Even if we ignore the ethics and quality of it, which many people are understandably unwilling to do, part of the problem with it is that it can crowd out everything else. It takes so little effort that where it is allowed, there is always a real chance of it becoming virtually the only thing posted

This is indeed the thing, there is a long road between using an AI powered spell checker, and a full AI generated game.

Let’s go further, if a volunteer uses their deepl subscription to translate an indie game they like (with the author’s permission) , and do a manual review afterward. The kind of stuff you can sometimes do for your player, is it AI slop?

Preemptively banning an entire class of tool like that is ridiculous, IMO. Especially before there’s even whatever ill-defined “problem” you’re imagining.

I make a lot of use of AI tools in the course of prepping and running adventures. With the advent of generative AI I’ve been able to produce adventures of far higher quality and depth than I was able to make previously. Dozens of pieces of custom art, high quality battle maps rather than just lines on a grid, custom theme music and songs. I record each session and have an AI transcribe it and then another AI automatically generates detailed notes from the transcript for the players. Every session I post a 4-minute AI-generated “last time, on FaceDeer’s D&D campaign…” video summarizing the previous adventure for players to watch if they feel like they can’t remember what happened.

I don’t know what you’re imagining, but how is any of this a “problem”? Both my players and I love this.

And jerking off is better with some lube. Doesn’t mean this is the place to show off the pics. What you do in the privacy of your own home, or at your own table, actually isn’t especially well correlated to what someone else might be interested in hosting for you.

If you want to ban anything that isn’t “open source” you’re going to hit a lot more than just generative AI. Not to mention that there are open models and open source gen AI tools, so you’re not even banning generative AI that way.

if it drowns out everything else, it means that it’s being upvoted. if it’s being upvoted, then it means the community likes it. I see no issue with a preponderance of content coming from a single tool when the community is ultimately capable of moderating it just like any other content. why should I not be allowed to upvote something that I like because it came from AI, just because other people have a moral objection to it? I respect their right to object, but I don’t think they should be able to force those values onto me. if that is their goal, then they need to articulate an issue and be persuasive, not make rules in communities in which I’m a participant.

if it’s being uploaded, then it means the community likes it

That really isn’t how the Internet works at all. Someone uploading something just means that that person likes it. It’s not like they’re uploading based on the collective psychic demands of the rest of the community.

You don’t think people should be discussing what they do at their RPG tables in a TTRPG community? What do you think the purpose of this community is?

A general rule against spamming should suffice to deal with that.

You want to ban any discussion of AI except for negative discussion of AI? Worst of both worlds there.

And if AI is banned from this community, you never will see anything of value from it. Even when such value exists.

I have personally found that art from fairytale stories that’s too old to have copyright can be a fun way to fill in little margins and decorate things. There are some sites that make them available with an explicit “this is way out of copyright, you can use this for whatever you want but please credit us for supplying it”

“AI is just a tool” is not how anyone uses AI. They treat AI like a free employee who will do the work for them. Note how people don’t say it replaces a paintbrush, but that it replaces a commissioned artist.

“AI is not going away” is just a lie, making it seem inevitable so you stop fighting it. Just like how bitcoin is going to revolutionise currency, and now NFTs are the future.

I see complete justification in banning the garbage output from the world-burning nazi-built plagiarism machine.

I think one of the features of the fediverse is that you can have a bunch of subs on the same topic (with the same name, even!) on different instances. I assume someday there will be at least one rpg community that bans ai and at least one that actively encourages it, so I think in your shoes I would be asking myself which one I want to run. Personally, I plan on contributing more to spaces that are human-only, but it puts a lot of onus on the mod team to identify and remove ai content, which is getting increasingly difficult to identify reliably.

If they’re gonna act persecuted anyway, why not persecute them? A thief might have a persecution complex, but they’re still a thief, so you arrest them for theft.

That philosophy never, ever works for communities about specific topics, though. Too many people see it in their all or subbed feeds without looking at where it was posted

It’s also entirely possible for any individual kind of post, regardless of it being AI or not, to be legitimately decent content for a community but still crowd out other kinds of content that the community wants to promote. That’s why many places have specific days for specific kinds of content, like allowing meme posts on Mondays but not other days so that discussions still get to the top

why should I not be allowed to upvote something that I like because it came from AI, just because other people have a moral objection to it?

This principle basically doesn’t allow any restrictions on any kind of content anywhere unless it’s explicitly harmful enough to raise that as a separate objection. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to upvote hardcore pornography on the news community? It’s not a practical way to actually run a community

Just because you generally need a cover image doesn't mean that it's good to support systems whose primary use case is to drive real artists into hiding.

Is it still spam if it’s posted by different people?

Well said. Claiming that *uploads* mean the *community* likes something is a small step away from victim-blaming.

EDIT: OK, apparently they meant to say "upvoted", which makes a lot more sense.

That would depend on the wording of the general rule, which would depend on what exactly it’s trying to accomplish.