pouët.net

oh my god lol

Okkie is a friend of Dikkie Dik. Okkie is another character from Jet Boeke's stories and can often be seen in the adventures of Dikkie Dik. Together they experience all kinds of fun and funny adventures in the stories and cartoons. Okkie and Dikkie Dik are good friends who always help and support each other.

correct.

@4gentE with regards to pixelers feelings, I stand by what I wrote a few comments above. If Moms didn't get bothered by previous pixelover methods, they shouldnt be bothered by future pixelover methods. If they do get bothered, they should be about all methods.

People copying whole pictures, or elements from different pictures, at least put some effort in it. Sometimes shitloads of effort.

Using AI-generated images is basically no effort at all in comparison.
If people are OK with cheap AI-generated graphics, I see no reason to continue making any kind of graphics for anything demoscene related.

"we can't forbid" <- you're right, it's not about "can" but rather "must".

Realistically: The only ones who can forbid something is compo organizers. You can complain about AI, game engines, huge file sizes, (partial) nudity, ripped music and probably many other things, but experience has shown that as long as the compo accepts them, people will vote for such entries (whether out of ignorance or because not enough people care), they will (sometimes) win prizes, scene.org and Pouët will carry them and life will go on. So our sole gatekeepers here are whatever compo organizers will accept; and most likely, the minimum bar across a fairly broad set of parties.

the problem for the holy inquisition is just... parties need demos... demos don't need parties... they'll start living in the woods... you won't get them all

Can't wait for the time where you can describe a demo in a Solo2 style prompt and you get a full blown demo that works from start to finish.

@rexbeng:
Oh but they did get bothered. Moreover, pixelovers show craft. You know, the love and dedication. Regardless of their usually low artistic value. Yes, uncredited pixelovers in 2024 bother me, but they can at least be “busted” by reverse image search. Uncredited AI crap can not be “busted” in this way, uncredited AI crap is an insult to pixelers, a spit in their faces, and it’s gonna drive them away from the demoscene. That’s what I fear. And I think it already begun. Is it avoidable? I don’t know. Should we applaud it? No.

I don't understand why we want to automate the creative thing and not like, the boring thing. "AI" generated art is mostly boring, ugly and soulless. Typing words is not art, it's mechanical generation of a vision. Also, I've never seen any "AI" art that was worth while, and I've seen a lot of it. It's always contrived, senseless garbage.

Most salient take-away for me so far is: some people cannot easily decide whether it's AI-based imagery or not. I found it glaringly obvious, and was surprised it's not so for everybody.

@bifat: Given that more than 85% of demos (on Pouët) since 2010 seem to have been released on a party (and many of those that don't, seem to be low-effort stuff like seasonal demos), it would not be unreasonable to say that demos prefer to be released at parties. So party rules provide, at the very least, a certain amount of pressure to modify parts of a demo. (An AI-dominated prod would most likely not care, but if your choice is to either release your demos completely outside the party scene or replace that one Midjourney-generated texture, then that's a real choice. Of course, there would also be reverse pressure onto parties to accept stuff that breaks or bends the rules.)

I;m fine with bifat releasing his shit in the woods, as long as I don't have to see it then.

Why are some people mocking anyone showing any concern about the LLM AI onslaught? What’s their problem? Are they stockholders? Or is it a case of too much tech-bro kool aid? Or they just want to be cool?

@Krill: People that actually care about the graphics usually can smell the stench of AI-generated images from miles away, and people that don't care... well, the just don't give a fuck, and that feels like a piss in the face of people that actually put some effort in what they do.

But master Okkie, how do we get those within our ranks who have already been inspired by the devil, and deny him?

If an image idea is not worth being painted, a photo idea not worth being staged, then why should they be worth looking at?

I see that we all have have a lot of thoughts about AI.
But have you ever asked yourself what the AI is thinking of us? As in us, the demoscene.

Well, I asked the AI just that. And it answered in a 16 bars rap that would have dominated the Fast music compo at Revision 2024, had it only been in English.

I think that the AIs thoughts on us is on complete level with the avg maturity of any pouet discussion and hence a valid entry into this debate.
enjoy
Knulla Scenen

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in the above rap is not mine, please don't judge.
Greetings to Vrångstrupen for the very creative AI prompt work.

idk man, maybe you could start with wearing a real cool jeans jacket with a bunch of metal patches on it. don't tell your parents tho!

It seems pretty clear from comments and party results that a lot of people in the scene would prefer seeing AI content out of it so I'm not too sure what's the idea being forcing others with it… it's either pure troll or a certain desire to be understood (if it's the later, please let the task of being a misunderstood artist to those who _actually tried_ being an artist)

Main things about the demoscene I love: the value put on authorship and personal effort. If the core thing your demo is showing is text-to-image output, then neither is on display.

Other things I love are the creativity, boundary-pushing, and mastery. I can see a way of showing this using "AI" type technologies (or commercial engines or scanned images or someone else's tool etc) but I think we're mostly complaining about being lazy and unoriginal in a way which is hard to detect* if not disclosed.

* not hard to detect for you guys, looks like

here are some of the things i've been thinking about with regard to currently in-use large model based image, text and music generators trained on these giant corpuses of collected human output (which for ease of communication i will be referring to as "AI generators" even if they're not actually that):

- they're a resource in the same way an ore is. it's prospecting and mining. when you prompt an AI generator, you are *finding* the result (as opposed to creating it). you tell the program where to look, and it shows you what's there

- they cause an overall economic incentive against creating. this is often framed as democratizing a previously gatekept or hard to acquire resource ("now everyone can have slick graphics, even if they can't make them on their own" or similar), but i would argue that the flow of power is actually from the many to the few - credit laundering, in a way. people's work is abstracted and recombined in a way that makes it impossible to credit them, and those who do this laundering are profiting off the exploitation they are performing, both by not having to pay anyone for their work, and by accepting money for repackaging that work. and as a result, a facsimile of the work provided by the skilled contributors to the corpus can now be accessed at a fraction of the cost to the commissioner (the third party, still profiting off the exploitation, but also paying the generators). the giants on whose shoulders the generators stand are not acknowledged (or remunerated) as giants, but instead must now compete against perhaps for the moment slightly faulty but cheaper and more productive ghosts of themselves, built from the shards of broken mirrors. the AI generators automate (and thereby devalue) a part of the process that used to be the whole point of doing it in the first place, the act of creation - not a tedious chore that's the same every time and we're glad not to have to do any more. it assetizes everything; a director may rejoice because they don't have to coordinate content creation with anyone they'd have to credit (or pay) - again, not because there isn't anyone like that, but because the AI generator abstracts the concept of attribution away. but the actual sources of the content, now drained of their usefulness after the value has been extracted and made into a product by someone else, fall by the wayside. work flows without compensation, from the billions of non-consenting contributors to the training corpus, toward the comparatively few individuals who concentrate the value in their hands. the ecosystem cannot sustain as many directors as there were artists (not to mention that the skillsets are pretty different), so while a few might be able to pivot to a place where they can also exploit the rest of their former peers (and even then we're assuming here that everyone would be *willing* to do that in the first place), the majority will not. it's not so much democratizing as it is dehumanizing. oh, you're not able to make a living on your skill any more? i'm sure there's some shit that needs shovelin, we could pay you minimum wage for that? keep in mind, you still have to pay for existing

Finally. Thanks @wayfinder.

@Frost The point was that assuming everybody to be able to detect heavy AI usage makes stating the obvious superfluous, and renders any accusations of trying to fool people and related moot.

That assumption turned out to be invalid, which is an interesting thing to consider.