- 17,927
- 15,506
I think so too, for the record. I would just rather have them not be on the actual wiki.To answer Armorchompy, I don't think that using A.I. images in an unofficial manner is any problem. I did so myself for my old story after all.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Banning the use of AI and ChatGPT
- Thread starter Wonder_of_Fantasy
- Start date
- 11,896
- 14,612
There's a different crowd that would criticize us for banning it.
Overall, I also don't see us in the position to overrule an authors choice on how they want to depict their character.
- 17,927
- 15,506
I don't mind this. What I would want to forbid is the use of fan-made AI images when it comes to characters that just don't have any good pictures.
- 11,896
- 14,612
Sure, I'm fine with that. I believe we always had quality standards when it comes to fanart used for book characters.
- 7,977
- 12,164
I would say the anti-AI sentiment is definitely stronger than the pro-AI sentiment.
But, yeah, if it's the author's fault I think that puts us in the clear.
We probably shouldn't use fan-generated AI images at all though.
- 8,829
- 9,419
Personally, I don't think AI should be used at all even if the character has no official artwork or render behind it
- 9,155
- 10,037
Regarding using AI Images on profiles, I lean against it.
It would be more appropriate to have a "No canonical image is available. Described as a [Insert text description here]" disclaimer. People can use AI-images for their own fanon interpretation on their own time.
It would be more appropriate to have a "No canonical image is available. Described as a [Insert text description here]" disclaimer. People can use AI-images for their own fanon interpretation on their own time.
- 11,896
- 14,612
And if the official art of the character is AI?
- 9,155
- 10,037
Addendum: Regarding using fan-made AI Images on profiles, I lean against it.
Official images are canonical images, even if AI-made.
- 178,314
- 91,570
That is roughly my view as well.
- 6,779
- 6,257
There are pages that use fanart for profile pictures already. Does AI really make that so different?
- 178,314
- 91,570
Well, I suppose that I don't particularly mind in unusual cases when there is no good official image to use but the A.I. fanart uses what is officially available as a strictly followed template, but it depends on what other staff members here think.
- 17,927
- 15,506
I think it's better to just use fanart or no picture at all. AI image generation is fairly controversial with good reasons, can get details wrong in a way that an artist won't and usually looks really ugly
- 178,314
- 91,570
Okay. I managed to get a few good A.I.-generated images for my fanfiction story characters, but obviously agree about that we shouldn't use unofficial images that speculate regarding what a character looks like.
Last edited:
- 17,927
- 15,506
The crossed out bit was facetious but some people do often find AI pictures a bit uncanny. Obviously that's not the biggest concern though
- 6,779
- 6,257
Honestly, if the concern is speculation on what the characters might look like, how does fanart differ from AI art? So far the only arguments I've seen put forth as to why fanart is acceptable but AI art isn't are that AI art is unpopular and that it's ugly.
If the issue is the images being ugly we'd have to scrub several profiles entirely for having grotesque characters. Let's face it, that's a non-issue. If the issue is unpopularity, some of our statistics and even verses are unpopular to some people. I've seen people arguing for the removal of verses due to those verses being hated, and this was rejected.
If the issue is the images being ugly we'd have to scrub several profiles entirely for having grotesque characters. Let's face it, that's a non-issue. If the issue is unpopularity, some of our statistics and even verses are unpopular to some people. I've seen people arguing for the removal of verses due to those verses being hated, and this was rejected.
- 6,779
- 6,257
What about if the character's appearance is described in detail? Many novel characters that lack images would be affected by this rule.Well, I do not think that we should use unofficial fanart that speculates about what a character looks like either.
- 178,314
- 91,570
We should preferably finish this thread, especially regarding that members should not be allowed to use A.I. to argue for them during discussions, as it turns unmanageable for staff and other members to deal with.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,140
- 30,223
I don't really feel strongly regarding AI art and am fine with banning it entirely on profiles, barring situations where that is the official artwork woe befall the user creating profiles for AI slop.... As for AI content on the forum, I find myself less willing to bend the knee. I think AI generated content needs to be declared as AI. I think this is the most important bit of this.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,140
- 30,223
I said as much before. I worry about people using AI to output large volumes of generated content in order to stonewall, this is why I suggested it be regarded as a much more serious offense if we did find people doing that.Okay. I just think that it can potentially turn discussions extremely exhausting and neverending for our staff members to deal with.
- 9,155
- 10,037
How would such a rule be enforced in practice?
"This sounds like ai." "This detector says it's likely."
It would lead to accusations of AI without any actual evidence unless someone leaves a prompt in the post or is transparent that they use it.
It doesn't help that AI is still being trained daily to sound more and more like us.
At the end of the day, if someone is spamming bad or illogical arguments and going in circles for a while and being stubborn about it, that's a separate rule violation of itself.
"This sounds like ai." "This detector says it's likely."
It would lead to accusations of AI without any actual evidence unless someone leaves a prompt in the post or is transparent that they use it.
It doesn't help that AI is still being trained daily to sound more and more like us.
At the end of the day, if someone is spamming bad or illogical arguments and going in circles for a while and being stubborn about it, that's a separate rule violation of itself.
- 178,314
- 91,570
Yes. That is my concern as well.
- 178,314
- 91,570
Good points.
- 11,896
- 14,612
If the concern is someone using AI for stonewalling, then the rule should just say "AI should not be used for the purpose of stonewalling", instead of a rule against AI in general.
That at least would keep the witch-hunt and usage restrictions to cases that are stonewalling in the first place (at which point it's questionable whether it even matters if we forbid it for stonewalling or AI stonewalling)
Overall, I mostly stand by my earlier proposal (with some slight alterations):
Alternatively, I'm also ok with just having no special AI regulation, and just handling it by applying our regular quality, stonewalling and fanart rules to it equally.
That at least would keep the witch-hunt and usage restrictions to cases that are stonewalling in the first place (at which point it's questionable whether it even matters if we forbid it for stonewalling or AI stonewalling)
Overall, I mostly stand by my earlier proposal (with some slight alterations):
I think that's an ok compromise between regulation, feasibility, and not committing genetic fallacy.
Alternatively, I'm also ok with just having no special AI regulation, and just handling it by applying our regular quality, stonewalling and fanart rules to it equally.
- 34,798
- 42,287
There are community members who do not speak English as native language and are more or less dependent on Google Translate and other similar tools in order to have simple conversations with other community members. And I would not to have them feel alienated just for those dependances. Of course, I may question the validity of arguments in debates when they do so. And better yet, doubt they would be getting staff promotions any time soon. But I wouldn't ban them outright just for having the unfortunate limitations. There is a big difference between those who studied English as a secondary language and those who basically know little to no English and basically dependent on MTLs.
I would definitely avoid using AI to create long walls of text in a short amount of time and just copy/pasting everything AI said to do the debating for them. I rarely use AI for anything other than pure fun and games. And even when I am just using it for quick/easy answers to questions I have, I do not trust everything they say unless they have proper/credible sources. At best, I only paraphrase what they say rather than copy/paste anything they say. And most importantly, users must be honest if there is AI being used for any sort of posts.
I would definitely avoid using AI to create long walls of text in a short amount of time and just copy/pasting everything AI said to do the debating for them. I rarely use AI for anything other than pure fun and games. And even when I am just using it for quick/easy answers to questions I have, I do not trust everything they say unless they have proper/credible sources. At best, I only paraphrase what they say rather than copy/paste anything they say. And most importantly, users must be honest if there is AI being used for any sort of posts.
- 178,314
- 91,570
That makes sense to me.
That also makes sense to me.
And this as well.
- 7,977
- 12,164
I don't think we should make any of our members argue their position with a robot, but I also don't want this to become a witch-hunt where we ritually have to deal with AI accusations over people who simply type a certain way.
I agree with Bambu that requiring it be disclosed would solve a lot of issues without being too heavy-handed.
I think we should then be understanding if someone refuses to read an AI-generated argument as well.
This would put the decision on the users if they wish to engage with AI content or not.
If they use AI to regularly stonewall or spam, this can be akin to them using any other automated tools to disrupt our functions, and would be punished severely.
Oh, also, I think that regardless of our general rules, we should definitely ban staff specifically from using AI for evaluations (except for translation).
If we let an AI approve or deny revisions then we may as well not have staff at all.
I agree with Bambu that requiring it be disclosed would solve a lot of issues without being too heavy-handed.
I think we should then be understanding if someone refuses to read an AI-generated argument as well.
This would put the decision on the users if they wish to engage with AI content or not.
If they use AI to regularly stonewall or spam, this can be akin to them using any other automated tools to disrupt our functions, and would be punished severely.
Oh, also, I think that regardless of our general rules, we should definitely ban staff specifically from using AI for evaluations (except for translation).
If we let an AI approve or deny revisions then we may as well not have staff at all.
Last edited:
- 7,977
- 12,164
Any rule regarding AI would just have to be enforced by consensus.
There is no automated tool we can trust.
This is already sort of how we determine a lot of violations. There is a lot of offenses which can't technically be proven but can be voted on by a jury (or our staff).
- 3,011
- 2,000
Should I make some changes to the previous proposal I made for this? What needs to be updated?
vsbattles.fandom.com
Regarding ChatGPT and other uses of AI
vsbattles.fandom.com
