|
I appreciate where you're coming from raenir but there is no difference between "what if someone breaks a rule but nobody notices" and "this rule says I can do this if nobody notices" but also "I intend to skirt as close to this line as I can, please help me figure out exactly how far I can push" is a bad look, please do not do that, OK? a much better posting philosophy is "I want to avoid irritating the poo poo out of my fellow posters as much as possible, so I'll just do that" and I think we'll all be happy with that
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I appreciate where you're coming from raenir but there is no difference between "what if someone breaks a rule but nobody notices" and "this rule says I can do this if nobody notices" I mean no? That's not my intent at all; my intent is to clarify the rules because right now you are posting contradictory things and they also are in conflict with what Antivehicular has written in response to me? quote:This is the intent of the rule, yes. It's specifically based on the example posted in the previous thread of mostly handmade Blood Bowl assets that included a generated team logo, but where there's still been a lot of work put in by the poster manually. What we don't want people to post is just straight dumps of "I had ChatGPT make a dungeon" or "here's my new PC portrait from Midjourney" or whatever when there's no human creative work done. Taking a plain read as written interpretation of these rules, which is what I was originally asking about : quote:Do not make low-effort dumps of your AI-generated stuff in other TG threads. That includes but is not limited to: character portraits, maps, character sheets, adventure ideas, your one-on-one chatlogs with an AI, and more. Too many posters hate this stuff and so it invites a hostile reaction, extended irresolvable debates about the ethics, and lots of reports for mods to deal with. I asked, "does this mean it is allowed to post AI content as long as it isn't low effort?" and Antivehicular's originally response affirmed my interpretation but then I think you posted some things that confused me hence why the effort at clarification. If you agree with Antivehicular's post, and still agree with what you originally wrote below: Leperflesh posted:We're going to have to see how that falls out, really. It's basically impossible to police an absolute ban, and we definitely do not need volunteer forum monitors sweeping through every thread (especially game threads in TGR) looking for any sign of the illegal AI. Which strongly implies what I interpreted of the rules, than I have no questions and I'm satisfied to move on. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
Oh are you asking "if I put loads and loads of effort into my AI image of a space elf, then can I post it in the warhammer thread" and the answer is still no, post it in the AI thread. The low-effort thing is people, not you, who have just shown up in threads and posted AI stuff, I guess hoping people will love it and want to see it. They do not love it or want to see it, at least quite a lot of them do not, and that sort of posting behavior is itself low-effort. Irrespective of the effort put into the image itself. I think you should disregard the word "effort" and just put AI stuff in the AI thread and make normal posts in other threads that are on topic and are not obviously full of AI stuff. e. Yeah with your edit I think you get it, hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Oh are you asking "if I put loads and loads of effort into my AI image of a space elf, then can I post it in the warhammer thread" and the answer is still no, post it in the AI thread. The low-effort thing is people, not you, who have just shown up in threads and posted AI stuff, I guess hoping people will love it and want to see it. They do not love it or want to see it, at least quite a lot of them do not, and that sort of posting behavior is itself low-effort. Irrespective of the effort put into the image itself. If that's the case, why is the rule phrased as "prohibiting low-effort posts of generated images or text stuff in other threads", instead of simply "prohibiting posts of generated images or text stuff in other threads"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
I'll double check with Anti to make sure we agree, but I think we meant low-effort to be descriptive of past posts that got reported, rather than a limiting modifier allowing some other level of AI-full effortful posts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 02:06
|
|
|
May I offer a rephrase and see if that jives with your intention? “AI posts are low effort, and also must be in the AI thread.” English adjectives have multiple readings based on scope that are just inherently ambiguous sometimes. I think you might have meant “low-effort” at a sort of different “height”. Also sorry for getting salty on the weekend when you were already busy. That was lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 02:21
|
|
|
Like I understand what you want to encourage people to do, and I understand your concerns about people asking questions in order to know how to skirt close to line; which is why I'm sure Antivehicular was clear to assure that things will be closely scrutinized and not to take things as "licence" to pick fights or needlessly aggravate posting enemies. Personally I don't use AI, and don't intend to, so you generally don't need to worry about me trying to skirt the rules by 'just asking questions'. If you check the old AI thread I don't think that I can recall posted any AI content. Leperflesh posted:I'll double check with Anti to make sure we agree, but I think we meant low-effort to be descriptive of past posts that got reported, rather than a limiting modifier allowing some other level of AI-full effortful posts. Right, this is why it prompted a lot of questions because of this discrepancy. The kinds of posts you're generally referring to is someone dumping a whole bunch AI content in a thread and going "Look at this!" hence my questions about a "effortful post that happens to contain an incidental amount of AI" as you agree that looking at what I mean properly these aren't remotely similar to each other right? I get the feeling you're interpreted me as talking about a post that is effortful and has a "lot" of AI which isn't what I'm talking about.  e to add: There's definitely AI content that isn't low-effort or low-content; which is perhaps part of the cause of the misread or misinterpretation happening here. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
We can probably just drop the words "low-effort" and that's probably OK but again I'll check and also I am probably off-duty for at least the next 14 hours so everyone hold your breath And thanks Raenir I didn't realize you weren't talking about your own posts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:e to add: There's definitely AI content that isn't low-effort or low-content; which is perhaps part of the cause of the misread or misinterpretation happening here. I think the disagreement is fundamentally about whether this is true or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 02:31
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I think the disagreement is fundamentally about whether this is true or not. That's the meta disagreement, but not one being resolved in TG or even specifically in the rules because: Leperflesh posted:We can probably just drop the words "low-effort" and that's probably OK but again I'll check and also I am probably off-duty for at least the next 14 hours so everyone hold your breath Thanks! And I really hate to do this, but that doesn't really help with clarity because then the rules still imply then the problem is the spamming of AI content. quote:Do not make So maybe rather than being caught up on the definition of low effort, the rule should read more like: "We ban the spamming/dumping of AI content outside the AI thread, and heavily discourage AI content that's low-effort, not-transformative or creative. No, AI isn't entirely banned outside of the AI thread; but we will crack down on any AI content that is spammy, low-effort, ai-chat, boasting, and so on, so while we prefer you keep AI content to the AI chat thread to avoid starting fights or derails; with that said, please keep any AI content to your posts outside of the AI thread to a minimum and make sure they are as transformative and as creative as you possibly can in recognition that a lot of people outside of the AI thread will dislike it." I feel like that's a lot clearer if that is closer to the intention without "guiding" people to be "skirting" the rules; because it carries the implicit warning of posting at your own risk so they better be at their best and non-confrontational behaviour. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 02:41
|
|
|
Gas thread, ban op and also ai poo poo. to be something like helpful: The relevant arguments have been made. Going around again isn't going to do anything other than prove that the mods are bad at moding. Ban discussion of ai discussion for a little bit and see how badly this shakes out. Ego Trip fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 03:10
|
|
|
It is not even remotely difficult to say "if you want to talk about or post AI content do it in debate and discussion instead" and then enforce that, if you are not bad at moderating. This does not need to be more complicated than that, it is helping nobody.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 04:38
|
|
|
Counterpoint, you can just ignore the containment thread and get on with your life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 05:34
|
|
|
kas posted:Counterpoint, you can just ignore the containment thread and get on with your life. I agree, I've been having a remarkable level of success by using this method! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 05:37
|
|
|
Fajita Queen posted:It is not even remotely difficult to say "if you want to talk about or post AI content do it in debate and discussion instead" and then enforce that, if you are not bad at moderating. This does not need to be more complicated than that, it is helping nobody. We are not going to ban discussion of ai on the something awful forums.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 06:07
|
|
|
Okay, now that I'm not at work and have a little bit of brain: what I was trying to describe by acceptable "high-effort" is stuff that is clearly mostly human creative effort with small AI elements, like the example posted in the previous thread of mostly human-made Blood Bowl maps that contained an AI-generated team logo. This is more or less "if you're trying in good faith and not being obnoxious, we're not going to check if every pixel was artisanally rendered." If the content is all or primarily AI-generated, it shouldn't leave the AI thread even if it's high-effort or high-quality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 06:46
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:Okay, now that I'm not at work and have a little bit of brain: what I was trying to describe by acceptable "high-effort" is stuff that is clearly mostly human creative effort with small AI elements, like the example posted in the previous thread of mostly human-made Blood Bowl maps that contained an AI-generated team logo. This is more or less "if you're trying in good faith and not being obnoxious, we're not going to check if every pixel was artisanally rendered." If the content is all or primarily AI-generated, it shouldn't leave the AI thread even if it's high-effort or high-quality. My personal approach would be: If it's human-created stuff that has been given "AI" touch-ups(i.e. interpolation programs or the like), where the "AI" isn't stealing the basic work from anywhere else but only working with the artist's own basic template for raw materials. That's fine and what I would consider "high-effort," though also not really "AI" stuff. What upsets me, and what I feel also upsets other people as "trash AI posting," is any time the "AI"(and yes I'm insisting on the quotation marks whenever I remember them, because it's important to remember that nothing about this technology is what we'd traditionally call AI and calling it AI is part of a marketing push to make it sound bigger, cooler and more momentous) generates the base, especially if its arsenal for said generation is built on stolen work(I consider the idea of someone using an "ethical" neural net for their generation to be a whimsical fantasy and will not bother to reply to comments invoking that), and then I don't really think most of us give a drat whether someone's poked and prodded the results a bit with human hands, it's the origin that pisses us off. For your example, I think that permitting "oh but I only made X percent of it with Stable Diffusion!" is going to start invoking ruleslawyering about just how much of something needs to be created before you can set the neural net to finish it off or vice versa. If any part of it is outsourced to a "generative" AI, it goes in the containment thread, that is in my opinion the only workable solution that doesn't just put off the eventual next confrontation where I call a pro-"AI" poster a dork and a weenie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 08:58
|
|
|
If the "low content" proviso is discarded, thereby making it a real containment thread for TG, I think that is a considerably more satisfactory answer. I know some people would rather not have the thread at all, but if discussion is verboten anywhere else in TG and content is heavily discouraged where it is noticed, that should ameliorate the 'community management aspect' of the problem here on SA. This isn't to understate how large of a threat AI poses to creative labor. The new AI OP should try and lay out the basics of the arguments on both side so that when someone gets probed for AI content and are directed there, they can be immediately caught up on why it is considered a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 10:48
|
|
|
So I'm still unsure, would the outcome be I can't post my bloodbowl board because I generated my own logo instead of just directly stealing one from Google images, which would be allowed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 10:56
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:So I'm still unsure, would the outcome be I can't post my bloodbowl board because I generated my own logo instead of just directly stealing one from Google images, which would be allowed? I see you're still not engaging with why one of the two is theft and the other is not. Copying a .jpeg is not theft, copying a .jpeg and then using it for raw materials in a commercial product without consent or attribution, is. So yes, I think everyone here would be happier if you copied a .jpeg you googled up and sourced it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 11:13
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I see you're still not engaging with why one of the two is theft and the other is not. Copying a .jpeg is not theft, copying a .jpeg and then using it for raw materials in a commercial product without consent or attribution, is. LOL believe me I have gathered you guys don't like AI art but I don't care, just wanna know what the actual rule is You even said in your post you wouldn't want it even with a completely ethical consensual model, so you just don't like it it has nothing to do with ethics
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 11:16
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:You even said in your post you wouldn't want it even with a completely ethical consensual model, so you just don't like it it has nothing to do with ethics A completely ethical consensual model doesn't exist for this, and isn't what most people use. Let's engage with reality to start with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 11:20
|
|
|
I'll say what I said before. One of the key goals is (or at least, ought to be) preventing giant pages long derails of trash posts when someone posts an image, or makes a snarky "ohhh, you think AI is dangerous or theft? boohoo" or poo poo like that If the enforcement is going to be "the people posting such things get probed/banned", good. If the enforcement is going to be "the people telling those posters to get out and gently caress off get probed", then you're going to see endless trolling, toeing the line, and the aforementioned garbage will drive people away. silvergoose fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 11:33
|
|
|
If anyone wants to troll TG they can already do so far more easily by posting something positive about 5e or wotc
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 11:46
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:One of the key goals is (or at least, ought to be) preventing giant pages long derails of trash posts when someone posts an image, or makes a snarky "ohhh, you think AI is dangerous or theft? boohoo" or poo poo like that This guy gets it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 12:15
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:We are not going to ban discussion of ai on the something awful forums. Directing it to the subforum it belongs in is not banning it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 12:36
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:LOL believe me I have gathered you guys don't like AI art but I don't care, just wanna know what the actual rule is What I gathered from these rules and Antivehicular posted:This is the intent of the rule, yes. It's specifically based on the example posted in the previous thread of mostly handmade Blood Bowl assets that included a generated team logo, but where there's still been a lot of work put in by the poster manually. What we don't want people to post is just straight dumps of "I had ChatGPT make a dungeon" or "here's my new PC portrait from Midjourney" or whatever when there's no human creative work done. was that, you post it but you just don't mention the small parts as AI generated because when you do it turns into a whole thing with some people like what's happening right here when you're just trying to ask for clarification of a rule. And then you got 8 pages of people blowing up instead of talking about blood bowl. Just what I got from reading it, though. Posting mostly to see if I understand things right here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 12:46
|
|
|
Fajita Queen posted:Directing it to the subforum it belongs in is not banning it. This is the subforum for discussing AI use in traditional games. Debate and Discussion is the forum for discussing ethical and legal implications of AI. Nobody is talking about TTRPG's in D&D unless there is a legal or ethical concern surrounding them. If there were an AI subforum then it would make sense to post everything there, but right now AI isn't the primary topic. It's ethics of AI, or how to use AI for TTRPG's, or AI in music. It's how AI is applied to the specific primary topics of the subforum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 12:53
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:This is the subforum for discussing AI use in traditional games. Debate and Discussion is the forum for discussing ethical and legal implications of AI. Nobody is talking about TTRPG's in D&D unless there is a legal or ethical concern surrounding them. And the only discussion that should be necessary regarding AI use in games is "Dont do it, it's wildly unethical" which is why we have a problem with this in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 12:56
|
|
|
Fajita Queen posted:And the only discussion that should be necessary regarding AI use in games is "Dont do it, it's wildly unethical" which is why we have a problem with this in the first place. We know you think this. We just had a thread about it. Not everybody agrees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 13:00
|
|
|
Fajita Queen posted:And the only discussion that should be necessary regarding AI use in games is "Dont do it, it's wildly unethical" which is why we have a problem with this in the first place. I don't agree that it is wildly unethical, which is why I discuss that in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 13:01
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I see you're still not engaging with why one of the two is theft and the other is not. Copying a .jpeg is not theft, copying a .jpeg and then using it for raw materials in a commercial product without consent or attribution, is. copying a jpg is in fact copyright infringement lol nearly everything on this forum is copyright infringement including all quotes, and nearly all images. that doesn't mean there aren't some murky issues with the legality of AI stuff, but they absolutely pale in comparison with the routine infringement we all take for granted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 13:41
|
|
|
This is getting closer and closer to arguing about the issue at hand (the ethics of AI) instead of arguing about the policy (the effectiveness of AI containment to combat derails to improve TG). Talking about the issue makes feedback threads into de facto containment threads, which has made previous feedback threads here and in SAD pretty useless in my opinion because they get mired in the same poo poo that makes containment and/or blanket bans necessary. Obviously, some discussion of an issue will have to be allowed, at least in brief for the necessary context.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 13:54
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:Okay, now that I'm not at work and have a little bit of brain: what I was trying to describe by acceptable "high-effort" is stuff that is clearly mostly human creative effort with small AI elements, like the example posted in the previous thread of mostly human-made Blood Bowl maps that contained an AI-generated team logo. This is more or less "if you're trying in good faith and not being obnoxious, we're not going to check if every pixel was artisanally rendered." If the content is all or primarily AI-generated, it shouldn't leave the AI thread even if it's high-effort or high-quality. Thank you this is what I wanted to confirm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 13:56
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:copying a jpg is in fact copyright infringement lol Copyright infringement can hoover my nuts, but theft I do actually care about, and conflating the two is something that only people who care about copyright infringement want you to do. Raenir Salazar posted:Thank you this is what I wanted to confirm. I'll still call you a dork, though. There's no safety from that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 14:55
|
|
|
Private property still going strong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
I hope that there will not be a policy of slapping probations on on topic conversations over news or inspirational materials touching on LLMs etc. a recent example of what I mean is in the World of Darkness thread, but this could easily impact things like the threads on Shadowrun or Cyberpunk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 15:00
|
|
|
The new rules are fine by me. I appreciate the mod effort that went into developing them. Antivehicular posted:Okay, now that I'm not at work and have a little bit of brain: what I was trying to describe by acceptable "high-effort" is stuff that is clearly mostly human creative effort with small AI elements, like the example posted in the previous thread of mostly human-made Blood Bowl maps that contained an AI-generated team logo. This is more or less "if you're trying in good faith and not being obnoxious, we're not going to check if every pixel was artisanally rendered." If the content is all or primarily AI-generated, it shouldn't leave the AI thread even if it's high-effort or high-quality. This is good clarification, thanks. I don't plan to go around pushing this boundary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 15:15
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Copyright infringement can hoover my nuts, but theft I do actually care about, and conflating the two is something that only people who care about copyright infringement want you to do. More to the point, arguably stuff like AVs and the like could be called free advertising for the IP creator, if folks are willing to point them in their direction. Technically infringement, but it actually helps the owner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I see you're still not engaging with why one of the two is theft and the other is not. Copying a .jpeg is not theft, copying a .jpeg and then using it for raw materials in a commercial product without consent or attribution, is. Crimes for thee, but not for me! A huge lol at a bunch of people who gluttonously mass consume products by Hasbro of all companies trying to take the high road on ethical consumption of products. StratGoatCom posted:More to the point, arguably stuff like AVs and the like could be called free advertising for the IP creator, if folks are willing to point them in their direction. Ah yes, compensating the artist for their product in 'exposure'. Something that has never been used to justify exploiting creatives historically. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) kas fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 15:30
|
|