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.

 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?

 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.

 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.

 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.

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

 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.

 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?

 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).

 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?

 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.

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.

 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?