AI and what to do with em

[Xenope]

While there have been some talk about dealing with it
I think we need some tags and forced marks on all the AI stuff people are uploading to the mod DB
be it code or just the "art"
people need a chance to simply black list.

I also think there should be ways to report anyone not listing or trying to hide it.
for now it is rather rampant and dumb.

- ways to label and filter out AI
- ways to report or flag if AI code is found but not listed.
- a clear warning before uploading that AI SHOULD be listed if the mod contains it.
or
- simply outright banning it from the mod DB 

[LadyWYT]

56 minutes ago, Xenope said:

- ways to label and filter out AI

This already exists. Mod authors can tag their content with the AI tag, and users can choose to filter out AI content in their profile settings.

 

57 minutes ago, Xenope said:

- ways to report or flag if AI code is found but not listed.

A report feature was recently added to the mod database, along with the filter feature. Users can choose the report threshold for how many reports a mod receives before it's filtered out from their search. 

 

59 minutes ago, Xenope said:

- a clear warning before uploading that AI SHOULD be listed if the mod contains it.
or
- simply outright banning it from the mod DB 

The problem with both of these is that there's no way to really enforce such a rule, without setting extremely strict guidelines on what constitutes "proper AI use" and getting very aggressive about checking everything. Getting that aggressive about the rules often drives users to third-party sites and can discourage others from learning to mod, as well as lead to unintended consequences(like banning mods that are clearly meant for a personal server and not public use).

[Kulze]

I don't see an issue as long as a mod works as it's supposed to work. Plainly spoken I could care less if a human wrote it or AI did.
For art I understand it at least since it has copyright issues.
And quality is generally a problem, always.

But besides that as @LadyWYTmentioned it's not even feasable to do as what substitutes 'proper' usage isn't even remotely handled. AI is first and foremost a tool, I don't expect every carpenter to provide a warning label of 'this was made partially with a CNC machine' either.

And I repeat, in relation to art since it's a copyright issue there overall still (and even that can be argued about to a surprisingly large degree as the whole topic is a huge rabbit hole of slippery slopes and risky argumentation opening the pathway for absolutely destroying human-based iteration as well) it's at least acceptable to have a disclaimer.
Anything beyond a disclaimer is just beyond reason for the moment until lawmaking overhauls the decades-long ignored issues everyone in the field knew were coming but never bothered with it before it was far too late.

[sleeves]

I still wish we could just manually hide mods. I don't want to see closed source mods either, so I'm planning a tool to browse the database with a custom blacklist.

[Dilan Rona]

I also dont see an issue using AI to develop mods. I've had to use it myself for a project for love2d thats been giving me problems in figuring out how to code it for over a year. I kept at it till the code was at a high enough quality so it not only did what I needed, but exceeded what was originally needed.

Yes, players should know that the mod was made with AI, but I dont think an outright ban is needed unless the mod is seriously questionable (which is possible, even without AI).

[Diff]

20 hours ago, Kulze said:

I don't see an issue as long as a mod works as it's supposed to work. Plainly spoken I could care less if a human wrote it or AI did.

"As long as it works," sure, but they often don't. Too often. And even when they do work now, vibecoded projects are completely abandoned at a far higher rate.

Ongoing support is never a given, but tbh you'd think that AI reducing the barrier to entry would also decrease maintenance burden and make updates and upkeep easier and more frequent. And I know there are a few individuals where that's the case, at least by their own metrics. But it seems that (at least in the case I linked) the AI-enhanced numbers are overwhelmed by the people who have just enough motivation to feed the idea into the generator before walking away from it.

There's good reasons why some people might care, not even getting into the copyright question. We should have accurate tagging/proper disclaimers. "Enforcement" is just the new reporting system we already have. Some people will lie or omit, but that's no reason not to have it.

21 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Mod authors can tag their content with the AI tag, and users can choose to filter out AI content in their profile settings.

Where is this? I can only find the low-effort/AI report threshold slider, I can't find tag filters in either profile settings or as one of the available filters during searches.

Edited July 8 by Diff

[LadyWYT]

16 minutes ago, Diff said:

Where is this? I can only find the low-effort/AI report threshold slider, I can't find tag filters in either profile settings or as one of the available filters during searches.

I assume that when the AI tag is applied to a mod, it would be included in the threshold slider as a "report". I could be wrong though, especially since an "AI" tag could refer to creature AI and not AI the tool. 

In any case, I would also assume that mods using AI assets would get a report or two, even if the mod is good and plainly discloses the use of such. That being said, that also relies on users reporting such mods. And I'm not sure that many do. The more likely scenario, I think, is that the mods that are absolute minimum effort(AI description, exclusively AI assets, AI code that clearly hasn't been checked before release) get reported while the average mod probably gets an eyeroll. At least, I've not really noticed much of a difference when playing around with the slider.

24 minutes ago, Diff said:

but tbh you'd think that AI reducing the barrier to entry would also decrease maintenance burden and make updates and upkeep easier and more frequent.

Eh...you might think, but I can see why it wouldn't. Lowering the entry barrier can mean more competition in that field, since it's easier to get involved in said field, however, a lower entry barrier also means it's going to be a lot easier for people to just exit said field when the going gets tough or they otherwise lose interest, since they didn't have much invested up front.

That's not to say that there needs to be high entry barriers by any means. I think what happened in the case of modding is that AI tools made it very easy for people to get into modding, and a lot of those people probably didn't do much research on what modding actually requires or how to use the tools properly. 

[FairyKairi]

All I want is a filter that will tell me if a mod is AI-coded or just an AI thumbnail.  Generative AI "art" is advancing past what I can tell what is real or not.  A thumbnail is something I have to look at once and then ignore.  AI code is permanent and something I WILL NOT support.   I was looking for a mod the other day that would make certain things glow after I could not get the Buzzwords mod to work.  The only one I found was the Finder mod which I had to go to the creator's website to find out was completely AI-coded.

Edited July 8 by FairyKairi

[Diff]

47 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

I assume that when the AI tag is applied to a mod, it would be included in the threshold slider as a "report". I could be wrong though, especially since an "AI" tag could refer to creature AI and not AI the tool. 

Doesn't appear to be the case. Looking at the Recently Updated mods, even with it toggled on and to the lowest setting, I can see the Quartermaster mod which has the AI tag. I went ahead and just reported it now, and now it has vanished. To confirm the system isn't just hiding something that I reported, I also toggled the setting back off and it reappeared. Feature seems to do only what is precisely on the tin. Which I'm kind of glad to see. If there was code added for targeting tags, I'd really hope it'd be generic for all tags.

50 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Eh...you might think, but I can see why it wouldn't. Lowering the entry barrier can mean more competition in that field, since it's easier to get involved in said field, however, a lower entry barrier also means it's going to be a lot easier for people to just exit said field when the going gets tough or they otherwise lose interest, since they didn't have much invested up front.

That's not to say that there needs to be high entry barriers by any means. I think what happened in the case of modding is that AI tools made it very easy for people to get into modding, and a lot of those people probably didn't do much research on what modding actually requires or how to use the tools properly. 

Yeah, the higher barrier to entry was ""useful"" as far as seeking out those that have some minimum level of motivation, but that's not to say that a high barrier to entry is at all desirable.

In my experience, ongoing maintenance is also actually complicated quite a bit by the careless use of these tools. Heck, even careful use of the tools can be susceptible to AI footguns, but there's a point relatively early on where pure vibecoding hits its limits and prompting an LLM "fix it" just stops working. Modern models are getting somewhat better about getting themselves caught in reasoning death spirals, but they're still not perfect and they're also getting more and more expensive and spitting out longer and longer reasoning chains.

[VaelophisNyx]

unfortunately the official stance on this seems to be "have one bone so you shut up so we don't have to figure out a good solution"

[Kulze]

2 hours ago, Diff said:

"As long as it works," sure, but they often don't. Too often.

No difference from manual modding. It's just the inhibition limit being reduced, otherwise the same.
 

2 hours ago, Diff said:

We should have accurate tagging/proper disclaimers.

Ah yes 'proper disclaimers' like 'cigarettes are unhealthy, don't use them!' duh! Or 'this chapter of this web-novel mentions a single curse-word, beware!'.
There's a limit to protecting people without making it just a worse environment overall. And as stated, with AI we don't even know where exactly the line lies yet, so the logical approach is to wait rather then to cause extra effort, illogical decision-making and potentially a detrimental outcome by being quite a lot to proactive.
 

1 hour ago, FairyKairi said:

All I want is a filter that will tell me if a mod is AI-coded or just an AI thumbnail.  Generative AI "art" is advancing past what I can tell what is real or not.

Great! That means it does what it is supposed to do. When the difference between human and machine is for all measures and purposes non-existent then it is neither logical to use a disclaimer not is it possible.
If someone gets a code presented, which works, and then they go and change the naming for the values and functions... how can you call the difference? Ever?
It's not possible and hence leads to false positives, punishing people for things they haven't even done, while others which use it can get away since there is not a single option in the world existing to make it known in the first place.
 

1 hour ago, FairyKairi said:

AI code is permanent and something I WILL NOT support

Yeah, tough shit for you plainly spoken.
I detest for example companies which are listed on the stock market because they inherently need to primarily work around shareholder sentiment and not customers.
Do I now go out and enforce every company to write a disclaimer of 'we are listed on the stock market'? No, I don't.
Don't go around forcing people to do extra work because it goes against your personal believes unless it's been proven to be detrimental, which in term of AI usage it is not yet as there are no long-term situations around it even existing. Obviously every second joe goes 'oh cool, so even without knowing much I can no do things!' and doesn't uphold the basic necessities needed to ensure the tool is properly used.
The same as early power drills, early power planers, early power saws, early CNC, every 3D printer and so on shared all universally. They were garbage, extremely dangerous and allowed every random joe to produce things either at their own or the danger of multiple people besides themselves. Are you for forbidding 3D printers because morons use them to make pipe fittings for farm-sized hydroculture systems despite them leeching cancer causing chemicals into the water which is taken up by plant roots? No, you forbid the usage in that specific case. And it was only done after finding out that 'this specific case' is a problem.
Same for AI, just because some uninformed people make low quality things for it doesn't mean it's universally to be shamed, you reduce the use-case to the places where it makes sense instead after finding out 'this won't work in the current way'. Not outright kill it off.



So now let's go to actual solutions, which has 'zero' to do with AI:

- The ability to mark mods as broken for a specific version and a proper reporting function for it. That is then checked by volunteers which are willing to put in the time, and only then is marked visibly according the the outcome.

This removes low quality mods which cause issues (memory leaks for example).
This allows broken mods to not be displayed to people when searching for specific versions.
This ensures a baseline quality standard to be upheld.

And when someone provides repeated broken mods on a regular basis then can still actual action happen in terms of barring that person from uploading in the first place to remove influx of more broken mods.

[VaelophisNyx]

Except there is a huge difference in being able to understand your code, maintain it, improve it, and letting the slop machine pour it out full of bugs and nonsense

 

yes proper disclaimers of "this was made by someone who does not understand how to make mods", and thus could damage your PC if you're unlucky.

0% AI slop is the proper quantity of it in any project

 

Quote

Great! That means it does what it is supposed to do.

No it's not even remotely what "AI" was supposed to do.

 

LLMs and generative models are pure garbage, output noting but slop, and are monstrously destructive to humanity, and the planet's biosphere itself. ANY support of them is a self-admission of refusal to care about your fellow human or the habitability of the only known habitable planet.

[sleeves]

How heated this discussion has already gotten shows why we require manual control of what we see, not that based on quality estimates from community reports. The reality is that everyone has differing wants and needs for a filter, so any single-purpose solution will leave many unhappy.

Edited July 9 by sleeves

[Diff]

1 hour ago, Kulze said:

No difference from manual modding. It's just the inhibition limit being reduced, otherwise the same.

Sure, it occurs in both groups. There's nothing stopping a human from releasing a poor quality mod. But in practice, there's a stark difference in quantity/ratio of occurrences within each group. This is kind of a necessary side effect of a statement I hope is uncontroversial:

1 hour ago, Diff said:

ongoing maintenance is also actually complicated quite a bit by the careless use of these tools. Heck, even careful use of the tools can be susceptible to AI footguns

AI mods being able to be created by people who have no idea what they're doing increases the odds of there being a critical error that is isn't caught. Humans are likely to use more care when dealing with topics they can anticipate being sensitive. That difference could tip someone into choosing not to engage. AI mods having increased odds of not being maintained for very long. That could tip someone into choosing not to engage. These are all differences. Aforementioned copyright hell is another difference. Unmentioned ethical issues are another difference. Some of these issues are not exclusive to AI mods, but that doesn't mean we can make the large logical leap of declaring that the differences don't even exist at all. It's reasonable for a reasonable person to want to target and exclude AI mods for those differences. Same way people might choose chocolate made with certified non-child labor or non-blood diamonds.

Edited July 9 by Diff

[Teh Pizza Lady]

2 hours ago, sleeves said:

How heated this discussion has already gotten shows why we require manual control of what we see, not that based on quality estimates from community reports. The reality is that everyone has differing wants and needs for a filter, so any single-purpose solution will leave many unhappy.

How this topic is allowed to remain, I do not understand....

[FairyKairi]

Before this topic gets locked (which is why I have not commented on all the others, fyi), I will just clarify that I was suggesting separating the "AI" tag into three:  "AI graphics/thumbnail", "AI-coded", and "Full AI".  Even something as simple as a REQUIREMENT for modders who use AI programs to mention it in their mods' descriptions would suffice for me.  I understand that individuals are not corporations, but the U.S. laws requiring them to clearly label AI would work wonders here.  Now I am going back into obscurity, thank you.

EDIT:  By "AI program", I mean such programs like Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, and the like.  Essentially, the programs that require data centers to work.

Edited July 9 by FairyKairi
Further clarification needed, apparently.

[Rainbow Fresh]

2 hours ago, FairyKairi said:

Even something as simple as a REQUIREMENT for modders who use AI programs to mention it in their mods' descriptions would suffice for me.

Define "AI programs". Because every major IDE out there has AI built-in for atleast auto-complete suggestions at this point. Meaning every mod not written in bare-bones Windows notepad and manually compiled running complex build scripts by hand in the CMD was created with an AI program. And doing the former is the equivalent of using MS Paint instead of any proper drawing program in terms of quality assurance. It also doesn't say anything about if the person actively interacted with AI in the creation process and if they passively did (e.g. by not knowing everything is AI powered these days and if their program kindly suggest a Tab auto-complete option they use it was AI suggested) they won't even think they did, let alone see the need to disclaim anything.

[FairyKairi]

1 hour ago, Rainbow Fresh said:

Define "AI programs". Because every major IDE out there has AI built-in for at least auto-complete suggestions at this point. Meaning every mod not written in bare-bones Windows notepad and manually compiled running complex build scripts by hand in the CMD was created with an AI program. And doing the former is the equivalent of using MS Paint instead of any proper drawing program in terms of quality assurance. It also doesn't say anything about if the person actively interacted with AI in the creation process and if they passively did (e.g. by not knowing everything is AI powered these days and if their program kindly suggest a Tab auto-complete option they use it was AI suggested) they won't even think they did, let alone see the need to disclaim anything.

First off, I had to Google what an "IDE" even was, lol.  My experience with mods mainly consists of TOBG and Stardew Valley mods.  Both of which can and, in the case of SDV, SHOULD be compiled in Notepad first.  Secondly, I have edited the above post to further define what I meant.  Essentially, if the only input by the human creator was a text prompt into a program of their choosing, then that is an AI mod that I want to be informed of.  I consider myself "Pro-choice" in terms of AI, but I cannot accurately make said choice if I am not aware of it.

[Kulze]

So, the whole topic is still about why it would necessitate a individual (not a company) to make a disclaimer and have a reasonable way to ensure it upholds.
The why is for now because people say it's either leading to more low quality results (reasonably, but otherwise sortable) or because it's personal fears.

Specifically @VaelophisNyx you should take a step back from the tries of guilt-tripping (that tends to backfire heavily) and use actual relevant reasons for the topic at hand. Because first off: No individual cares if those centers spike electricity costs for locals (that's a failure of governmental management), nobody either does if they use tons of water (once again failure of governmental management) and also nobody does about their CO2 emissions... which are laughable in the large scale of the planet.
Even major projects like the 1,7GW 'Stargate' AI cluster in Texas makes up for a total of... a whopping 0,0000146% of the global human created greenhouse gas emissions. It's can be utterly ignored. Nobody gives comparably China as a whole crap for producing ~30% of humans totality of greenhouse gases, but you're happily using your PC which is created with those - vastly - more environmentally damaging parts majorly. Same going with kitchen appliances, clothing, toys, pots & pans, consoles and loads more.
So don't be a hypocrite, if you actually care about environmental health then start by focusing on those with the actual most impact rather then peanuts while trying to guilt-trip people about it.
Otherwise it's not helping your case.
And the 'it'll damage the hardware' is the responsibility of the developer itself to remove the option at the basis already, like limiting FPS accordingly, not allowing the program to hog 100% resources at any time and so on. Basic safety measures which VS upholds quite well.

And that brings us to the next point. How would one even go ahead to check if something is AI created in the first place? What metric do we have to decide 'ah yes, this is made by AI, not by a human'.
Because @FairyKairi fair point with the usage of the cloud-based system specifically. But then what about models used locally? For coding as example the going ones are 'Qwen3.6', 'DeepSeeker-Coder-V2' and 'Gemma4'. There is no usage of the internet besides downloading the models and then telling them what you need. How would you be able to differentiate from someone copying over large portions of code and adapting it only in miniscule amounts as needed compared to someone writing a relatively simple mod 100% manually?
It's not companies providing the mods, it's individuals. A company being forced to be transparent to the eye of the public and hence making known the technology and methodology they use is great to properly decide if you'll get into a contract with them... but that's not the case here, and it's also not enforcible.
Will hence be a AI-checker be used? If someone uses a similar layout of coding as the AI is prone to produce... will they then be auto-flagged for it despite never having touched it?
That all seems just very very problematic for me and at best-case unenforcable and hence useless.

So while I get the sentiment of 'I don't want to see AI even being looked at from apart the room for anything I personally use' it's just not a choice to have or possible to even enforce.
If someone finds a reasonable solution? Sure! But by now there was none as the tagging itself is sadly not feasable and only causes more effort by now.

[LadyWYT]

9 hours ago, FairyKairi said:

I will just clarify that I was suggesting separating the "AI" tag into three:  "AI graphics/thumbnail", "AI-coded", and "Full AI". 

I don't think you need three. Just two. "AI" can refer to creature AI, as it has traditionally. A "Gen-AI" tag can refer to generative AI, which is the kind of AI that most people tend to complain about. Generative AI is the "new kid on the block", so to speak, and responsible for generated images, sounds, and code.

 

9 hours ago, FairyKairi said:

U.S. laws requiring them to clearly label AI would work wonders here.

Do we actually have laws like that?  I'm not sure that we do, so I'll have to go look that up sometime later. I know some companies require gen-AI assets to be labeled, and some states might have laws like that. But I don't think there's been any federal rulings...at least not yet. 

[Tj Pepler - Critcher]

This topic has no reason to exist.  The developers have done everything correctly, there is an AI tag for mods, if you see the tag, don't download.  If it's not tagged and is crap / slop, report and move on. There is no issue here.

[Zaldaryon]

Again, another AI topic that leads nowhere rather than personal attacks.