I'm curious about how those rules work. It's always about "AI Art", but I don't think that's an accurate term. People could stylize their game with neural style transfer, and that would get flagged under the rule, even though it's possible to explicitly provide credit. Furthermore, there are models trained on only datasets consisting of natural images (though most of those used in practice have copyright issues); I don't see how that puts artists' work at risk of being stolen.
nev
Creator of
Recent community posts
Sure. Our idea was letting players host it themselves, so as to have the game run only on the player's PC and because the initial version used GPT-4. We believed that participants of this jam would have access to computing resources because of having to use AI tools to make their games and added Colab as a failsafe.
We did consider pre-generating everything at the start, but then the server would still have to handle environment interactions, which are an important part of the game. Also, having a single experience for everyone would defeat the whole point.
Thank you for your feedback, dg. We are finishing up a version of the Colab backend that doesn't use OpenAI and will publish the gameplay video along with it. However, those can only serve as complementary to the jam submission. Neither is sufficient to judge the game on. A gameplay video is not a game, and the backend server is in a grey area in regards to whether it counts as part of the jam submission.
I see the issue now, thanks for notifying. We tested the game on Windows with Wine and in the Godot editor and it works. I haven't fully tested it but believe it should work eventually but very slowly and only after wasting many OpenAI credits. This makes the web version even less preferable compared to the Windows version.