Been chewing on this a bit, I kind of wish you just reached out to us personally.
But I hear you.
I am sorry we're falling short.
There are a lot of reasons we don't want AI used, and while it might be lower on the list, we currently hold it as a high priority. I only referenced one reason in the case you brought up, but there are a few other reasons we don't allow it as well. If nothing else, we want to ensure we're respecting our community, including our artists.
But you make a fair point about AI code and programmers.
We're open to ways to moderate AI code properly. Still, it isn't as feasible to moderate AI code as AI art -- as AI art is a visual component, whereas moderating AI code would require us to look through and moderate the code of hundreds of entrants without any clear sign of AI code being detectable anyways. And many of programmers are using something like co-pilot as an industry standard.
We haven't seen any examples of AI generating full-fledged games on its own; while we could have ruled on the CSS differently it wasn't something that was replacing an artist as a programmer wouldn't use CSS usually-- we saw it as a programmer using code.
We have looked at the games you've reported, and we do our best to make rulings private so people retain their anonymous reports. We do want to be as lenient as possible in subjective cases with a jam this size. The point is people are making games, and we do want to encourage that. That said, in objectively easy-to-detect cases -- for example, using AI art assets, having NSFW content, or being made before the jam -- leniency isn't as required to make rulings.
We're human and we're doing our best.
We are simply two guys navigating 8k members and 800+ games and we won't be perfect.
But we'll do our best to improve.