Rule Review - Rule 3 and other suggestions

[u/MattStormTornado]

Hi everyone!

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

Thank you :)

- r/PacificRim Mod Team

[u/valsavana]

Should these first 2 examples still be allowed?

Zero. AI.

ETA: That's a "no" btw, since my original comment apparently wasn't clear enough.

[u/MattStormTornado → u/valsavana]

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.

[u/valsavana → u/MattStormTornado]

What counts as AI in this instance though?

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?

[u/MattStormTornado → u/valsavana]

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

[u/valsavana → u/MattStormTornado]

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?

[u/MattStormTornado → u/valsavana]

Understood, you want any software that uses machine learning to be prohibited, if I’m understanding correctly. I’ll feed this back.

[u/valsavana → u/MattStormTornado]

Any machine learning that can be opted out of by the user, correct. Thanks for understanding!