I suspect there is a user doing foul play and leaving AI generated feedback on people's games to generate a high karma score at the cost of genuine insightful feedback.

I don't have any contact with any staff so I hope influential members of the community see this and highlight this issue.

There is user called Sviborg who has been leaving GPT generated comments on folks' posts. I think they are doing this to generate a high feedback score. As of writing this user has left 320 ratings and given the gamification of the jam they are doing, I'm suspicious that they are just leaving low score (can't prove this)

I've attached some images as an example highlighting their comments. I would link more but unfortunately I don't have the time. The things I'd like to bring your attention to are that they use emoji's in a similar fashion to AI, only reference critique from prior comments (I believe they are copying earlier comments into their GPT prompts).

I think this needs to be addressed, as it goes against the fair and communal spirit of the jam. While we are competing, we are competing on the basis that we are giving each other genuine and useful feedback so that we can all improve. This is not that, this is gaming the system for personal gain.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

In the words of ChatGPT:

*Leaving AI-generated feedback in a game jam is problematic for several reasons:

Lack of Genuine Insight: AI-generated feedback often lacks the depth, context, and understanding that comes from personal experience with the game. This can result in vague, generic, or irrelevant comments that don’t help the developer improve their game. Constructive feedback requires a real player’s perspective, understanding of design, and experience with the gameplay—something an AI cannot replicate fully.

Erosion of Trust: Game jams are built around community spirit, where participants give honest, thoughtful feedback to help each other grow. If people rely on AI to generate feedback, it undermines that trust and can cause participants to feel disrespected or cheated. The sense of community is weakened when feedback becomes formulaic or insincere.

Gaming the System: In many jams, feedback plays a role in scoring or ranking. AI-generated feedback can be a shortcut to artificially boosting one's score or reputation, giving an unfair advantage to those who use it. This creates an uneven playing field, as others invest time and effort to provide detailed and meaningful critiques.

Missed Learning Opportunities: Providing feedback is a valuable part of the learning process for participants. Writing constructive criticism requires reflection on what makes a game work or not, which can help developers become better game designers themselves. By using AI, people miss out on developing these critical evaluation skills.

Diluted Quality of Feedback: When AI-generated comments fill up feedback sections, it can clutter valuable feedback channels, making it harder for developers to sort through and find meaningful, actionable advice. This can be frustrating and discouraging, especially in a context where creators rely on the feedback to improve.

Ethical Concerns: Using AI to leave feedback, especially without disclosing it, can feel deceptive. Developers may believe they are receiving thoughtful input from a peer, only to later discover it was machine-generated. This can create tension and resentment within the community.

In short, AI-generated feedback can harm the quality of interaction, fairness, and community trust within a game jam, which thrives on collaboration, honesty, and shared learning experiences.*