Chat Control was never the name of the legislation, it’s the name critics successfully gave to the “Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse”.
Look at how easy it is to make the argument in the other direction:
> People were told by large companies to like LLMs and so they did, then told other people themselves.
Those add nothing to the discussion. Treat others like human beings. Every other person on the planet has an inner life as rich as yours and the same ability to think for themselves (and inability to perceive their own bias) that you do.
This does make it a bit more suspicious. It seems unlikely they coincidentally used gen AI placeholders only for the one case where it’s absurdly obvious.
But you’re also not supposed to drive as close to the speed limit as possible. That number is not a target to hit, it’s a wall you should stay within a good margin of.
I understand analogies are seldom flawless, but the speed limit one in particular I feel does not apply because you can get a fine proportional to your infraction (go over the limit a little bit, small fine; go over it a lot, big fine) but you can’t partially retract an award, it’s all or nothing.
Whether “everyone does it” has no bearing on it being what should be done. Most people also speed up on yellow lights, but you should be doing the exact opposite.
This depends on the country. In certain countries, speed limits are set by civil engineers as a true upper limit that one is not supposed to exceed. In others, speed limits are set slightly above the average speed one is expected to drive at.
In the former sort of country, drivers are expected to use their judgement and often drive slower than the limit. In the latter sort of country, driving at the speed limit is rather... limiting, thus it is common to see drivers slightly exceeding the speed limit.
(I have a theory in my head that – in general – the former sort of country has far stricter licensing laws than the latter. I am not sure if this is true.)
The problem I have with the whole "licensing standards" thing is that, for everyday activities for most of the population, it's not realistic to regulate to the point that there are really substantial barriers to entry to the degree there are for flying in general. And experience probably counts for more than making people shell out a couple thousand more for courses.
> "When it was submitted for consideration, representatives of Sandfall Interactive agreed that no gen AI was used in the development of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. In light of Sandfall Interactive confirming the use of gen AI art in production on the day of the Indie Game Awards 2025 premiere, this does disqualify Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from its nomination."
Whatever placeholder you use is part of your development process, whether it ships or not. Saying they used none when they did is not cool and rightfully makes one wonder what other uses they may be hiding (or “forgetting”). Especially when apparently they only clarified it when it was too late.
I can understand the Indie Game Awards preferring to act now. Had they done nothing, they would have been criticised too by other people for not enforcing their own rules. They no doubt would’ve preferred to not have to deal with the controversy. Surely this wasn’t an easy decision for them, as it ruined their ceremony.
We’re all bystanders here with very little information, so I’d refrain from using unserious expressions like “witch hunt”, especially considering their more recent connotations (i.e. in modern times, “witch hunt” is most often used by bad actors attempting to discredit legitimate investigations).
> Whatever placeholder you use is part of your development process, whether it ships or not. Saying they used none when they did is not cool and rightfully makes one wonder what other uses they may be hiding (or “forgetting”). Especially when apparently they only clarified it when it was too late.
If it was malicious they wouldn't say a word. They probably interpreted the rule as "nothing in shipped game is AI" (which is reasonable interpreteation IMO), they implemented policy to replace any asset made by AI and just missed some texture.
Also the term was pretty vague, like, is using automatic lipsync forbidden ? That's pretty much generative AI, just the result is not picture but a sequence of movements.
You're only saying that because it's a witch-hunt. These sorts of oversights are routinely made and forgiven daily at all levels of society. Citi regularly sends millions of dollars to wrong accounts and then says "my bad, give it back" and no one bats an eye.
But some ai gen'd placeholders beak through and suddenly we're all about punishing an oversight?
That's the definition of a witch hunt, and it's past time we admit it.
> Saying they used none when they did is not cool and rightfully makes one wonder what other uses they may be hiding (or “forgetting”). Especially when apparently they only clarified it when it was too late.
The article where Meurisse admitted to using AI in the pipeline is from April. You're implying a level of dishonesty that clearly isn't there.
> “witch hunt” is most often used by bad actors attempting to discredit legitimate investigations).
By that logic, "fake news" is now unusable because Trump weaponized it, despite the term accurately describing a real phenomenon that existed before and after his usage. "Gaslighting" would be suspect because it got picked up by people dramatizing ordinary disagreements. Every useful term for describing social dynamics gets captured by someone with an agenda eventually.
Hitler liked chocolate, doesn't mean you shouldn't eat chocolate. "You used a word that bad people also use" is not interesting - it's a way of avoiding the object-level debate while still claiming moral high ground.
Gaslighting would be simply incorrect, since gaslighting refers to an elaborate scheme of making somebody doubt their own perception/sanity. It a a severe form of abuse, requires an ongoing relationship with power dynamics (it cannot happen from a single instance of interaction), and typically results in long-term PTSD for the victim(s).
Agree on the capturing. Watering down terms is highly unfortunate for everyone.
> I know how the home page looks doesn't reflect the programming itself
It does reflect what the language creators pay attention to. Way back when, when I was undecided between learning Python or Ruby, after visiting countless resources I noticed Ruby websites in general looked way nicer and clearer than Python websites, so I picked Ruby. Now, years of experience with both languages later, I have zero doubt that to me that was the right choice at the time. I would’ve been frustrated with Python to no end.
I no longer need either language regularly, but given the choice again I would not hesitate to go for Ruby.
All that said, I do agree with some other comments on the thread regarding the disappointing reliance on JavaScript here. Should just be static.
> The second type of vibe coding is what I am interested in. It is when you use a coding agent to build towers of complexity that go beyond what you have time to understand in any detail. I am interested in what it means to cede cognitive control to an AI.
What an absolutely abhorrent way of thinking. “I am interested in turning off my brain to create unstable Jenga towers of complexity that I’ll have no ability to fix when they inevitably fail”.
As if software in general isn’t a big enough pile of garbage already. One day, every single one of us will be seriously bitten by bugs created by this irresponsible approach.
Being able to understand what you build is a feature, not a bug.
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/digital-house-arrest-how-th...
reply