Uzer Tekton have you lost your ability to write? Everyone knows generative AI is bad but using AI to write your reply just makes it worse lmao

This may be the key

Sadly probably not legally applicable

> Minimal or no risk

> The AI Act does not introduce rules for AI that is deemed minimal or no risk. The vast majority of AI systems currently used in the EU fall into this category. This includes applications such as AI-enabled video games or spam filters.

However, there is clear demand for transparency, regardless of the law. It is a matter of retaining community trust and UGC health. We need AI content labelled and option to opt-out.

Heather May

"I used ai to write this"

Opinion discarded. Write your own thoughts.

"I am known to ramble"

And so you made ai ramble instead. Congrats.

SekoPuppy You understood what I said, so I was successful by using AI. By rambling, I fail to get my thoughts across. The comment was there mostly to point out that AI takes many forms, from fairly minor to pure slop. What I wrote is what I wanted to say. It wasn't "written by AI". it was written by me, but the AI helped with cleaning it up to better get the message across. The actual message is still mine and says nothing I didn't write by hand.

You still fail to address what counts as "generative AI content" though. You use the term, but don't define it. In most uses, it means "If I can see anything AI" - writing, computer-generated voice (likely not AI), images, models - and you're right. These are, save for voice, pretty much universally slop. They represent low-effort work.

But I download third party udon. I suspect it may be AI. Do I need to label that? Even if it's just code? Code Assistants are basically industry standard now - and they can take the form of anything from "smart completion" to "write a programspecs". Does that need to be labelled? Does smart autocomplete need to be labelled - something IDEs have given us since long before LLMs. Of course, I only suspect it's AI; I do have an asset I suspect may be AI but I do not use it. Do I need to label that? What about if I find out it does use AI? What about if it's only an editor-side tool? I did use an AI tool to setup texture overrides for iOS - I went to google to see if someone had written it to save myself the time (I don't work with C# normally), and it just gave me the code when I searched. Should I have turned it down and spent the 1-2 hours figuring out the API and writing it from scratch? It wasn't complicated, but still takes time to write. Should I have kept searching for a human written version instead? Took me like 10 minutes to fix a minor error, but otherwise it did what I needed - including managing edge cases)

Anyways, this is NOT written by AI. I did that to demonstrate a point. It's also focused on one very specific question: What is "generative AI" actually mean and where do you draw the line? We're very close to the point already where if you don't ignore some of it, you'll need to label everything. Even if someone writes code which isn't generative, it may well be using a library which is nowadays. What if Unity starts using AI? Well, then, indirectly AI would be used in the making of a world or avatar.

You need to draw the line somewhere.

Where do draw it?

Ironically, not quite as rambly as the 2500 character limit forced me to clean it up a bunch - I was 1000 characters over to say the exact same thing. x.x

ElfMom So you didn't read it and definitely didn't understand the point of the message. That was used to raise a point. I don't normally; I let myself ramble (though, apparently, the length limit here is pretty small so I'd have had to clean it up anyways even if it was by hand)

What do you define as "Generative AI Content", and where do you draw the line? Because it takes many forms. In most uses, it means "I do not want to encounter any AI generated content" - images, audio, voice, story, models, etc - though voice is most likely NOT actually AI. It can be done much cheaper with voice banks, but does sound less natural depending on quality of the voice bank.

There is a LOT of more subtle AI use happening behind the scenes nowadays. Stuff that doesn't replace jobs, but is still technically generative AI.

Anyways, this comment was written entirely by me, no AI used at all. I normally let myself ramble. I did that to demonstrate a point. Everything there was what I wrote, just edited by AI. The message was fully mine, nothing was added though a little was removed and the structure was reformatted to make it more coherent. But it was still all written by me and I stand by what it said, and even edited it further after the AI cleaned it up, because I didn't entirely agree with its output.

But, technically, it still used AI. Outright rejecting it says more about you than it does about me. You're willing to throw an argument out instead of considering its merits because AI was involved at all. That is, to be honest, a bit shortsighted, but it does let you keep your world untainted as much as you're in control of - there is a ton of unlabelled AI use you encounter without knowing it.

Instead of merely rejecting it, come up with a counter argument. Approach it in good faith. I will. There are many points of view on this, and plenty to be said on both sides - I have an opinion and a position, and so do you. So let's hear it.

Personally, I draw the line where it's used to put people out of work, and where it's used to replace thought with slop. But even then, we have to be careful to avoid falling into the trap of outsourcing our thinking to AI.

I find it so... interesting that you come out of the gates swinging.

I agree there are issues not addressed, but to come out and say it's "lazy and incendiary" is disingenuous and hurtful, for the sole purpose of putting yourself on a moral pedestal above nanochip in an attempt to claim your opinions carry more weight than theirs.

Ideas are just that. Ideas. Simply because something is incomplete does not mean it is evil or objectively bad; it simply means it is incomplete. With the rise of AI, it was inevitable that such a discussion would eventually be had, and I see this as the start of that discussion. For reasons unbeknownst to me, you've chosen to squash it.

Lastly, you're operating under the assumption that such a system would be policed and that consequences would be delivered. This can be inferred from the original language, "it should be required that creators tag," in the original post. But, given the overall accusatory tone of your comment, I'm unable to extend any benefit of the doubt.

Even if this post dies, the topic will come up again. I hope next time you'll be more open, considerate, and helpful.

Yewnyx Look at how Steam did tags AI generated content and allows people to know what uses AI and filter it. There's the solution. It's up to the game developer to justify its use from there. There's tagging and filtering on sexual content there and the world didn't end, same with crypto. If someone is using AI in their work, whether for coding or content generation, they should be able to justify its use with dignity if they stand by it. There should be different granularity levels, such as AI code, AI code and Gen content, AI Gen content only, etc. And the community should be able to decided whether they want to view or partake in that content. They could be fine with AI code, but they don't want anything to do with AI art, and that's totally fair. If someone is worried about the implications of people not liking the use of AI, perhaps don't use it, if the consequence of people finding out are something that can't be handled. One could also keep their head down and turn off social media if they can't handle the scrutiny. They already chose to use AI and may not need to justify anything, just tag their work. Fielding the social implications is semi-optional, ignore or block people criticizing and keep on going, might as well.

-CMC- The analogy doesn't really hold, because Steam games are something you enjoy personally, rather than something you necessarily display. If a part of your "Blah is playing Foo" status update was "* and this game has AI content", and if you game status was completely public to anyone on the internet, someone might be able to say "get a load of this guy, playing a game that used genAI", even if you weren't particularly aware of it.

In social situations, one doesn't to actually use or want to see anything generated for someone with enough social clout, or at least loudness with persistence, to hurl accusations and abuse towards someone on account of it, just like someone who isn't a minor with a high pitched voice might get yelled at for being a minor, whether or not they've age verified, whether or not they approve of age verification or the provider for it.

Given the potential for abuse the question has to be asked whether the juice is worth the squeeze. For age verification, the answer is clearly yes, because there is a bright-line test that is objectively truthful and gets surfaced in a way that is extremely useful in adversarial situations: "is this person an adult?". Having a definitive affirmative answer is useful.

For genAI, as much as we might benefit from such a clear test, none exists, and the false negative rate is likely to be sky-high, elevating the bullying risk in a very obvious way. The problem cannot be solved in isolation from the social impact, and all solutions to moderating genAI cannot avoid the social, cultural, and policy implications that follow.

Agdistis Nice bait. No, a feature request that asks for a signal that something is immoral that does not bother to propose how to mitigate people being immoral as a direct consequence of that signal is not just incomplete, it is a witchhunt hazard. I think that being able to minimize one's exposure to pixels generated by AI is actually worthwhile, but doing so carelessly in an environment in which people easily bully each other is an act of harm and I am offended when people do rude things and avoid taking responsibility be cause the form was apparently polite. This proposal is obviously compelling enough to snowball yet too ill-considered to have any satisfying response from anyone.

YewnyxThis is important, like 18+. VRChat is given life by creators who have strong feelings about this subject, they should be empowered rather than disenfranchised. You talk as if dealing with negative social implications of AI are ‘inevitable’ in the same way that using AI is inevitable. People in this community who've come together to create solutions and come to a consensus on various matters regarding the last 10+ years of this game are going to suddenly loose their senses and turn into an overwhelming mob? VRChat has fielded community adversity before, and its our job as the reason this game continues to exist at all to scrutinize instead of accepting everything we're handed if we want to stay here happily. Most people are Grey, not B & W caricatures. There are certain things I'm totally fine with using AI code, but I'd rather filter AI art. I want the choice and agency to make that decision within this platform as I see fit.

People like Epic's Time Sweeny are upset both that users are vocally against him on social media regarding AI AND that Steam has AI tags. With UE6, he's tripling down on selling a fiefdom at the engine level to make his will of AI 'inevitable'. On the store front, Valve thankfully ignores his pathetic mewling. Consumers are happy with the labels, the world keeps turning. Speaking of abuse, people rail on Steam's review system because people use it for memes, comedy, and to spew toxic right wing nazi garbage and brigade every time a Kirkening-esque curator turns up due to GamerGate wastes of skin like Grummz saying things about women and minorities on X. The VAST majority of reviews are extremely helpful! Brigaded reviews reported by the community have been eliminated by Valve.

AI proponents who don't have the ability to buy out a captured audience should fight for what they believe in with their comrades if they think AI is worth it, and keep their heads down in the ways that I listed if fielding the social consequences is too much for them. If they want to target a skeptical audience, and it turns out they don't like the ethics involved, maybe that should've been considered. Obfuscation and normalization of a certain technology that is known to be HIGHLY unethical for ripping artists, ripping code, and ripping copyrighted material for over the last decade to the tune of Quadrillions of bytes? Give us tools to choose.

Yewnyx You fail to realize like any other content tag, this obviously isn't a black & white tag, it's entirely a gray area and should be treated as such on a case by case basis.

The content gating system exists and would be a decent starting point/foundation for self-reported AI generated content that a creator publishes onto the platform. This way, users can filter it out if they decide to.

That said, a lot of your questions assume that this is the end-all-be-all solution in an ever-changing creative debate, which I absolutely don't have the energy to get involved in.

Regardless of your view, there's no doubt it should be up to the user where they define the line on gen AI content, but at the bare minimum, this proposal is a starting-point/foundation for the self-reported gen ai content.

What happens after this? I don't know, but I'd definitely consider ideas/canny posts later down the line!

As for your jab on feeling this proposal is lazy and incendiary, I hope you have a great day and don't dwell on this too much. 😊

"I am offended when people do rude things and avoid taking responsibility"

Not sure why you think I'm trying to bait you, or with what.

I'm really not sure how you've managed to, in the same breath, acknowledge its incompleteness and still insist that VRC would push an incomplete feature.

"Doing so carelessly" - then offer some ideas or solutions. You've done nothing but kick and point fingers and exhibit the same behaviors you yet complain of.

Not sure why you're so angry, or why you think your anger will produce anything of value, but I promise you there are better ways to spend your energy.