you thought they were. But that was already discoverable before any of this controversy. See this from their about page:
They're interested in awarding talent. Someone who codes an impressive game without LLMs is clearly demonstrating way more of that than a vibe coder who's just chatting with a bot to make theirs, no matter how the end products compare.
Yeah, I thought the other article was at least interesting enough as a philosophical argument for what IGF should be about. This felt more like - well your use of the word "screed" in the other comment feels very accurate.
I think the are some interesting and difficult moral and aesthetic discussions to be had around LLMs. Many of those discussions are also intertwined with questions about our economic system and how we reward labour.
But at the same time, I think there's also a group of people that have made LLMs into a symbol of all that is currently wrong with the world, and I find it increasingly difficult to follow their arguments or understand their approach. And this feels like that sort of article. LLMs are simply bad, there can be no discussion or nuance, any attempt to touch them or interact with them in any way taints everything that you do, and if you do dare break rank, then you deserve everything you get. And I guess fair enough, if that's how the author feels, then they and their peers can judge this award however they like. But that's not where I'm at.
This is another long article on the current IGF/House House discussion going on, which I felt was worth posting given its quality and effort. This one comes from Bruno Dias, who's an IGF judge — not a juror, to be clear. ≈250 to 300 judges turn submissions into nominations, while ≈50 jurors turn nominations into finalists into winners. The letter signed recently came from 19 of the latter group.
I recommend reading this one from end to end, as it's both very well written and covers a lot of ground. A consequence of that is that I can't really provide snippets or summaries here very well without misrepresenting the article by leaving too much out. It is split into two chunks though, so don't get too intimidated by the page length!
I hadn't realized that there was such a strong feeling in parts of the community around the ethics of LLMs. I hadn't much considered it myself only because I just don't really like them full stop, as in I have a distaste for using them, and avoid it if I can. So seeing arguments against using it at all from an ethical angle is a little newer to me than it might be to others.
I do wonder if there's a bit of a clash going on, with people on one side with ethical concerns as their primary focus, and people who dislike the quality of the output as their primary concern - it does seem like it.
I'll have to think about what this post is saying, but if anyone has a good link/article that goes over the ethical concerns in details, I'd appreciate it in the meantime, the OP sort of assumes the knowledge.