The sad figure in me is missing some more elaborate statement regarding gfx in demos (contrary to gfx compos), so it can be correlated better to the recent outcries.

Meanwhile, waiting for more great stuff like https://demozoo.org/productions/336619/ https://youtu.be/1PYzXyoasmc?t=426 - pretty creative guy, that. I believe he is human.

As long as no content from 3rd party was used in the process, i don't see how the tools being used matter. At all.

What about C/C++ code that is transpiled to C64 asm?

That really seems like an odd idea. Why wouldn't you be "allowed" to draw your image on paper, scanning and converting that, and then work from this?

What about C/C++ code that is transpiled to C64 asm? The coder also has (afaik, correct me if i am wrong) no real control over how the code turns out.

Let's flip the question around. why do people try to hide that they're doing this? The document is asking for transparency.

I expect if a tool came out that could do this better than a human can code asm (or even as good as), we might start to see some coders who wanted competitions that celebrated the traditional ways of doing things.

Maybe to a lot of people it doesn't. If people are transparent, the audience can decide.

Unless I've missed something, C64 demos are not usually written in c++. There's a reason for that?

To me this whole debate seems to be much more about curiosity than fairness by now. And as for that, when i am curious about how someone made this and that - i'll ask. I might get an answer (and often do), or not - and both is just fine.

From a graphician's point of view, process is interesting to see and sharing that process helps us learn.

No-one is demanding anything

This is why there's a request for transparency. Because clearly some top-ranked artists are regularly taking shortcuts and yet everything is being judged the same. It doesn't feel like a level playing field.

I expect if a tool came out that could do this better than a human can code asm (or even as good as), we might start to see some coders who wanted competitions that celebrated the traditional ways of doing things.

I think what makes graphics conversion such a difficult topic is that converting graphics is much more automated than say, converting notes from a DAW into a music tool, which still requires you to create much of the work yourself.

Converting regular .sid still requires you to make all the instruments and do some manual adjustments with effects.

In all honesty, I'm tempted to say: if it isn't ripping anyone off, who cares how it was made?

It's still visible it's not hand retouched

But this is about giving credit (which was always regarded high in the scene) not copyright (which does not exist in the scene)

Where on CSDB can I download it?

but nobody goes around recracking, stealing other's work etc. We are past that I think. We even have some period when downloads aren't available for cracks. I don't want to kill too many kittens, but obviously something has changed during the past 20 years.

We've started respecting creators, regardless of copyright law I think

… mention every single original artist, in case we convert whatever from the internet…

I think we're just asking that people who want to use AI be transparent about it at least.

There's a difference between being unreasonably demanding and requesting that everyone do a few simple things to help to create an environment where both the more "serious" artists can thrive and the less "serious" people still have plenty of room to play. Social contracts and all that.

We were discussing demos. Random demos with random converted graphics. How does that even matter for those "serious" artists? Do you think someone would suddenly appreciate Duces or Electrics pictures (just to name some whose original work i really admire) less, because i am using a converted gif animation? I don't think so.

And they even have the nerve to demand from others that they should play by their rules, and stop being their inner child.

The line may be in different places for other people. And what counts as a "proper gfx guy", someone well-established in the scene? What does that mean for new artists?

Scenario 1
1. Google something cool and save that image. Or prompt an AI and save that image.
2. Convert it, pixel over it, put your name on it and you’re done.

Scenario 2
[no AI at all]

I may be a bit naive (with an entirely wrong idea about how pixel graphics are made), but isn't this a bit of a false dichotomy?

As in, what about a third scenario, where you use AI to give you some ideas for a certain background object, or composition, or the like?
Or to give you that particular background object, which you'd take and modify (after AI involvement) to suit your needs and integrate it via the rest of your toolchain?

Here’s a graph.

I believe The Sarge sketched the two extremes, as there are many scenario’s in-between.
Like you said, one example could be incorporating elements of AI in your work, in a supporting way.

In the end it boils down to:
- Doing it all yourself: Full creative authorship
- Outsourcing parts of the process to e.g. AI: Less creative authorship (to any extent)

Here’s a graph.

Here’s a graph.

As for your example earlier in this thread
It is creative use of AI images, tied together by a (assumingly, a human made) creative concept.
- Without the concept, how would you value each image seperately? I'd say, rather worthless.
- What if the concept was also AI generated? How would you value the demo and the author? I wouldn't value the 'author'.
- What if it was all kept a secret? Then the author would suggestively claim it all.

As a side-note; As long as the prompt ‘cool bird’ (example) generates beautiful images, one can not claim artistic ownership over style, composition, etc. AI will give you 99+% of the image for free, so without a great human idea, it is generally just covering up creative poverty.

I can pixell all the pixels by hand, yet image might not be creative at all.

It's part of a graphic novel that was written by a human and painted by a machine.

The “graphic” part of that graphic novel is horrible. I hope we can agree on that. It also fails as a proof of concept. Because it’s superfluous: (1) of course prompt-to-img AI can do this, no need for proving it, that’s its main purpose and (2) of course images can be converted to HAM. So which concept it proves?

So which concept it proves?

When I read this, I want to rebel against the arbiters of good taste - even if they may have valid points.

don't pretend to have done something that you didn't.

The key point to me is "don't pretend to have done something that you didn't". Not how it was done.