Thoughts on preemptively banning Gen-AI?
-
I’ve been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don’t really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I’m wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I’m soliciting feedback from y’all on this, please let me know what you prefer.
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 you ban it. It feeds until the delusion that they’re persecuted.
I think the right move is always allowing it, but requiring a tag [ai] so it’s obvious.
If people don’t like it, they can down vote it. Or block accounts that always post it.
If the people posting it don’t want down votes, they can post to one of many explicitly pro-ai coms where mods ban people for down voting.
The only issue may be the ai fans are probably going to build bots to upvote anything tagged as AI. They tend to be weird and really care about votes.
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.
-
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.
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
-
I’m afraid it’s not an excuse but the reality. Whatever the reason one does content for, whether it’s additional income, trying to change career or just clout, without reach you don’t have an audience. In order to have reach, someone has to choose to click on that link in the feed. I am sure that an image does help with that And stock art places often either have non-stock art pirated anyway, or there’s nothing in there
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?
-
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.
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.
-
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
If someone doesn’t care enough about their product to actually do work on it, why should I care about looking at it? If I wanted to see AI generated slop, I’d go to one of the many megacorps that’ll generate it for me rather than paying some guy on Itch.io.
-
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?
Public domain or stock images combined with an afternoon of Gimp/Krita.
Had a friend who started with no experience and they managed to make some damn professional looking art for their playbook.
-
Presumably ensuring that other types of content don’t get crowded out. I’m not sure how a general anti-spam rule would manage that. The solution I’ve seen elsewhere is to restrict certain types of content (like meme posts) to specific days of the week
-
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.
thanks; that was a typo. I have edited it to upvoted, which is what I intended.
-
Believe it or not, you can release written content without professional art. Used to be done all the time. Deciding you want to skip ahead in your progress as a publisher and use tools that have been built off the back of unconsenting contributors doesn’t entitle you to someone’s platform.
Yes, one can do that. But, probably because of how content ( in broad meaning) works, it’s not being done. That’s why I’m afraid such rule would mostly cut out the small-fries
-
Public domain or stock images combined with an afternoon of Gimp/Krita.
Had a friend who started with no experience and they managed to make some damn professional looking art for their playbook.
I’m afraid they are an exception to what is happening
-
I am fine with that.
-
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.
Sure. But wouldn’t such rule mean we dismiss also those who do bring something to the table but just try to get anyone’s attention?
-
Sure. But wouldn’t such rule mean we dismiss also those who do bring something to the table but just try to get anyone’s attention?
Not if they don't scam people to get that attention.
-
If someone doesn’t care enough about their product to actually do work on it, why should I care about looking at it? If I wanted to see AI generated slop, I’d go to one of the many megacorps that’ll generate it for me rather than paying some guy on Itch.io.
That is right. But that is not what all AIGen stuff is. If someone creates a cool adventure but uses AIGen to make their fluff box sound like a radio speaker because they lack the skills to make it so, is that a not caring enough?
-
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?
Exactly. I think that the issue is not black and white
-
That is right. But that is not what all AIGen stuff is. If someone creates a cool adventure but uses AIGen to make their fluff box sound like a radio speaker because they lack the skills to make it so, is that a not caring enough?
Nope, it isn't.
Cheaters should never be allowed to prosper. It undermines the entire idea that creative work is of value, and will inevitably lead to a day when artists are seen as as much of a piece of scum on someone's shoe as cashiers are.
-
That’s great. And it should be encouraged. But what about modern+ settings?
