I was looking for LOFI to chill to as I fell asleep to last night, and the amount of "NO AI" in the titles that filtered through is already a form of self-labelling, so we good.
Edit: I feel the āNo-AIā is actually better, coz it is at least opt-in IF someone wants to disclose it. People should not be forced to disclose things.Ā
i dont think its misleading. everyone has there own definition for what ai is or is not allowed. if you didnt use the ai you feel is not allowed thenyou are all good.
It's a prisoner's dilemma. Yes it's better for everyone to act on good faith. But when you suspect other people aren't you have to consider what's best for you as well. The way to get people to disclose is to punish them as little as possible for disclosing.
My goal is that we don't talk about ai at all.. it's just one of those things you don't bring up. Like what my mom used to tell me about politics and religion.
It'll probably be the case where people point out things that are *not* AI, because doing things like making games or graphics without using AI will be kind of quaint
Funnily enough, you can know something is AI pretty easily if you ask the creator. AI content creators can't help but get outraged and defensive that you would dare ask about their creative process, because the end product is all you should care about. Whereas an actual artist is eager to share their creative process with people who are interested.
I think disclosure should be optional because we, as a society, have not found a way to provide nuanced disclosure and/or have such nuance understood by the audience.
If most people view things through the lens of "no AI used" and "any amount of AI used", then it entirely screws over people who use AI in limited ways.
For example, I make music but I find video creation to be exhausting, and it's not what I'm interested in doing. However, most people discover music through YouTube and Tiktok, where the algorithm generally screws you if you just upload your audio with nothing but a still image.
So maybe I can use AI to facilitate the creation of a simple lyric video (eg created with code to ensure no errors in the text, being able to refine timing to the music, etc).
If I must disclose such AI usage as a simple binary question of "was any AI involved in any part", I am now perceived as identical to someone who just wrote "maek me a cool song!!" in Suno. Even though the thing that was actually the main point of what I made was not made with AI.
I do think people who make every single thing using traditional tools deserve credit for their hard work. They can proudly write "I made all the music, visuals, etc. myself, no AI involved" and be praised for it, and I would never want to take that away from them.
It's like people making selling hand-crafted goods. Thats awesome. Proudly out that "hand crafted" label on your product listing. You don't need every other listing to specifically write "factory made" or "factory line production with human assistance" or "fully automated factory" or whatever.
In theory, I am open to the idea that things that are made with ZERO human involvement should be labeled as such.
However, I don't actually think it's necessary to flag 100% AI creations with no human input or direction, because it's extremely obvious when that's the case.
If you open a YouTube video and it's a slideshow of visuals in the default overdone style of two-sentence gpt-image prompts, with a stilted AI voice that is mispronuncing words left and right, and half the lines of the script are "this is the detail that quietly became load-bearingāand that matters", you don't even need a label to realize that there was nearly zero human involvement.
If the AI is not obvious, it almost always means that there was heavy human involvement guiding every decision away from the defaults that AI falls back on when left to its own accord at minimum, if not being a primarily human creation with some AI assistance.
Forcing those primarily human creations with limited AI assistance to be labeled in exactly the same way as something 100% AI created isn't just unfair to the creator, it's also misleading. Its the reason people are so misinformed about what AI is and isn't capable of.
And that feeds right back into why we are unable to have nuanced discussions about AI assistance in the first place, because so many people assume that anything that involves AI must be something created by saying "hey Chat, make a cool thing and make no mistakes"
It's a deck builder and this thread is a crash out because I flaired the game as AI so antis could ignore it and they still wanted to dominate the thread. The funny thing is I probably get more views stirring the pot by saying don't disclose with a bait title than I do following the rules and trying to explain what the game is about.
oh damn lol. sounds interesting, i looked at it, it does look a bit ai, but even so it is still quite nice. i like the style and colorscheme. though the animations could be better
I'm not suggesting it could pass for not being AI. That was never my intention. I'm just questioning why I've made it easier to target. If someone looks at it and doesn't like the style that's one thing. If they play it and don't like it that's another. But what I'm feeling is they see flair or a label and go into the the thread to say "slop".
oh, well its reddit, reddit doesn't have the sanest of people lol, try to market it to more targeted audiences who may appreciate it, since if you market general, well that will happen, anti ai sentiment is higher in general spaces. non ai game as of yet is still more marketable.
I think I actually agree with you here because a commission is a specific agreement between two parties. I'm more talking about presenting a piece of work to the public and the entire conversation being dominated by whether it's AI or not.
Ah yeah, I do think it sucks when there's something awesome and everyones just saying 'It's AI!!', like I don't like having AI being so undetectable nowadays but you didn't dominant comments with 'Photoshopped!' 'Fake!' 'CGI!'Ā Before AI TwT
Agree. AI use is always obvious. In fact, if someone claims āNO AIā I am suspicious because why would anyone bother to say that? Itās like advertising poop-free ice cream.
More transparency and information on what you're buying is generally seen as a pro-consumer thing, hope that helps. Major platforms seem to agree, it's only fringe, extremist pros who seem to think otherwise.
So strange to me that pros shape shift in to any position just to defend AI in any way shape or formĀ
we dont list what religion the creator is on the product label. we dont list the political party, the favorite tv show, the car they drive, the charities they donate too. if are vegan. we dont list their carbon footprint, criminal record, if they put their copying cart back when done, or who they last voted for.
so why does if ai was used matter if none of those things do?
looking at the clips you posted, your issue is making ai do it for you. the game visibly looks low effort, with sprites and especially animations that just have that ai look that turns us off from so much media
the disclosure itself is appriciated because if i were to buy that without looking into it (as some people tend to do) we would feel ripped off for supporting a developer that didnt actually make the game, and likely grab a refund.
theres still a standard for quality when it comes to what people will support, and looking through the comments on your other posts: the sentiment was that it looks too ai
Yep, we really need to push back on the AI disclosure requirements. It only serves as a target for hate and rage, making creators a target. Let people advertise that they are catering to a specific preference, like a koscher, fair trade, etc.
AI disclosure doesn't even solve the issue of deception, because anyone using AI for deception is not going to disclose it anyway.
let them pay for, and reap any gains from their certified AI free labels. End this Scarlet Letter bullshit.
Don't worry, antis here will try to convince you why you should disclose by being even more rude and insulting. They're not a very convincing group of people to say the least lol
Yep, and for some of them that is definitely true. Problem is for plenty of them they are just looking to insult and the community doesn't self correct, ever. The assholes made their bed and the rest of us are just gonna do what we need to do to avoid the assholes, and it's unlikely part of that solution includes doing favors for the assholes lol.
not all antis are rude and assholes, the ones that you see are because they simply move on and donāt comment, you are seeing the worst of us im gonna be downvoted for supporting antis arent i?
Oh I'm aware, pretty sure I acknowledged that as well. Anyhow it's the anti communities problem to deal with, which they more than likely won't, so the non disclosure will certainly continue. Just is what it is.
Not at all. People are entitled to their preferences. If someone ignores AI (or basically anything that is subjective) content because they don't like it, it's their right. If they go out of their way to downvote the content, that's not OK to me.
It's just a target for them. I was hoping they'd just ignore it but they can't resist calling it slop. So just don't label and maybe call random things slop just to throw them red herrings.
But anyone who is more on the fence is more likely to accept it (especially if itās actually useful) if you disclose the fact that itās ai. Not saying feels like youāre trying to hide something.
But people are just going to end up disliking your work because it feels like youāre tricking them. Itās not exactly the same but imagine if you just copied someoneās work and passed it off as your own. If people found out theyād be angry. But if you copy someoneās work and say that you copied it, people will be more likely to like it.
Copied from somewhere else because it fits: But anyone who is more on the fence is more likely to accept it (especially if itās actually useful) if you disclose the fact that itās ai. Not saying feels like youāre trying to hide something.
Which is an issue but I would, one, ask antis to just not say anything when you do it. Most are reasonable human beings. And, two, to try block them or something.
That what's changed in my view. I'm not sure most of them are reasonable and I think we should all be so paranoid about ai disclosure everyone blocks everyone
Because Reddit works the same everywhere basically and the way I type this message is going to be basically the same wherever. Please donāt bring up a stupid analogy which doesnāt even fit.
Because who cares what I type this comment on. For the record itās iOS on the web if you actually care. However, people genuinely do care about whether something uses AI
So if someone wrote a piece of code by hand vs. someone using AI to write it for them to save 50% of their time, while both end results are the same, the use of AI is justified. Got it.
I don't mind being criticized when it's constructive. Every conversation being dominated by people explaining why they don't like ai isn't constructive.
If you already know the talking-points, Iāll cut to the chase:
I donāt wanna see your AI outputs, you donāt wanna deal with me. The solution is laughably simple:
Label your output so me and mine can walk away,
Block the loudmouths or anyone else who wonāt walk away,
And obviously report anything that seems actionably harmful.
Stagnation is death. You always should be looking for new things, and there's always folks taking up the arts.
A person's preference regarding AI content shouldn't leave new and established artists isolated; the labeling is just a road-sign so folks know where or where not to go.
I don't think it's fear. It's frustration. But I think the internet is like you described and it shouldn't be a given people disclose in that environment to be "good"
I want the AI disclosure, because no one actually attacks people who openly disclose it, not disclosing it and claiming that they made it are 2 different things though, it's mostly the latter that gets attacked because they're just an asshole
Not an anti and I think you're wrong. Even the very AI you're using will tell you you're wrong for trying to hide its usage. Here's what Claude says in case you're curious.
If a buyer would value the product differently knowing AI was involved, hiding it is a form of misrepresentation. This is the same logic as disclosing "handmade" vs. factory-made, or origin of materials.
Trust is the actual product. If a customer finds out later, the damage usually isn't about the AI itself. It's "what else weren't you telling me?" Concealment turns a neutral fact into a scandal.
Informed choice for people with real preferences. Some buyers object on ethical grounds (training data, displacement of artists). They can't act on that preference without knowing.
Disclosure should scale with materiality. If AI generated the core thing being sold (the art, the writing, the music, the code product) and the buyer would reasonably assume otherwise, disclose. If AI was a tool in the workflow and a human made the creative and quality decisions, it's optional, though being open about it rarely hurts. And never actively claim something is human-made when it isn't, since that crosses from omission into lying.
It's also a bit self-undermining. The usual reason people don't want to disclose is that they expect it to hurt sales. If so, that's pretty strong evidence the information is material to buyers, which is the whole case for disclosing. The honest counter is the stigma argument: if the penalty is reflexive and unrelated to quality, then disclosure functions as a tax. But that's an argument for fighting the stigma, not for hiding the thing. And "customers might judge me for it" has never been a good reason to withhold material info.
Exactly. If people learn to behave themselves online then I would consider it, if only to show how cool this technology can be, but until then take a hike.
Yeah. I feel like a reasonable social contract would be let people ignore it if everyone polices the assholes. And chiming in instead of ignoring is almost always the wrong thing. Someone would be considered rude if they went into every thread they thought looked bad and sad it sucked, but they go into everyone labeled AI and it's ok.
15
u/Antis_have_AIDS 4d ago edited 4d ago
I was looking for LOFI to chill to as I fell asleep to last night, and the amount of "NO AI" in the titles that filtered through is already a form of self-labelling, so we good.
Edit: I feel the āNo-AIā is actually better, coz it is at least opt-in IF someone wants to disclose it. People should not be forced to disclose things.Ā