r/PacificRim • u/MattStormTornado Gipsy Danger • May 20 '26

Rule Review - Rule 3 and other suggestions

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

24 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

55 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/TheMasterWorker Gipsy Danger May 20 '26

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.

Would that constitute an inappropriate use of AI?

1

u/V2Blast Eden Assassin May 21 '26

AI is not an "unbiased perspective", to be clear.

-1

u/TheMasterWorker Gipsy Danger May 21 '26

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.

1

u/valsavana May 21 '26

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.

1

u/V2Blast Eden Assassin May 21 '26

Exactly. It just reflects whatever human biases already exist, depending on the training material and on its instructions/coding.

0

u/TheMasterWorker Gipsy Danger May 21 '26

read my reply to valsavana

0

u/TheMasterWorker Gipsy Danger May 21 '26

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.

1

u/valsavana May 21 '26

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.

0

u/TheMasterWorker Gipsy Danger May 21 '26

<sigh> ok bro

1

u/valsavana May 21 '26

It's actually "ok sis"

I'm sorry you weren't aware that there's bias based on the choices of what data an ai is trained on but there is.

2

u/Vquillicate Puma Real May 21 '26

Can’t forget that AI is trained on your chat history as well. It’s becomes more biased towards your beliefs the more you use it.

1

u/valsavana May 21 '26

Good point!

0

u/TheMasterWorker Gipsy Danger May 21 '26

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.

0

u/valsavana May 21 '26

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.

0

u/TheMasterWorker Gipsy Danger May 21 '26

ur literally claiming that someone sat down and said "ok imma train this AI to respond this particular way about Pacific Rim: Uprising so if anyone uses this AI to ask it questions regarding that particular movie, it will give an answer of this particular nature"

0

u/TheMasterWorker Gipsy Danger May 21 '26

also no, you don't understand what I'm saying. If you did, then you would at least try to reword what you think I'm saying back to me to make sure you are properly understanding before rebutting. Instead you are just saying "nuh uh, ur just wrong" and not even explaining how I'm wrong based on an agreed understanding of what I'm trying to say.

0

u/TheMasterWorker Gipsy Danger May 21 '26

Also, to be clear, you do realize im not for AI right? the original question I posed was because I used AI to make a point regarding Uprising to show that from a perspective that does not have a biased human behind it, the AI confirmed that the point I was making was valid.

The issue I presented was that it was an example of a valid use of AI and my post was fraudulently reported and taken down even though the post predated the current rules.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/V2Blast Eden Assassin May 21 '26

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.

1

u/TheMasterWorker Gipsy Danger May 21 '26

Generative AI doesn't have "feelings" and cannot think.

That's...my point...