Thoughts on preemptively banning Gen-AI?

[awesomelowlander@sh.itjust.works]

Don’t see a problem with it, let the voting system decide if it’s popular in the comm

[nocturne@slrpnk.net]

I personally think it is a good idea. I know I posted about AI in a game I am running, but I was looking for human input about AI behavior to transfer into a game. I am doing my best create the AI manually and with no actual use of AI (a task far harder than I anticipated).

I see nothing of value that AI could add to this industry, and thus this community.

[ineedmana@piefed.zip]

IMO AI isn’t bad in itself. It only becomes bad when it gets overused. When someone rolls the statistical dice instead of having something to say. Or to pad three points that would fit into one post, into three posts with a wall of text each

So for now I would not ban it, as the community does not seem to have a problem with AI-generated content
I agree with the other comment proposing that it has to be marked. That way at least the subset that will be adhering to that rule can be measured

And if/when that time comes, I think the rule would have to remember about gray area: if AI-gen would be banned here, would that mean that products that used AI should also be banned?
I mean, for example, I know of some products on DTRPG that have good contents but they used AI for pictures. Most often, because they are just one guy without any budget. Would such ban mean that I shouldn’t point someone to that product?

[pteryx@dice.camp]

@sirblastalot
Probably calls for an exception for specifically discussing when a large company (mis)uses "AI", so as not to silence outcry against it.

Concerning those advocating that people "just downvote it"... 1) not everyone who participates in this community does so through a system that allows downvotes (Mastodon doesn't), and 2) IME, people who post "AI" content willy-nilly tend to be so bad at people that they don't understand when they're being told off, even directly.

[riskable@programming.dev]

Just be careful with your definition. Here’s some things that are “generative AI”:

• Speech recognition
• Zillions of AI tools in photo editors (e.g. “remove background” or tools that let you mask subjects). Yes, all generative AI.
• All sorts of title/logo generators.
• Upscaling tools.

Think about the reason why you want to ban generative AI: Is it because it sucks? Or because you have something against training AI models with images posted publicly to the Internet? Is it the environmental impact of data centers?

Be clear in your ban statement as to your reasoning so it doesn’t seem arbitrary and capricious.

[canconda@lemmy.ca]

I think in general it’s a good idea for all AI generated content to be categorically separate from their authentic counterparts. I don’t participate in this community.

[justonepersistentkbinplease@fedia.io]

My 2c:
The technology that makes the fediverse is based on open source principles.
The corporate world has made untold billions off of the backs of the open source community, not just by stealing projects outright, but by throwing a closed source application on top of an own source foundation.

Hell, every Linux user in the last 20 years can easily point to features in Windows, Mac, Android and iOS that are blatantly stolen from open source.

Almost all AIs are the exact same they shamelessly steal from the open internet, from all of us.

No AI.

[mrquallzin@lemmy.world]

All of those were around prior to generative AI. You’re thinking of other types of AI like machine learning.

That’s not to say companies aren’t now using generative AI for these things, but as we’ve seen the implementations are often worse then their machine learning counterparts (See YouTube AI captions).

[iamthetot@sh.itjust.works]

I support a ban on genAI content.

[Kichae]

Speech recognition

Isn’t generative, by standard usage of the term.

(e.g. “remove background” or tools that let you mask subjects). Yes, all generative AI.

They are not. Not everything leverages a SVM or even a neural network is “generative AI”. That’s a disingenuous conflation of terms and technology.

All sorts of title/logo generators.

So?

Upscaling tools.

Are’t “generative” in the context used here.

Generally speaking, sufficiently vague and plastic rules that are able to allow for things like “context” and don’t provide wiggle room for “insufferable bad-faith assholes” are best employed for things like this.

[rhaedas@fedia.io]

If you decide on a ban, it needs to be clear what specifically is being targeted and banned, not a general “AI slop”. Not only because AI is used in so many places that it’s that obvious, but at this point AI creations have become very good at looking or sounding like the real thing. There’s still some tells, but they shouldn’t be counted on as a guarantee something is AI and ban-worthy. Basically don’t let the need or desire to shut out artificially generated things catch humans in the crossfire. For a mod, trying to filter out the “bad”, trying to figure out what IS “bad”, it’s a very tough job and not something that can probably easily be automated (ironic, not being able to use bots to remove the AI).

[Kichae]

I don’t see much value in providing storage and bandwidth for things that people didn’t put enough of themselves into to bother lifting a pencil. There are enough boosters for that sort of thing out there already that they can do the job of supporting them with material resources.

[tramort@programming.dev]

AI is just a tool. if some have a philosophical or moral problem with it then they can abstain.

AI not going away, and its use will only increase. so I’m the long term it will either have to be allowed, or this sub will fade into obsolescence.

I see no value in banning it.

[savvywolf@pawb.social]

Ban GenAI.

As RPG enjoyers, we have an obligation to support smaller creators that ensure the hobby isn’t just DnD.

[ineedmana@piefed.zip]

I’m afraid the result will be exactly opposite. A lot of smaller creators use AI in some form (some better, some worse), where one most probably won’t ban D&D from community named “rpg” because, even with the hatred from non-D&D crowd, the interest is too big to not address it

[pteryx@dice.camp]

I, for one, am not interested in "creators" who see generating fake art for their TTRPGs as some "necessary evil" on their way to making a quick buck. These people deserve to fail.

[ineedmana@piefed.zip]

Wouldn’t that mean that only those who are big enough to afford commissioning art (or not be afraid to lie about generating it) will pass?

[pteryx@dice.camp]

Or willing to, y'know, use stock art or not include art, and damn the people who think TTRPG books only have value insofar as they have lots of new pictures.

[mhague@lemmy.world]

I participate in the open source community and there’s a huge number of models for the people and we (as in normal people) also steal everything we can. Main difference is money: as a whole we steal more than Meta, but Meta can afford to put it all together and pay millions to train out a model.

Open source AI can be argued to be overtaking corpo efforts, or at least in some areas. Maybe in awhile people will stop assuming AI is synonymous with monolithic corpos.

Does anyone here know what ‘ft’ means? A LoRa adapter? I hardly ever see people talk about AI. They seem to just refer to the surface or the vague idea of it.

[ineedmana@piefed.zip]

I share the view that rpg content mostly does not need images. But I can bet it sells better and gets better reach when it does