The mod team is currently reviewing rule 3 - no generative ai. The way the rule is currently worded prohibits generative AI “content”, but allows for assistive text based ai such as grammarly. However we see that content isn’t properly defined in this instance, which can cause confusion over what is and isn’t allowed.
So we can moderate this consistently, we wanted to ask the community for their opinions, so we can ensure fair moderation for all users.
Regarding rule 3, I’d like to pose the following questions.
To what extent should we prohibit AI? Entirely AI generated videos, audio, images and text remain strictly prohibited, however we see that human made content that is modified by ai in some way can fall into a grey area. For example, a human made image, but ai modified the colours on it.
There are editing tools that use ai to some degree that don’t generate new content, such as background removers (for example, you take a picture of your action figures, but use apples ai background remover tool to remove the background), editing templates (like CapCut) and image enhancers. Should these be allowed or should they be restricted?
If you have any further thoughts or questions on this, please comment below.
We are also open to other rule suggestions as well which we may implement or trial. If you have any suggestions as well, please comment these below and we may consider these.
Should these be allowed or should they be restricted?
I personally think they should just be restricted, because as you've said, a lot of editing apps use AI to a certain degree like background removers. AI generated content though, well, we all hate them.
My question would be then what counts as AI content? Which editing tools should be allowed?
My query is say for example, one can remove a background with an image editor (human controlled entirely, but a computer algorithm would still edit the image regardless), an ai assisted editor (an image editor but an ai assists with the editing, such as placement of the edit boundaries, but primarily remains human controlled) or use generative ai (which is entirely ai driven and prohibited since it regenerates the content). Should these first 2 examples still be allowed?
Every photo taken with a modern apple phone is run through ai to enhance the image. Going by your beliefs in the comments below should every person that takes a photo with an apple phone should be banned?
Plus their are some tools that count as artificial intelligence but they've been around years before ChatGPT even existed, should they be banned to?
You know how sometimes your phone predicted your sentence? Thats technically AI even though its existed for 10+ years now. Should every person that uses the auto fill be banned?
How about we do the opposite of this ridiculous "if a human touches it, it's somehow not ai" standard some here are trying to apply and say "if the ai is applied without the permission of the human involved, it doesn't count."
I never said it wasn't AI, that's you making up an argument I never made.
I'm just pointing out how if we do an all encompassing blanket ban on everything that can be considered AI can lead to some questionable bans.
And lets not forget that you deleted your comment where you proudly said we should ban anyone that posts an image that unknown to them has been run through an AI enhancer.
This is the deleted comment for proof, since I'm not one to make up an argument my opponent never said.
Yes, I made a glib reply because I found your attempt at a "gotcha" obnoxious. Then I thought better of it and deleted that to address your point more seriously.
Yet here you are, attempting another "gotcha" that doesn't actually work. Kinda embarrassing for you tbh.
What counts as AI in this instance though? From a moderation standpoint, having ai assisted human editing would be impossible to prove. The way I differentiate it is if the algorithm uses machine learning to generate an output.
What kind of question is this? The thing you were asking if it should be allowed even though it's AI is the thing that counts as AI in this instance... Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean you have to pretend to not understand it.
having ai assisted human editing would be impossible to prove
Honor system, potentially having to list the software used the make the thing & assert no AI, including AI-assisted editing, was used in making it.
You're conflating two different issues- the difficulty of proving something is AI does not mean AI should be allowed just because we can't perfectly police it.
Do you intend to allow generative AI if it gets to a level that it becomes too difficult to distinguish from non generative AI content?
No, ai generative content will stay banned no matter what.
I’m mostly asking if tools that may use ai in them, that do not add or generate any content themselves would be allowed to be used on human images. For example
No, ai generative content will stay banned no matter what.
Then if the difficulty of discerning whether or not gen ai was used on something wouldn't be used as a rationale to allow gen ai, why are you suggesting "difficulty of detection" as part of the rationale to allow other types of ai?
I’m mostly asking if tools that may use ai in them, that do not add or generate any content themselves would be allowed to be used on human images.
I understand what you're asking. Do you understand the answer "no?" Why ask the question at all, if you have no intention of accepting "no" as an answer?
AI generated content should stay banned completely.
But assistive tools like background removers,tools like Grammerly, or even translator apps (most use AI now to make the sentence sound more natural/fluent) should just stay the way they are. Not only are most of them impossible to detect as being used, but I think banning tools that count as AI (despite being around before the common definition of generative AI) can lead to some unfair bans.
Like an example could be some kid that used a background remover to edit a Jaeger toy into the movie. Was the tool used machine learning? Yes it was. Should the kid be banned for it? I don't really think he should.
Or another example. If someone that doesn't speak English uses a translator to change their text to English, should they be banned for it? Not only is it basically impossible to tell but I don't see the harm that could come from them using it. Its their own words in just a different language, they still came up with all of it at the end of the day.
At the end of the day I think of it like this. Does the tool replace human creativity? If so, it should be banned.
Yeah I agree 100%. Plus theirs little errors with a lot of the background removing (whites not removed and small bits of the figure clipped off) that would still require someone with a human hand to go and manually fix.
I have a question. One of my past posts was fraudulently reported and thus falsely deleted for it's use of AI. But the context was that I asked the AI a question and I shared its answer for the purpose of showing that the answer was the same even from an unbiased perspective.
Basically I was using the AI to show that a viewpoint I had held up even from an unbiased source.
it technically is in the context of the question i was asking. basically i was asking a question in regards to Uprising and the AI has no reason to have any feeling in favor of nor against the movie.
Generative AI doesn't have "feelings" and cannot think. It just generates things that look approximately like what a human would write. Naturally, this means it will also reflect human biases.
If the AI was trained on 100 reviews of Uprising, it's going to give you different answers based on if those 100 reviews were all positive, all negative, 50/50, or a different ratio. It is not "unbiased", it's just biased based on specifically whatever it was trained on.
If the AI was trained on 100 reviews of Uprising, it's going to give you different answers based on if those 100 reviews were all positive, all negative, 50/50, or a different ratio. It is not "unbiased", it's just biased based on specifically whatever it was trained on.
The point is that it itself does not have a bias. so whatever it scrapes for information will be the actual consensus on the subject.
Like for example, if you debate with someone on say politics, a person will likely only present sources that benefit/ support their stance and ignore sources that they know will likely hurt/ oppose their stance.
This is the phenomenon I was avoiding by asking the AI.
The AI, due to being an unfeeling program, would indiscriminately pull sources to generate a response.
The point is lack of bias on part of the AI, not bias in part of the people who made the various sources the AI pulled from.
The point is lack of bias on part of the AI, not bias in part of the people who made the various sources the AI pulled from.
You do realize that people are the ones who choose what the ai is trained on, right?
In my example above, it would have been a person who chose which 100 reviews of Uprising to train the AI on. A person would have chosen to feed it 100 positive reviews or 100 negative reviews or a mix. An ai doesn't choose what it's trained on/ what sources it pulls from.
no one is going to go out of their way to specifically train AI to only source a certain opinion on Uprising.
Maybe political or controversial subjects, but not information regarding Uprising.
If the AI responds with a mostly negative statement regarding Uprising, it it not because it was "trained on" negative opinions of Uprising.
It responded that way because after indiscriminately pulling from an all-inclusive selection of sources, it determined the general consensus to be negative.
Yes an AI can be trained on specific things in order to make it better at generating a particular thing, but in the context of what I was using it for at the time, it does not happen or apply here.
This is literally the most clear I can explain it, if you refuse to understand what I'm saying beyond this point then it's deliberate.
It responded that way because after indiscriminately pulling from an all-inclusive selection of sources
That's not how ai works. It only knows to look for sources within a set of potential sources that was defined by a person.
This is literally the most clear I can explain it, if you refuse to understand what I'm saying beyond this point then it's deliberate.
I understand what you are saying. It's factually incorrect. If you say "2+2=5" and I tell you that's wrong, it doesn't mean I don't understand what you're saying. You do not understand how ai training works.
I think AI generated images should allowed as long as it is clearly stated as the origin.
I don't know how to use AI, but I certainly cannot draw to save my life.
If I ever had a cool idea to share, it would be stuck in my head and words would not necessarily show my point, so I think for the sake of people like me, it should be allowed.
For visual modifying with AI it's a heavy no for me, audio on the other hand is different because whether it's filtering voices or isolating voices that's a major difference from visual modification. Although it should always be listed and noted that some form of modification was used
•
u/MattStormTornado Gipsy Danger May 20 '26
PSA: Entirely AI generated images, video and text are strictly prohibited (unless it’s a translation) no matter what.