[happytoexplain]

This is dishonest (and very common). You may certainly argue that genAI content should count as human-made, but it's pointless to just gesture at pre-genAI tools like autocomplete and insist that other people do the work of comparing/contrasting.

It's OK to use the term "human made" to mean "not the output of genAI". There's no "gotcha" to be scored here.

[Cyberdogs7]

Ok, what about a more direct take.

Hello games made a game called No Man's Sky which has VERY heavy use of procedural generation. Same as Minecraft.

If someone were to make the same games using genAi, would it be less impressive, even if the output was 'better'?

[em-bee]

i think you need to be more specific: if just the procedural generation was replaced or augmented with AI generation, would that be less acceptable? the procedural part is machine generated either way and everything else is done by hand as before.

the question here really depends on how much the procedural generator is an artwork in itself, and how much that would be lessened by using AI to generate the worlds instead.

[happytoexplain]

Yes, of course.

But even if the answer was no, I don't see the relationship to what I said. I never commented on "impressiveness".

[baobabKoodaa]

Yes.

[throawayonthe]

yeah?

[kbrkbr]

What is dishonest about asking for clarification of submission criteria that are utterly unclear?

> Help us to signify and share projects done by humans (not AI).

Here is nothing about GenAI specifically.

Who else could be asked if not the ones that set up this collection?

[mrkeen]

I dunno what version of the site you saw, but it probably hasn't changed in the last 17 minutes since your post.

  There's only one rule: generative AI cannot be used in the creation of the project.