Filtering AI-Generated Mods

[DatDarnDoggo]

On 9/13/2026 at 1:10 AM, genderBiohazard said:

Nexus Mods lets users filter out certain tags, why not Vintage Story's mod DB?

because they "dont want to split the community", which is just a straight up bullshit excuse

[Diff]

Where'd they say that?

[Zaph42nd]

Some of the issue of AI mod filtering is that it either requires meticulous code review by site moderation or self-reporting, that I think is part of the difficulty and why it hadn't been implemented fully yet.... Plus there's also distinctions on how AI is/was used for development which means a more nuanced set of tags would probably be needed (AI-assisted, AI-generated, etc... are all unique in the sense of AI contributions, it requires asking: who generated the codebase, did the bug-fixing, asset-creation, etc... all things hard to pin on just one tag). I'm not against a tagging system for that purpose though, in fact self-reporting I think would be useful and so too would content blocklists based on tags, Nexus does this already to some success but it's not perfect either

[Seralth]

If someone could magic up a way to solve the core problem of how do you review the code objectively to decide who did or didn't use ai. How do you deal with closed sourced projects that refuse to provide their code to a random mod to review. How do you deal with the license issue that comes with both ai and non ai work. Fundamentally, trying to separate out projects based on ai usage is no more a pointless effort then trying to turn lead into gold.

 

Iv made mods with out and with AI. And i can safely say that iv made terrible code just as much as the ai did. Iv spent more time fixing ai screw ups learning to use it then if i just did it my self when i first tried it. But frankly, the quality of the code at the end of the day is about equal. Its a different work flow and requires different considerations. But at least on "slop vs non slop" trying to say ai produces only bad code, or humans only produce good code. Is objectively wrong and anyone trying to use that as a basis needs to leave the conversation. 

Ethically speaking, i have many qualms with LLMs because of how their training data was gathered, there are a large number of license concerns as well. But i am also of the opinion anyone putting their code behind any non-copyleft license or preferably something like CC0 1.0 or 0BSD for a mod is already questionable. So the inability to license anything from AI generated code as far as im concerned is only a net positive. The code that runs on your system should be visible, changeable, and shareable with no exceptions in my own perfect world. I am wholly aware that is stupid tho. lol

Frankly, the only real solution that is fair to everyone from my perspective is that source available should become a mandatory minimum requirement on the modDB. And basic checks put into place to make sure the source and the downloaded mod match. Beyond that, let good effort human or robot raise to the top and the lazy ai slop makers sink to the bottom. 

As for ai generated pictures or "art" that is outside my wheel house. I am not a artist, nor a 3d modeler of any reasoanble skill. I have no horse in that race. But even i find the generic ai pictures tire some. So ill let the artists argue that one.

Edited Thursday at 07:44 AM by Seralth

[LadyWYT]

On 10/23/2026 at 9:10 AM, Zaph42nd said:

Some of the issue of AI mod filtering is that it either requires meticulous code review by site moderation or self-reporting, that I think is part of the difficulty and why it hadn't been implemented fully yet.... Plus there's also distinctions on how AI is/was used for development which means a more nuanced set of tags would probably be needed (AI-assisted, AI-generated, etc... are all unique in the sense of AI contributions, it requires asking: who generated the codebase, did the bug-fixing, asset-creation, etc... all things hard to pin on just one tag). I'm not against a tagging system for that purpose though, in fact self-reporting I think would be useful and so too would content blocklists based on tags, Nexus does this already to some success but it's not perfect either

I think just giving the community an "AI Assisted/Generative AI" tag and a "No AI" tag for both mods and servers would be enough. That way mod authors and server owners can use such to inform players whether the mods used AI tools, didn't use AI tools, and whether the server uses/allows AI content or not. Players can filter mods and servers by those tags to find the content that suits them and filter out content that doesn't. Mods and servers that aren't labeled will fall under the same umbrella as AI content and be hidden from players who choose to filter out that tag or otherwise search specifically for "No AI", since I mean...it's not known what went into the making of those mods. Same goes for servers.

For stuff that's improperly marked or deceptively marked, the Report feature can be used to alert the moderators to the issue so that it can be fixed. Likewise, those who are found to be abusing the Report feature should still be punished appropriately, since abuse of such is a form of harassment.

On 11/5/2026 at 1:42 AM, Seralth said:

As for ai generated pictures or "art" that is outside my wheel house. I am not a artist, nor a 3d modeler of any reasoanble skill. I have no horse in that race. But even i find the generic ai pictures tire some. So ill let the artists argue that one.

Welcome to the forums! Personally I'm not too worried about AI images. I don't consider them art, but I think it's fine if people want to use it to generate some nice thumbnails or placeholder images for their mod. The key is to actually check said images for quality and not use something half-baked, as well as make sure that players are informed that AI tools were used and how so that said players can make a properly informed decision.

The main strike against AI images, when it comes to modding at least, is that since the AI tools are easy to use and convenient, that artstyle ends up everywhere, and a lot of mod authors don't really check the work for quality. It's similar to Cal-arts style or corporate artstyle, in that regard, or even Comic Sans. The thumbnail isn't the sole deciding factor on whether or not a player decides to use a mod, but it does play a major role in whether or not a player will bother looking at the mod page. An interesting picture does a great job of getting players to stop and look, and that holds true for both really good and really bad pictures. A mediocre picture, however, isn't going to stand out, and is much more likely to just get glossed over. 

It's also worth noting that while I say all of the above in the context of AI images specifically, the same rules still apply to the traditional art mediums as well. If the quality isn't there, and you're otherwise not doing anything to set yourself apart from the competition, then you're going to get overlooked in favor of higher quality, more original work. And time and effort alone don't necessarily produce quality work either.

[Seralth]

6 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

It's also worth noting that while I say all of the above in the context of AI images specifically, the same rules still apply to the traditional art mediums as well. If the quality isn't there, and you're otherwise not doing anything to set yourself apart from the competition, then you're going to get overlooked in favor of higher quality, more original work. And time and effort alone don't necessarily produce quality work either.

First thanks for the welcome iv technically been here a long time. But mostly keep over on the mod DB. 

But i wanted to just say, this right here. Ai or not, i find a lot of the problem really is just saturation issues. AI allows for an absolute land slide of low quality and low effort work hell even high effort work has had a uptick with ai. But stuff with real effort will still rise to the top and stand the test of time assuming its unique enough or can catch a audience. Ai "slop" or human "slop" both do exist and functionally are no different if you remove the politics from the equation which to be fair is hard to do. Which is part of the issue, the solution we need is an unopinionated one, but this topic is so hot and political that getting there is not easy.

Really iv found one of the best ways to deal with the problem is a filter to allow for a cut off on total downloads, update history, how old a package is, and other metrics. None of the best ways to filter them out actually target AI alone, and attempting to target AI alone basically only results in more harm then good. Your not solving the cause, your only solving the result targeting AI directly. You need to target things that have no intended long term support or generally are unable to gather a meaningful user base. Even just segmenting off the all mod feed into its own thing, then having the default be a search and filtered page would likely help a lot.

Be it ai pictures, code, or anything else. Better filters, tag systems, black listing, etc is something i always am in favor of. People should have tools to use. But those tools should never be preset to be opinionated else you just breed a bunch of assholes who use the defaults as justification to be assholes towards others. I may use ai but i will also gladly and proudly stand at the forefront of saying a proper way to deal with low effort slop should be implemented regardless of its source.

Edited yesterday at 11:10 AM by Seralth