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

[Joe]

There is no nuance when it comes to creative spaces - it simply isn't acceptable, and this was the wrong call to make even as an interim decision.

 

Anything else is chomping the AI-bros self-deprecating reasonings for why we should roll over and accept it.

[Cactus]

4 hours ago, Joe said:

There is no nuance when it comes to creative spaces - it simply isn't acceptable, and this was the wrong call to make even as an interim decision.

 

Anything else is chomping the AI-bros self-deprecating reasonings for why we should roll over and accept it.

Is this because a) anything that has had AI used in it's creation, even where that is declared, is not a 'proper' creative work of human expression or b) the AI tools available to us are built (in part) on large-scale unauthorised use of copyrighted works in their training data and we shouldn't reward wrongdoing?

 

I agree with the latter, but not the former.

 

I'm not trying to start a fight or put words in your mouth. I sense that both arguments have been made by various people in this thread but its not always clear why people are objecting.

[HeadlessCross]

30 minutes ago, Cactus said:

Is this because a) anything that has had AI used in it's creation, even where that is declared, is not a 'proper' creative work of human expression

It's not. It takes whatever already exists, without permission, mashes stuff together, and then some techbro is gonna pretend they're a writer or artist. 

 

What's there to admire there?

[Cactus]

3 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

It's not. It takes whatever already exists, without permission, mashes stuff together, and then some techbro is gonna pretend they're a writer or artist. 

 

What's there to admire there?

Nothing, but that's a straw man. The scenario I pose is one where the work is not 100% unfiltered gen-AI output, but one where some AI output was part of a human-driven creative process. Examples such as suggesting (not choosing) colour palettes, or creating an illustration based on the hobbyist's own model have been given already.

 

Before I'm accused of being a tech bro shill, I don't like generative AI or large-language models for reasons including creator rights, snake oil, jumped-up predictive text, the potential long-term effects on people who over-rely on AI, technical illiteracy preventing people in positions of power (small scale as well as national) from making informed decisions about its use, and the water-guzzling environmental impact of their data centres. However I also think that somebody who says in good faith "I made this in my hobby, using <AI tool> to help with X in the process" deserves politeness, not a fundamentalist anti-AI lobby.

 

My view is have a sense of proportion and allow some fuzzy grey areas around the edges. This thread should convince anyone that our community will definitely call out anybody passing off AI slop as their own work. I don't worry that we'll be overrun by it at all.

[Joe]

59 minutes ago, Cactus said:

Is this because a) anything that has had AI used in it's creation, even where that is declared, is not a 'proper' creative work of human expression or b) the AI tools available to us are built (in part) on large-scale unauthorised use of copyrighted works in their training data and we shouldn't reward wrongdoing?

 

I agree with the latter, but not the former.

 

I'm not trying to start a fight or put words in your mouth. I sense that both arguments have been made by various people in this thread but its not always clear why people are objecting.

 

Little of column a, little of column b - I'd also say it partly comes back round to what I said yesterday regarding internal theft on the forums (i.e. users stealing other users hobby material for training purposes, then re-uploading it). It also partly comes down to the fact that like, give an inch and they'll take a mile. We saw the exact same issue with the uptick in the tournament / competitive scene when it came to the game where it was begrudgingly tolerated by the community before it rapidly ran away with itself and left us in the position we are today.

 

I also frankly don't trust users - this includes our current moderation team - to police this adequately if AI / LLM content is allowed. 

 

That said, I am not surprised at some of the arguments being fielded by both sides in the thread, although it's a mite depressing that some people are as predictable as they are lol. Better that we hash this out in conversation now than allow it to fester however.

[LittlePlasticHomies]

19 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Once you leave the room, I might smirk though, especially if you use the words 'glistening' and or 'cleavage' twice in the same paragraph.

That’s exactly how I described Commander Dante.

[drakheart]

AI has many uses, when it comes to out right AI creations such as text to image generation, but AI can also be used in more subtle ways to help improve and refine an artists work. I work as an architectural technician and we use AI packages to help improve our visuals for building projects. The design and rendering of the building itself are all our creation, but we use AI to improve the look of people and vegetation in our images and animations as the 3D models we use can often look fake, especially close up. The use of AI enhances the end product but doesn't alter the architects actual design that the visual is used to present. 

 

In the same way a forum member on here could use AI to generate backdrops or environments for photos of models they have built/converted and painted to help present their work, as long it is made clear what part the AI took in the final piece. 

[HeadlessCross]

22 minutes ago, Cactus said:

Nothing, but that's a straw man. The scenario I pose is one where the work is not 100% unfiltered gen-AI output, but one where some AI output was part of a human-driven creative process. Examples such as suggesting (not choosing) colour palettes, or creating an illustration based on the hobbyist's own model have been given already.

 

Before I'm accused of being a tech bro shill, I don't like generative AI or large-language models for reasons including creator rights, snake oil, jumped-up predictive text, the potential long-term effects on people who over-rely on AI, technical illiteracy preventing people in positions of power (small scale as well as national) from making informed decisions about its use, and the water-guzzling environmental impact of their data centres. However I also think that somebody who says in good faith "I made this in my hobby, using <AI tool> to help with X in the process" deserves politeness, not a fundamentalist anti-AI lobby.

 

My view is have a sense of proportion and allow some fuzzy grey areas around the edges. This thread should convince anyone that our community will definitely call out anybody passing off AI slop as their own work. I don't worry that we'll be overrun by it at all.

You plugging in the info and letting AI do the work is not creative output. If you need to figure out color pallets, you can ask people in this forum with a good eye for color or talk to one of your artist friends. Use that as inspiration. You did zero work with the AI and it's to not be respected. 

 

And yes, we should be actively chasing out anyone trying to AI "creatively", and we should always be active in doing so. If you're not actively fighting it, you'll become part of the problem. 

[Doghouse]

I'm more old school, I was getting images of my models stolen and reposted back when the only AI we had was Skynet.

[lhg033]

Personal opinions on AI aside (and I do have those and get why people feel strongly about this) - I think this guidance on AI is a good starting point and I trust the Mods that if they feel this needs further review, with or without community input, later they will do so.

 

All I will say is thank you mods for the work that you do and leave it there.

 

[phandaal]

24 minutes ago, Joe said:

That said, I am not surprised at some of the arguments being fielded by both sides in the thread, although it's a mite depressing that some people are as predictable as they are lol.

 

Not expecting a response on this, given that your only interaction with me is putting the occasional dislike on my posts, but I would suggest that this is not depressing at all. People being consistent is just people being consistent.

 

We all have folks that make us roll our eyes (I am 100% on that list for some people ), but surely we are not expecting that people develop all new personalities just because we dislike them?

 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand - I don't expect to see a lack of policing by users. Based on the reactions here, I expect a bonanza of reports to be fired off if a submission gives even a hint of having used AI.

[Joe]

51 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Not expecting a response on this, given that your only interaction with me is putting the occasional dislike on my posts, but I would suggest that this is not depressing at all. People being consistent is just people being consistent.

 

We all have folks that make us roll our eyes (I am 100% on that list for some people ), but surely we are not expecting that people develop all new personalities just because we dislike them?

 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand - I don't expect to see a lack of policing by users. Based on the reactions here, I expect a bonanza of reports to be fired off if a submission gives even a hint of having used AI.

 

To be fair, I think this is more down to us often being on the opposite side of various conversations - which is in of itself fine, that's the beauty of communication. I should stress that I don't have a personal grievance with you (and I apologise if it's ever come across that way), I just don't necessarily agree with you a great deal of the time. But aye, absolutely agree on the eye-rolling and personalities side. 

 

The policing side does concern me more than a bit, really. We've all seen some of the conversations that've taken placed in the news forum in the last few months or so where it's gone on for pages and pages of increasingly argumentative, hostile or sometimes downright petty behaviour before anyone has asked a moderator to step in; assuming they aren't part of the problem themselves. There's something to be said about needing to shape up ourselves, really - and ultimately, it's better to step away from a conversation that's aggrieving us rather than carry it on out of spite.

[Mazer Rackham]

3 hours ago, LittlePlasticHomies said:

That’s exactly how I described Commander Dante.

 

Aha! You're the one who bought that Dante body-pillow I sold on Ebay! 

 

 Goldn_nips_luvr_8008!

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Mazer Rackham

[phandaal]

3 minutes ago, Joe said:

To be fair, I think this is more down to us often being on the opposite side of various conversations - which is in of itself fine, that's the beauty of communication. I should stress that I don't have a personal grievance with you (and I apologise if it's ever come across that way), I just don't necessarily agree with you a great deal of the time. But aye, absolutely agree on the eye-rolling and personalities side. 

 

Fair to say. It is one reason why I never use the "disagree" reaction here (no kidding, the history is there on my profile). My stance is: if it is important enough to me to make my disagreement public, it is important enough to write it out. If it is not important enough to write something down, then I might as well move on.

 

It will be interesting to see where this goes though, for sure. Generally, the places where people post their work here are not the same places people go to argue. Will the inclusion of AI-generated content change that? Part of me thinks it might, but I do not think it is likely, because the atmosphere of other pages is so much different than the NRBA and General Discussion pages.

[Frogian]

6 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

, you can ask people in this forum with a good eye for color or talk to one of your artist friends. Use that as inspiration. You did zero work with the AI and it's to not be respected. 

 

 

what extra work are they done asking someone on a forum and taking their suggestions over asking an AI?

 

there is the value in art as a creative process and there value in art as a viewer of the end creation and i feel like there is quite a lot of confusing the two when this topic comes up

Edited 1 hour ago by Frogian

[kabaakaba]

Well trained model could easily "paint" miniature. Just try with you favorite llm. I think it could already do that. Do we really want THIS on b&c? We share and competing with each other. Trying out best. I don't want guy paid for AI post "his" miniatures here.

[Lay]

1 hour ago, Frogian said:

what extra work are they done asking someone on a forum and taking their suggestions over asking an AI?

 

Depending on one's personal stance on AI there might not be a difference. But I think your question raises an even better one: Why should the B&C, given its mission statement, tolerate a tool that offers an alternative to community engagement?