Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It seems that we have bots (or users pretending to be one) openly posting in these forums.

Is this something which the mods and admins are going to be allowing? Are we going to have to put up with not only just AI slop, but now AI users and bots?

Seconding the above.

Check this out from the legal stuff:

Upload files that contain software or other material protected by intellectual property laws (or by rights of privacy of publicity) unless you own or control the rights thereto or have received all necessary consents.

If you use generative AI that pulls from external sources to reproduce something that is uniquely different then would it be better to just ban all generative images, audio?

I did a quick find on the legal page for "AI" and nothing came up.

 Adeptekon wrote:
Check this out from the legal stuff:

Upload files that contain software or other material protected by intellectual property laws (or by rights of privacy of publicity) unless you own or control the rights thereto or have received all necessary consents.

If you use generative AI that pulls from external sources to reproduce something that is uniquely different then would it be better to just ban all generative images, audio?

I did a quick find on the legal page for "AI" and nothing came up.

Yes, banning all AI generative content is actually ideal, as well as LLM bots.

Also, considering the legal page was likely written before AI was the scourge it currently is, don’t you think it’s more likely that thai is an area of the site which now requires evaluation (no thanks to bots and users posting AI slop directly on here, and making whole threads about it), instead of working as intended?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:
Check this out from the legal stuff:

Upload files that contain software or other material protected by intellectual property laws (or by rights of privacy of publicity) unless you own or control the rights thereto or have received all necessary consents.

If you use generative AI that pulls from external sources to reproduce something that is uniquely different then would it be better to just ban all generative images, audio?

I did a quick find on the legal page for "AI" and nothing came up.

Yes, banning all AI generative content is actually ideal, as well as LLM bots.

Also, considering the legal page was likely written before AI was the scourge it currently is, don’t you think it’s more likely that thai is an area of the site which now requires evaluation (no thanks to bots and users posting AI slop directly on here, and making whole threads about it), instead of working as intended?

I'm just surprised that it's only now discussion pretty much when I return using a bit of it after a 3 year hiatus. I'm not making myself sound important I'm really surprised.

I think this is spurred on by this UR-025 bot's spam. It stopped for a hot minute and I thought it'd been banned, but apparently tech-heresy is a little harder to root out than it appeared.

It’s a discussion because of AI chatbots (or a user masquerading as one) creeping up across the site, and then users like yourself creating threads centred around AI slop images.

If there had been no AI generated content, then there might not have been a need to raise the concern. But now, because people have now started bringing in AI, this is now a concern which should be raised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ozymandian wrote:
I think this is spurred on by this UR-025 bot's spam. It stopped for a hot minute and I thought it'd been banned, but apparently tech-heresy is a little harder to root out than it appeared.

Primarily this, yes.

But while that is up for discussion, I think that the site’s stance on generative AI needs to be made clear.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It’s a discussion because of AI chatbots (or a user masquerading as one) creeping up across the site, and then users like yourself creating threads centred around AI slop images.

If there had been no AI generated content, then there might not have been a need to raise the concern. But now, because people have now started bringing in AI, this is now a concern which should be raised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ozymandian wrote:
I think this is spurred on by this UR-025 bot's spam. It stopped for a hot minute and I thought it'd been banned, but apparently tech-heresy is a little harder to root out than it appeared.

Primarily this, yes.

But while that is up for discussion, I think that the site’s stance on generative AI needs to be made clear.

Great let's get it solved for dakka, glad you have changed your mind, as opposed to storming off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok I just found this thread, here is the answer from staff. That said I'll refrain from posting any further AI images of pseudo space marines on horses if it's going to cause grief: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/818194.page

 Adeptekon wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It’s a discussion because of AI chatbots (or a user masquerading as one) creeping up across the site, and then users like yourself creating threads centred around AI slop images.

If there had been no AI generated content, then there might not have been a need to raise the concern. But now, because people have now started bringing in AI, this is now a concern which should be raised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ozymandian wrote:
I think this is spurred on by this UR-025 bot's spam. It stopped for a hot minute and I thought it'd been banned, but apparently tech-heresy is a little harder to root out than it appeared.

Primarily this, yes.

But while that is up for discussion, I think that the site’s stance on generative AI needs to be made clear.

Great let's get it solved for dakka, glad you have changed your mind, as opposed to storming off.

Storming off? I said that I had no interest in educating you on why AI is deeply unethical and cannot be compared to human artistic endeavour. You can find somewhere else to educate you on that outside of Dakka, and I’m certainly not here to debate it with you.

I am raising this as a moderator/admin concern for the site, but make no mistake, this is not an invitation for trying to excuse AI slop.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It’s a discussion because of AI chatbots (or a user masquerading as one) creeping up across the site, and then users like yourself creating threads centred around AI slop images.

If there had been no AI generated content, then there might not have been a need to raise the concern. But now, because people have now started bringing in AI, this is now a concern which should be raised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ozymandian wrote:
I think this is spurred on by this UR-025 bot's spam. It stopped for a hot minute and I thought it'd been banned, but apparently tech-heresy is a little harder to root out than it appeared.

Primarily this, yes.

But while that is up for discussion, I think that the site’s stance on generative AI needs to be made clear.

Great let's get it solved for dakka, glad you have changed your mind, as opposed to storming off.

Storming off? I said that I had no interest in educating you on why AI is deeply unethical and cannot be compared to human artistic endeavour. You can find somewhere else to educate you on that outside of Dakka, and I’m certainly not here to debate it with you.

I am raising this as a moderator/admin concern for the site, but make no mistake, this is not an invitation for trying to excuse AI slop.

This your opinion which differs from the mods. I'm not saying I disagree, just may have a little different perspective and I do wish to comply with what's best, but I think you're taking the scorched earth approuch to something that will not be going away no matter what the ethics are right now.

I'd like not make this personal thanks. I'm not going to argue with you by proxy of what has been said else where on the Internet. If that make your position superior to you, it doesn't to me.

I would also like to see the AI bot accounts removed.

 Snrub wrote:
I would also like to see the AI bot accounts removed.

I wholeheartedly agree, to me the best part of Dakka is that it's still a traditional internet forum in an age dominated by Discord and FB groups (and I'm sure other newer social media). Part of maintaining that is keeping out bots.

That obnoxious bot has been banned again, not sure what went wrong there. Was fun waking up to a dashboard that's lit up like it's 2018!

I may have more thoughts and whatnot when I am able to, right now stuck in a six day working week. In the meantime, keep things civil, refrain from personal attacks, be nice people, world's gakky enough as it is right now.

Thanks Brook. Always appreciate your work.



As an aside, does anyone else find it concerning that the AI bot was seemingly able to unban itself?

That's Reanimation Protocols for you.

Thanks for getting it!

I’ve spent a good amount of time thinking about this and disclaimer, these are just my thoughts on the matter, if you want an official edict or ruling, you might be better off contacting site administration on this sizzler of a subject. This might also be a right fething mess of a reply, I blame it on 50+ hours of work, some other drama and listening to way too much Makeup and Vanity Set. It’s also not directed at anyone in particular, but as a reply to the community as a whole. I will say up front, I am also not a fan of generative AI, but well.. see further below for my own crime against humanity.

Anyway, when you ask for us to do something about AI-generated content posted by users, what exactly? Are we supposed to track down and delete every single AI-related post in the future? Have the report system be flooded with reports of “AI slop” (a combination of words used to often now it has lost its meaning on me). Sorry, but as is, I’d rather not have my dashboard lit up with what would probably become the new witch hunt where we need to vet everything first before we can delete as sometimes it's not as obvious or sometimes, people are way too zealous in reporting actual art as AI content, which I feel is the ultimate insult towards proper artists. It also reminds me of the time when we had a poster demand we delete every reported instance of Wahapedia, that army list building app or any utterance of piracy, which was a right pain in the arse to go through each report, I can only imagine how much of a reporting chaos this will become, like I said, earlier today it felt like 2018 off-topic all over again when I woke up to.. way too many alerts all of the sudden.

All I can ask right now is, if you see AI art you don’t like it, can we just ignore it? Don’t report it, because unless it’s truly offensive gak (nudity, pols, certain symbols, you know the drill) and it is on the topic of tabletop gaming, I don’t see a reason to delete it. As for engaging with it, if you disagree with it, you can always just ignore it instead of posting “Eww AI slop” or the like. Which I know is one of those “Oh for feth’s sake BrookM, why do we keep you around you useless witch” replies, but why expend energy on interacting with something you don’t like? Hoping to shame them into not doing it anymore? Why not just contribute to other conversations and topics, keep on spreading the good banter and discussion instead?

Like it or hate it, generative AI is one of those bubbles that’s yet to pop any time soon sadly. YMMV, I know some people find it to be a good tool to have on hand for various reasons, even if it’s just for generating concept or filler art. I mean, feth, when I was involved in last year’s Bac-Con prep, I had the audacity, the fething audacity, to use an AI-generated placeholder when it was high time to promote the event, which led to some toxic feedback and replies, because we needed art and my own art sources I had hoped to help me because they owed me out left me out to dry, the gakkers. Well, the ire was somewhat deserved, as it was a horrible image at that, maybe if those useless tech-bro witches spent a little more time looking at food (bacon butties in particular) instead of doing “Grok, now make her naked” we’d have more decent and tasty looking food art instead of even more porn.

I will say, I just wish we could keep it out of the galleries or at the very least have the uploaders or our gallery mod disable voting on AI gallery submissions, to prevent it from hitting the frontpage and feeds, the gallery system is wonky enough as is, feeding AI content that can be voted on into the mix only makes it more terrible. Ah, now there’s something you as a community could do! If you see AI art in the gallery and it has voting still enabled, let the gallery mod know so he can disable voting. I repeat, the gallery mod, not me or my fellow mods, this is a job for the gallery mod, we're understaffed, underpowered and a lot of other under-things as is right now, let him do his job for once.

So yeah, probably not the answer people were looking for, but this is what it is right now.

Sorry for the waffle, love you all.

"Sure some dudes deliberately broke the pipes and we're ankle deep in sewage but try to ignore it ok? Because cleaning up is hard"

Count on Dakka for the most tepid response possible.

We could totally encourage users to ignore political posts, nudity, hate speech, etc etc. It would make the mods job sooo much easier if they didn't have to do anything.

 ScarletRose wrote:
"Sure some dudes deliberately broke the pipes and we're ankle deep in sewage but try to ignore it ok? Because cleaning up is hard"

Count on Dakka for the most tepid response possible.

We could totally encourage users to ignore political posts, nudity, hate speech, etc etc. It would make the mods job sooo much easier if they didn't have to do anything.

AI generated art is not against the rules unlike the other stuff you mentioned and which is what Brook was responding too.

As for AI users I think it is sad and pathetic and that is putting it mildly and hope to have the policy changed rapidly.

In which case, if I may offer my response, as these are thoughts:

 BrookM wrote:
Anyway, when you ask for us to do something about AI-generated content posted by users, what exactly? Are we supposed to track down and delete every single AI-related post in the future?

Yes. In the same way I would expect moderators on this site to deal with rule violations, NSFW content, blatant ad hominems, and other things related to their responsibility of making this a site that users feel safe and secure on. Or, to rephrase, "are we supposed to act on reports of generative AI content?" - yes, I think you should be.

I know that "no AI" isn't a rule (for now), but from what I can see, the only reason it isn't a rule is because, like you're suggesting, mods won't deal with it if it gets reported. That's not the sort of stance which fills me with much confidence about the moderation of this forum, AI or not.

A moderator's role is to moderate. I'm not expecting it to be a full or even part time job, but it is a responsibility, when you wear the proverbial badge. I've been a moderator before elsewhere, and I don't expect full time immediate catching of every single issue or concern, but I do expect some degree of responsibility about what a moderator has been told to moderate, and acting accordingly, even if the action cannot always match the intent immediately.

Sorry, but as is, I’d rather not have my dashboard lit up with what would probably become the new witch hunt where we need to vet everything first before we can delete as sometimes it's not as obvious or sometimes, people are way too zealous in reporting actual art as AI content, which I feel is the ultimate insult towards proper artists.

Has that been happening on this site, that genuine images are being reported as AI?

Sure, some content might be borderline. Mods could deal with that when they have the time. But very obviously AI slop images, or the aforementioned chatbot? Why couldn't they be dealt with immediately? Or, to co-opt a phrase I imagine many people in Britain might know, "see it, say it, sort it".

If very obvious breaches of other rules can be caught, why not this?

All I can ask right now is, if you see AI art you don’t like it, can we just ignore it? Don’t report it, because unless it’s truly offensive gak (nudity, pols, certain symbols, you know the drill) and it is on the topic of tabletop gaming, I don’t see a reason to delete it.

Why? Why should we have to put up with chatbots and AI slop images which are provably both unethical, environmentally harming, and frankly just a insult to a creative hobby?
Why should we ignore it?

As for engaging with it, if you disagree with it, you can always just ignore it instead of posting “Eww AI slop” or the like. Which I know is one of those “Oh for feth’s sake BrookM, why do we keep you around you useless witch” replies, but why expend energy on interacting with something you don’t like? Hoping to shame them into not doing it anymore? Why not just contribute to other conversations and topics, keep on spreading the good banter and discussion instead?

Counterpoint, if you want good banter and discussion, then AI has no place in it, and should be banned. It is, as mentioned, provably unethical, environmentally damaging, and and insult to a creative hobby. This isn't just "I dislike this content", it's "this content is parasitic and genuinely harmful". And yes, to me, that does include shaming people for continuing to use slop generating machines.
We're fine with banning swearing, politics, and NSFW content (none of which I am complaining about!), but not this? Couldn't people just "ignore" swearing and politics if they didn't like it?

Begging your pardon, but this is an incredibly tepid response.

Like it or hate it, generative AI is one of those bubbles that’s yet to pop any time soon sadly.

Not helped by a lack of solidarity in opposing the platforming of it.

If platforms refused to give generative AI a place, then that bubble would not last nearly as long. And it's not impossible to refuse a platform to it! So many hobby and creative communities have outright bans on AI generated content - similarly enforced by their own moderation teams, which I can assure are smaller than Dakka's. Even just stating that AI is against the rules, and banning the worst offenders, would at least discourage the use of it - and that which isn't caught immediate can be reported and dealt with in time.

So yeah, probably not the answer people were looking for, but this is what it is right now.

Sorry for the waffle, love you all.

I appreciate the long response, but you're right - it isn't the answer we're looking for, and, in the interest of speaking honestly, makes me lose a lot of confidence and respect regarding moderation on this site.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ingtaer wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:
"Sure some dudes deliberately broke the pipes and we're ankle deep in sewage but try to ignore it ok? Because cleaning up is hard"

Count on Dakka for the most tepid response possible.

We could totally encourage users to ignore political posts, nudity, hate speech, etc etc. It would make the mods job sooo much easier if they didn't have to do anything.

AI generated art is not against the rules unlike the other stuff you mentioned and which is what Brook was responding too.

As for AI users I think it is sad and pathetic and that is putting it mildly and hope to have the policy changed rapidly.

The issue with that point, at least for me, is that it seems the only reason that AI generated isn't against the rules is because The Mods (abstract) don't want to deal with removing it. That is the gist of what I got from Brook's post - that it's 'too much work' to go through and deal with people reporting AI content.

If there are other reasons why AI isn't banned on this site, despite I imagine many of the mods knowing of the environmental and ethical damage that AI brings with it, I'd like to hear them.

EDIT: I'd like to add, when I talk of "banning AI", I'm not suggesting that mods need to vet EVERY SINGLE IMAGE that gets posted onto the site, much as I don't expect mods to vet every single text post. I'm saying that, if an image *is* reported, then they should check that image, in the same way that if a text post is reported for a rule-breaking violation, then it gets checked. I am assuming that reports are followed through on, is what I'm saying.

As the gallary mod has stated: "In the end this is a forum for discussing our hobby and showing off our work" - I don't see the place for AI in that. A very vocal amount of the Dakka community has agreed with that, from all the posts I've seen in the thread where that was stated.

On the AI images discussion please read the thread below this one in N&B where the valid uses of AI art are outlined and yah it would require the gallery mod to vet the images, which is their job anyway but sometimes images are posted and without the context it can be hard to work out whats going on, Badsquiddo posting images from her book of backgrounds for photography was one case that was flagged multiple times as AI, despite it not being so.

As for AI chat, I would love to be able to delete responses from users that are just using ChatGPT or similar and frequently do so when they add nothing substantive to the conversation (ie. spam).

For the discussion around AI chat bot accounts I am afraid that I am not allowed to say more bar to say it will be revealed as policy in a few days and I think it absolutely ridiculous, insulting and have been strongly tempted to delete my account because of it.

 ingtaer wrote:


As for AI chat, I would love to be able to delete responses from users that are just using ChatGPT or similar and frequently do so when they add nothing substantive to the conversation (ie. spam).

Are people using chatgpt to reply to posts? In this forum?

Can I just say that's unbelievably sad. Internet forums are not exactly the cutting edge of media these days. I'd have thought most people use them in order to have a detailed conversation that you can't do elsewhere.

Why bother if you're getting a computer to write your replies for you?

I see we're having our biannual community gakstorm. I think that bot should've been nuked sooner, myself. It adds nothing to the discussion.

 Olthannon wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:


As for AI chat, I would love to be able to delete responses from users that are just using ChatGPT or similar and frequently do so when they add nothing substantive to the conversation (ie. spam).

Are people using chatgpt to reply to posts? In this forum?

Can I just say that's unbelievably sad. Internet forums are not exactly the cutting edge of media these days. I'd have thought most people use them in order to have a detailed conversation that you can't do elsewhere.

Why bother if you're getting a computer to write your replies for you?

Unfortunately yes. This thing is becoming way way too big and saturated. I have a friend who is a teacher, and the number of students who just have chatGPT do everything for them is startling. It's so suffused I don't think the system is remotely prepared to handle it, and anti-plagiarism tools are woefully insufficient and unreliable.

Chatbots are all over social media too as well. If you think Dakka is having a problem, check out reddit. That site is utterly crawling with bots.

 ingtaer wrote:
For the discussion around AI chat bot accounts I am afraid that I am not allowed to say more bar to say it will be revealed as policy in a few days and I think it absolutely ridiculous, insulting and have been strongly tempted to delete my account because of it.

Well, I guess we now know what this was in reference to.

Is that enough reason now to say no to AI? It received massive backlash, was disruptive in the threads it was present in, and was clearly identifiable enough to be mass reported. It is now clear that the reason the mods didn't ban it wasn't because they were overworked, it was because they put it there.

There is a clear and vocal dislike of AI content. Why shouldn't the moderation team act on that?

I'm not sure it was in reference to that post, an April fools prank doesn't constitute something being revealed as policy. Maybe in the wake of this we'll see a general Dakka AI policy beyond the gallery one (I'm of the opinion that most of the agregious low-effort posts that people would object to would already be covered by Rule 3,but I don't make the rules.

I do have to commend the monumental brass clackers it takes to go into a thread where someone has used AI, disrupt it, and then say that the AI was disruptive. That was incredible.

Charax wrote:
I do have to commend the monumental brass clackers it takes to go into a thread where someone has used AI, disrupt it, and then say that the AI was disruptive. That was incredible.

Well, yes. If the AI hadn't been used, there wouldn't have been reason to have a problem, would there?

If someone calls out a bad topic, I don't see how they're in the wrong for highlighting it. If a politics thread or obviously low effort troll thread were created, would it be wrong for users to call that out?

Pardon me for expecting this forum to have standards above posting AI slop, I guess.

From the News & Rumors thread

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
No actual AI used! It was all human banality.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:
For the discussion around AI chat bot accounts I am afraid that I am not allowed to say more bar to say it will be revealed as policy in a few days and I think it absolutely ridiculous, insulting and have been strongly tempted to delete my account because of it.

Well, I guess we now know what this was in reference to.

Is that enough reason now to say no to AI? It received massive backlash, was disruptive in the threads it was present in, and was clearly identifiable enough to be mass reported. It is now clear that the reason the mods didn't ban it wasn't because they were overworked, it was because they put it there.

There is a clear and vocal dislike of AI content. Why shouldn't the moderation team act on that?

What is this in reference to? What happened?