=][= INTERIM GUIDANCE: AI/LLM GENERATED CONTENT =][=

[Blissful Brushes]

On 6/23/2026 at 10:36 PM, Larkhainan said:

To step aside from the issue of LLMs and the tools in general, the present day paradigm for the "AI companies" is a constant drone of fear-mongering doomtrolling. I don't work in an industry much impacted by this stuff, but for anyone who overlaps with it they have been told for more than a year a lot of extremely negative, unpleasant, career dooming slop to the end of building an industry on fear-mongering. Which doesn't really feel like a relaxing addition to a pretty chill hobby space.

 

This is in addition to and not absolving the other issues to be clear.

Without derailing this too much, as someone who does work in the sphere, AI isn’t going to replace us all any time soon. There is an element of AI replacing some functions, but a lot of those were crappy coded chatbots anyway. There is still a huge element of mistrust from blue chip companies about allowing AI into their workflow because of information security- the bosses are fed the same as us.

I implement Salesforce solutions for my day job, and we’ve got some big big clients and only 1 has embraced Agentforce (the SF LLM) and 1 other is very tentatively talking to us about dipping their toes in, the rest are very much in the  no camp.

Its created a hysteria that has combined with the volume of awful AI YouTube content that makes us think it’s taking over

Edited June 25 by Firedrake Cordova
=][= Don't dodge the swear filter =][=

[ThaneOfTas]

31 minutes ago, Blissful Brushes said:

what it is brilliant for, and what I use it for primarily is world building.

When I want background for my armies and characters I write it myself, I have several massive google docs full of just that. If I don't want to write it myself I'll use canon characters or armies, and why would I be so rude as to expect anyone to spend the time to read something that I didn't think it was worth spending the time to write?

[Blissful Brushes]

7 minutes ago, ThaneOfTas said:

When I want background for my armies and characters I write it myself, I have several massive google docs full of just that. If I don't want to write it myself I'll use canon characters or armies, and why would I be so rude as to expect anyone to spend the time to read something that I didn't think it was worth spending the time to write?

We all play the hobby in different ways.
 

I think you’re also misunderstanding how LLMs actually work in terms of prompt injection. I’m not very good at prose but I have my own ideas for themes, background etc. that AI is very good at coalescing with a bit of prodding, it also remembers continuity better than I do. 
 

I think you’re also misunderstanding a lot of the purpose of people putting pen to paper for, be it physical, keyboard or AI; it’s to put their ideas down and give their forces a solid identity, not to be a magnum opus for people to critique in Waterstones. 
 

Im not going to argue further with you, but you’re arguing for absolutes in a hobby filled with grey, and critically, it’s a personal hobby. It’s yours, not mine and mine not yours. I’d never presume to tell you how to enjoy your free time.

[ThaneOfTas]

23 minutes ago, Blissful Brushes said:

We all play the hobby in different ways.
 

I think you’re also misunderstanding how LLMs actually work in terms of prompt injection. I’m not very good at prose but I have my own ideas for themes, background etc. that AI is very good at coalescing with a bit of prodding, it also remembers continuity better than I do. 
 

I think you’re also misunderstanding a lot of the purpose of people putting pen to paper for, be it physical, keyboard or AI; it’s to put their ideas down and give their forces a solid identity, not to be a magnum opus for people to critique in Waterstones. 
 

Im not going to argue further with you, but you’re arguing for absolutes in a hobby filled with grey, and critically, it’s a personal hobby. It’s yours, not mine and mine not yours. I’d never presume to tell you how to enjoy your free time.

Why is it that pro AI people always assume that critics aren't familiar with AI. I've made use of it myself. I was trying it out for all sorts of things when Chat GPT was first gaining steam. I am familiar with using to to write and clarify thoughts into something more readable. I just would never do so for anything that I gave a  about. If you want to do it for your own stuff I dont care, But if you post something you're asking people to engage with it, and I maintain that its rude to ask someone to engage with something that you couldnt be bothered to do yourself.

 

In terms of value added to hobby spaces, AI generated content is at best on par with box posts. 

Edited June 24 by ThaneOfTas

[Adeptekon]

1 hour ago, Blissful Brushes said:

Without derailing this too much, as someone who does work in the sphere, AI isn’t going to replace us all any time soon. There is an element of AI replacing some functions, but a lot of those were crappy coded chatbots anyway. There is still a huge element of mistrust from blue chip companies about allowing AI into their workflow because of information security- the bosses are fed the same as us.

I implement Salesforce solutions for my day job, and we’ve got some big big clients and only 1 has embraced Agentforce (the SF LLM) and 1 other is very tentatively talking to us about dipping their toes in, the rest are very much in the F no camp.

Its created a hysteria that has combined with the volume of awful AI YouTube content that makes us think it’s taking over

 

OPEN DISCLOSURE! AVATAR MADE WITH AI!!!

 

Now that I've confessed my sin I'll just say as I am new here that I'll not give you my full opinion on use just yet. I would prefer to see where this forum is, this is one of 3 forums I visit and the first to define a policy so hats tip to staff.

 

To follow your quote sir Brushes, it may be that your companies are hold outs. Mine is moving very quickly, along with people "shifting" (I'll say no more on that) we have multiple internal initiatives and have partners who all do as well. It is big and it is coming fast. Everyone I know in leadership uses it daily (including myself), yes security issues raised pretty much put a halt on certain aspects. We are in the wild west phase of AI right now building the ship as we're flying it...

 

That said, my only recommendation for everyone is to get educated, because unless you're retired your future is either managing the AI or being mananged in some way by it.

 

Edited June 24 by Adeptekon

[NovemberIX]

3 minutes ago, Blissful Brushes said:

We all play the hobby in different ways

....

Im not going to argue further with you, but you’re arguing for absolutes in a hobby filled with grey, and critically, it’s a personal hobby. It’s yours, not mine and mine not yours. I’d never presume to tell you how to enjoy your free time.

I think you have a valid point, but I am gonna slightly disagree with you as well. We're discussing about using LLMs as part of posts on this forum, not weather or not your use of it is valid.  My opinion in your use case is that is exactly what some of us don't want to see on the forum. I'll be the first to admit I am a crap writer, but I've also participated in two Iron Gauntlets where some of the challenges include writing a 3500 hundred word index article, another 3500 word piece of fiction, and writing and illustrating a battle report. If someone came in and used LLM in that challenge, are they really participating? I'd argue not, and it's use would fundamentally cheapen the challenge. This forum is here for us to show our works, and offloading that work to a computer is sort of antithetical to that. I won't argue if you want to use it in your blog or personal DIY thread, but as I said before, it's uses should be only as a technical tool, not a creative partner.

[Lord_Ikka]

What follows is my personal opinion, not as a part of the mod team (no mod voice).

 

I have used AI-generated art in my personal blog (CSM one primarily) and as part of the play-by-post rpg club, to create character portraits. I do this for two reasons- I don't have an ounce of real artistic talent and I don't have the income to hire an actual artist to make something for each of the uses I have. 

 

I don't use AI to create my lore posts, just the art and to occasionally brainstorm things like names. I'm upfront about using it (it's in my first blog post laying out that any art portraits are AI) and I'm not attempting to profit off of it, either monetarily or for internet "clout". 

 

I'm wary of AI in general; I think that too many companies are attempting to leverage AI into their business without fully realizing the issues that it brings up. You need to very carefully write your prompts and then spend even more time to edit the resulting product to make sure the AI is actually being useful. AI has been shown to make up/lie when it doesn't have an actual answer, and I don't think AI replaces actual human artists ir talent, but I think it can be used carefully to aid those that want to use it. There are plenty of people who are passionate about this hobby, but may not have the talent or training to express that without the assistance of AI. They shouldn't use it to create everything, but as an additive force I approve of it.

 

I understand those who don't want the B&C flooded with horrible AI-generated slop, but that is one reason the mod team is here: to monitor and remove AI content that is clearly done without oversight or only created to push out masses of content. 

[Grotsmasha]

FWIW, I'm ok with limited use. Like everyone else, I don't want to be spammed with zero input stories day after day, BUT, FULL generation of content is NOT the only thing Ai/LLM is capable of.

Not everyone is a competent writer.

Not everyone is a competent artist.

Not everyone is able bodied.

There is room here to facilitate the hobby without it being just slop.

 

Additionally, I second it should not be allowed in the HoH under any context.

[Antarius]

As a way of ensuring that you never get better at your creative skill set, AI certainly seems quite a formidable tool. It is also quite useful for making sure we don't have to do all the drudgery of creative work, so we can finally concentrate fully on the true purpose of the hobby; meticulously stacking boxes of expensive plastic in our cupboards.

It's also very good for farming likes and generating flamewars that generate a lot of traffic in the short term, as well as putting a dampener on actual interaction so it should save a lot of bandwidth in the long term.

Seriously though, "AI" is a very broad category (that mostly has nothing to do with "artificial intelligence" at all, despite the name). Is it useful in some, very specifically targeted, areas? Sure. Is it useful for hobby work in the shape of the current LLM-based general rollout that is currently making it nigh-impossible to find actual content (not "content") on the internet? I'd say not so much.

So, what uses does it actually have?

For any sort of creative writing, the only use I've ever found productive (whether we're talking myself or others, and I've seen a lot of people use it for writing), is to use it to ask questions and get you to consider and reflect on your ideas (coincidentally, this is also what sparks new ideas). For actual text production, it obviously stinks and it's a very distinctive stink too.

 

If you use it to remove the background from pictures of your minis, I'd say we're in the "very specifically targeted" area, which is "AI" in the same way as the "magic wand" tool in photoshop and other photo-editing programs. I don't think anyone will be able to see whether it's one or the other. Adding in AI-generated backgrounds is something else, though and runs headlong into all the usual pitfalls.

If I squint a bit I can kinda-sorta see it as a conceptual tool for kitbashing and conversion, but even then, I'd argue you're better off amateurishly mashing together pictures of the actual models you're going to use, because they will look like the actual models/bits you're going to use, whereas AI won't (and let's face it, if you're so good at sculpting that you can make the actual model pieces expand, contract and fit as seamlessly as AI can, you're probably not going to use AI for this part of the process anyway).

My guess would be that mostly, it's just going to make you use a lot of time generating images, instead of interacting with the actual miniatures and figuring out how to do the actual conversion/kitbashing, but that's just my take.

In any case, if people are going to carry on this discussion, I think it would be wise to focus pretty sharply on what we're actually talking about here. Both because a "discussion" of the general concept of AI never leads anywhere good, but also because even when we're talking about AI only in the context of its use on this forum, the waters get very muddled very quickly.
I mean, if I use it for a colour scheme, as some sort of brainstorming tool or for bouncing ideas off along the way, why would that ever show up in my posts here? Now, personally, I think it would make a lot more sense to use the members of the community for those sorts of things - now that we're on a forum and all - but in any case it's not like anyone will be making posts of their "me and my AI brainstorm session", is it? That kind of AI use is simply not going to show up in our posts here and if it does it's never going to be detectable (let alone provable), so logically, that sort of use can't be what we're discussing. If this discussion (and policy) is to make any sense, we're talking about posts and images that are much more directly LLM-generated.

Whether people use it in their process, I have absolutely no desire (and, very obviously, no ability) to control. But I think it's counterproductive to a hobby forum to allow it in any sort of "final product" posted on the forum, as it will just detract from the actual hobby content.
If you need examples, the internet is chock full of them, as several other creative hobbies, from gardening to knitting, have been more or less turned into a slop-mire that's impossible to navigate and so people either get in on the content-farming or disengage. I don't see why anyone would look at that and think "well, maybe if we just do a little bit of that, it would be ok". Especially on a forum that is already struggling a bit with engagement.

That's all I really have to say on the matter and it's not a stance that's realistically going to change. Not because I'm "afraid" of or "against" AI or anything silly like that, but because I simply have no interest in "creative" AI content and I've seen its effect on other creative hobby spaces.

Edited June 24 by Antarius

[HeadlessCross]

14 hours ago, Lord_Ikka said:

I have used AI-generated art in my personal blog (CSM one primarily) and as part of the play-by-post rpg club, to create character portraits. I do this for two reasons- I don't have an ounce of real artistic talent and I don't have the income to hire an actual artist to make something for each of the uses I have. 

You can search for art that already exists and ask the artist for permission to use it and give them full credit. 

 

Your laziness to not put in that effort is not an excuse. 

 

13 hours ago, Grotsmasha said:

 

Not everyone is a competent writer.

Not everyone is a competent artist.

Not everyone is able bodied.

 

There are people that play guitar with their feet, and do that as well as I did when I was actually able to actively play guitar with my hands before my tendinitis became fairly crippling. 

 

I'd rather lose my hands than use AI to create any slop some people try to pass off as "music". 

 

15 hours ago, Adeptekon said:

 

OPEN DISCLOSURE! AVATAR MADE WITH AI!!!

 

Now that I've confessed my sin I'll just say as I am new here that I'll not give you my full opinion on use just yet. I would prefer to see where this forum is, this is one of 3 forums I visit and the first to define a policy so hats tip to staff.

 

To follow your quote sir Brushes, it may be that your companies are hold outs. Mine is moving very quickly, along with people "shifting" (I'll say no more on that) we have multiple internal initiatives and have partners who all do as well. It is big and it is coming fast. Everyone I know in leadership uses it daily (including myself), yes security issues raised pretty much put a halt on certain aspects. We are in the wild west phase of AI right now building the ship as we're flying it...

 

That said, my only recommendation for everyone is to get educated, because unless you're retired your future is either managing the AI or being mananged in some way by it.

 

Yeah not all of us wanna be tech bros or be managed by them. 

[ThaneOfTas]

5 hours ago, Grotsmasha said:

Not everyone is a competent writer.

Not everyone is a competent artist.

Not everyone is able bodied.

Using AI is a sure fire way to make sure that the first two wont ever change.

 

And frankly as to your last example, Some people are physically incapable or performing certain activities. this is unfortunate, but unavoidable. A paraplegic is probably not going to be able to climb Everest, that doesn't mean that it would be reasonable to try and make Everest wheelchair accessible. If someone is incapable of picking up a brush or using a mouse to create art themselves, and are unable to use any of the myriad of existing work arounds, then frankly it just isn't something that they're able to do. They aren't entitled to the result if they cant undertake the process.

[Grotsmasha]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

I'd rather lose my hands than use AI to create any slop some people try to pass off as "music". 

 

Sure, plenty of slop. BUT, I've also heard some proper bang'in AI tunes too, one of my current top 10 listens is a genre-swap.

 

15 minutes ago, ThaneOfTas said:

They aren't entitled to the result if they cant undertake the process.

 

This statement sits wrong with me.  I can think of myriad examples where people are entitled to things that they themselves cannot procure, or complete.

[Antarius]

2 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

There are people that play guitar with their feet, and do that as well as I did when I was actually able to actively play guitar with my hands before my tendinitis became fairly crippling. 

 

I'd rather lose my hands than use AI to create any slop some people try to pass off as "music". 

Slightly tangential but still relevant, I think. I am very aware of my limitations as a musician (as well as a miniature painter and terrain builder and writer - and please, let’s not go into how bad I am at drawing stuff…). But I don’t make music because AI (or literally millions of people) can’t do it “better” than me - I make music to create something that’s my own music (even when it turns out that Tony Iommi has usually had the same idea, only better…).

 

Just like I do hobby stuff, not because there aren’t thousands of people out there who are more skilled than me, but because these are my guys and my stories.

[ThaneOfTas]

4 hours ago, Grotsmasha said:

This statement sits wrong with me.  I can think of myriad examples where people are entitled to things that they themselves cannot procure, or complete.

They can't call themselves an artist, or use the result as though they created it, including posting it to a creative forum. If they want it purely for their own use then whatever, but as soon as you start posting or sharing it then as far as im concerned you're out of line.

Edited June 24 by ThaneOfTas

[Captain Idaho]

Having read the slop produced by GW lately, I'm fairly certain their development team are using AI to produce a lot of their products...

 

[Antarius]

6 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Having read the slop produced by GW lately, I'm fairly certain their development team are using AI to produce a lot of their products...

 

The first couple of pages of artwork in the new "Operation Imperator" is certainly sloppy enough to be AI (although I don't think it is).
A lot of the actual writing in there was surprisingly good, though. They've somehow lost the ability to write a cool, stirring space marine quote (you'd think that'd be the easy part, so it's honestly a little baffling), but apart from that it was all at least decent.

[Redboot Giddyman]

If I may ask a question of my fellows on this topic:

 

What about, say, a story that is mostly the writer's own work, but the "first draft" was AI generated based on prompts? By this I mean that the person put prompts based on their ideas in an AI, it produced writing, and then they went and edited / added their own content to make it more uniquely theirs? I don't think I'd want to see someone just do a "copy and paste" job of AI-generated text, but what about a story that is, say, mostly the writer's own but includes some AI generated text left over from the initial prompt generation? Assuming the author is transparent, what would the thought be on that? I ask because that seems to be something that hasn't really been considered yet. Most folks here seem to be thinking of "pure" AI content: art, writing, etc. that is made entirely with AI. But what about something where AI is the "starting point" and then a human takes it from there?

[Evil Eye]

43 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Having read the slop produced by GW lately, I'm fairly certain their development team are using AI to produce a lot of their products...

 

Honestly I feel like AI could do a better job than some of the absolute crap GW puts out on occasion.

[Captain Idaho]

The HH rules seem so convoluted, I swear they've been "AI'd" somewhere.

 

 

[phandaal]

3 minutes ago, Redboot Giddyman said:

But what about something where AI is the "starting point" and then a human takes it from there?

 

Considering in this thread some people are pushing back even on the idea of using AI to mock up color palettes to be used for painting, probably not going to like that idea either.

 

For some, it is a black and white thing - if an AI tool was used in any way, at any time, it is bad. That is the kind of opinion you do not change with debate.

 

People just have to accept that if they post something here that uses AI, within the guidelines in the OP, some people will respond negatively to it. It will happen regardless of the ultimate quality or the proportion of the end result that was AI-made. Same as anyplace else really.

[Redboot Giddyman]

7 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Considering in this thread some people are pushing back even on the idea of using AI to mock up color palettes to be used for painting, probably not going to like that idea either.

 

For some, it is a black and white thing - if an AI tool was used in any way, at any time, it is bad. That is the kind of opinion you do not change with debate.

 

People just have to accept that if they post something here that uses AI, within the guidelines in the OP, some people will respond negatively to it. It will happen regardless of the ultimate quality or the proportion of the end result that was AI-made. Same as anyplace else really.

Yeah, I get that sense.

 

Honestly, I sort of get it. I don't view it as a black and white thing in the way you're describing, but I will say that I do understand that perspective. 

[Antarius]

34 minutes ago, Redboot Giddyman said:

If I may ask a question of my fellows on this topic:

 

What about, say, a story that is mostly the writer's own work, but the "first draft" was AI generated based on prompts? By this I mean that the person put prompts based on their ideas in an AI, it produced writing, and then they went and edited / added their own content to make it more uniquely theirs? I don't think I'd want to see someone just do a "copy and paste" job of AI-generated text, but what about a story that is, say, mostly the writer's own but includes some AI generated text left over from the initial prompt generation? Assuming the author is transparent, what would the thought be on that? I ask because that seems to be something that hasn't really been considered yet. Most folks here seem to be thinking of "pure" AI content: art, writing, etc. that is made entirely with AI. But what about something where AI is the "starting point" and then a human takes it from there?

On the one hand, do whatever you want. If there’s enough of your own work in there to make it unrecognisable as AI, noone will notice anyway. Sort of like how noone will actually care whether you use AI or a colour wheel and/or basic colour theory for selecting your palette (but you will, of course, eventually become a better painter by doing the latter).

 

otoh, at that point, I think it’d likely be more work using AI. Sort of like how some students will jump through a lot of hoops to cheat instead of taking the actually easier route and just doing the assignment.

Edited June 24 by Antarius

[phandaal]

6 minutes ago, Redboot Giddyman said:

Yeah, I get that sense.

 

Honestly, I sort of get it. I don't view it as a black and white thing in the way you're describing, but I will say that I do understand that perspective. 

 

Yeah, I am neutral-to-positive on it myself. To me, it looks like a tool, and like any tool the quality of the final product depends on the user.

 

And on that, I would not be influenced by someone telling me it is all bad for whatever reasons, because I have already seen those arguments elsewhere and they were not persuasive to me at that time either. So it makes sense for people to feel strongly about the opposite viewpoint as well.

 

This is one of those things where most people have already made up their minds, and opinions might only change (in either direction) through direct experience rather than just talking about it.

[Lord_Ikka]

5 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

You can search for art that already exists and ask the artist for permission to use it and give them full credit. 

I've done that before. Is it worth it to attempt to track down an artist for permission to use a piece of art on a personal blog that less than a thousand people will see or care about? Maybe, maybe not. Some artists are cool with it, others don't want anyone using their art for anything other than what they created it for (not complaining, it is their talent that created the product and they're totally able to approve/disapprove usage). 

 

That is also assuming that an artist has even produced something that is close enough to what I want to use. Oftentimes there isn't anything even near what I'm looking for- putting an image of my built model and having something like Copilot create a HH-style drawn portrait off of that is the only way to get what I want. 

 

If someone doesn't like AI or even the thought of AI being used in the production of something, fine. Everyone is allowed their opinion. However, I'm not going to look down on someone who is using a tool to assist them in creating something that they would otherwise not be able to do, fo whatever reason. As long as someone is upfront about using AI to assist them and isn't relying on the AI to completely generate content, I see little difference between that and someone using a thesaurus to better their vocabulary or photoshop to sharpen up their pictures. I especially don't care if AI is used in a manner that is not designed to generate either money, clout, false information, or controversy- using it to enhance your personal projects is one of the least problematic ways to use those tools.

[ThaneOfTas]

56 minutes ago, Redboot Giddyman said:

If I may ask a question of my fellows on this topic:

 

What about, say, a story that is mostly the writer's own work, but the "first draft" was AI generated based on prompts? By this I mean that the person put prompts based on their ideas in an AI, it produced writing, and then they went and edited / added their own content to make it more uniquely theirs? I don't think I'd want to see someone just do a "copy and paste" job of AI-generated text, but what about a story that is, say, mostly the writer's own but includes some AI generated text left over from the initial prompt generation? Assuming the author is transparent, what would the thought be on that? I ask because that seems to be something that hasn't really been considered yet. Most folks here seem to be thinking of "pure" AI content: art, writing, etc. that is made entirely with AI. But what about something where AI is the "starting point" and then a human takes it from there?

If you couldn't be bothered to write it yourself, why would I want to read it?