Require Mandatory Disclosure and Labeling Identifying Sales Goods Created in Whole or Part with Generative AI
tracked
Mao Lemieux
Let's invent a label - something simple, like "GenAI was used in whole or part in this object's manufacture" and then /require/ creators/vendors to label all of their relevant sales items with it.
Let this label also be a tag or flag as part of an object's or sales vendor's properties, so that Residents don't have to struggle to know if an object is GenAI-"containing."
Let this also be a tag or flag on the MP and in any other searchable interface where it makes sense to exist, so that Residents may include or exclude GenAI items in their search results.
GenAI is not going anywhere. The ethics of its use are a separate matter. But Residents have a right to be informed of the tool's use in the creation of their purchased items, just as we have a right to know whether a food IRL has been genetically modified. Let Residents be advised of the use of GenAI to create purchasable goods, and thereby purchase according to their own preference.
Please disregard, and accept my apology, if this issue has already been discussed/addressed. Thank you.
Log In
J
Juniper Linden
tracked
Dana Enyo
As these discussions often do, it's gone WAY off the rails. But as of 25 Sept I've not seen a single argument against some kind of mandatory disclosure, imperfect as it might be.
ZAeL Voxel
The fact that so many creators who use AI are willing to resort to insults and act hyper defensive about what is, if they are really fine with such use, a null issue is baffling.
Disregarding my own stance on AI for the moment (which, for fair context, is very negative): If you don't mind using it, shouldn't it be no issue to let users know this?
If you like AI content and generation, etc., then labelling content with such would only be a benefit. It means you can easily find the content you enjoy!
And, on the flip side, it means those who don't enjoy it for whatever reason can also avoid it.
Giving people the power to curate their online experience on a personal level is always a plus imo, and it seems weird to not want to include this when some people in here are advocating so hard around AI's use.
In all other aspects of online life, transparency is the key to building user trust. For some people, hiding the use of AI, even if they're not against it, can be a net negative, and make people question your brand. If you are willing to hide the use of a certain tool, what else isn't being announced?
I strongly recommend everyone to read up on the rules around AI content use for trust and ranking on search engines, as well as the other associated signals that customers rely on through marketing as a whole.
As stated by OP, the ethics of the use of AI are a very different matter. But giving us, and our customers, the tools to properly know what is being used is a good middle ground.
Unless, of course, you want to hide the fact that you used AI. Now that is a different moral argument, altogether.
N
Nya Jules
ZAeL Voxel "The fact that so many creators who use AI are willing to resort to insults and act hyper defensive about what is, if they are really fine with such use, a null issue is baffling."
Apart from one person I have not seen many insults coming from the side who points out that they see issues with this proposal. On the other hand, people who point out issues are getting attacked on a polemic up to personal level like.. You are just defending your own AI business, You are mad and don't want consumers to have rights, You are whining etc.
You are right lining up there with your last sentence when you say: Are you questioning this proposal? Then you must want to the hide the fact that you used AI.
This last sentence alone is such a great example of how many people in favor of this proposal argue. "You see issues with this proposal? Then you must be afraid you can't sell your AI textures anymore!"
You are completely disregarding, not even disregarding, decrying the valid concerns that have been brought up.
- How do you prevent honest creators from getting disadvantaged when they disclose AI in their work but the vast majority won't do it
- How do you tackle the problem that someone generating a 2D AI texture to sell it is treated the same way as someone who uses AI to a minimum extend in their work when there is one checkbox to hide all AI containing content
- How do you handle the situation when someone purchases a texture and doesn't know if AI was involved. How can people be sure that anything that is available for their intended use on the internet does not contain AI. What if people just claim they didn't know it contained AI. What if people say it doesn't contain AI even if it does if you cannot prove it.
- How do you enforce any rules if you cannot reliably prove it
Some people posting in favor of this suggestion are saying: This is not about someone using minimal AI in their work but those who mass produce products created by AI. No. That's what they may think, but that is not what this proposal says, and this is also not what some people want who see the devil in AI and would outright ban everything containing any sort of AI. There no differentiation, which is one of the brought up issues.
In general it would be really nice if people stop accusing those who ask questions about this proposal of having hidden, malicious motives, but for some people this seems to be way too emotional.
Ana Atheria
Nya Jules perhaps don't use AI to do art for you if you want the same response the work of someone who did it themselves receives?
People have been putting their real effort into content in SL for two decades now. If someone is generating their products, why should it not be mandatory to disclose that the product was not made by a person?
Archetype Vile
Nya Jules There is a lot of whataboutism in this reply. I'm not going to address all of it. Instead I'm just going to address one overarching issue that covers a lot of this topic for me: If we predicate the argument on AI as a good, positive advancement for art, then what do a lot of these questions matter?
If AI is just another tool, then what does it matter if one person tagged as AI uses that tool more than another person tagged as AI? It is true that there are people that don't want to buy AI. But it is also true that there are some people that don't want to buy realism, and prefer toony styles. It is true that there are some people that won't buy a product if they can tell it's related to furries. It is true that some people avoid products based on their complexity, which is visible inworld, while others don't care because complexity doesn't apply to their preferences or use case.
People use information to make informed choices. And this will
always
result in products being sold less to people that use that information. But right now, where people can easily see if a product doesn't suit their artistic preferences, they can't see if it's made with AI.This also has the impact that people who genuinely want to support AI creators in specific, and promote tech growth, do not have the opportunity to do so. At a functional level, the lack of tagging has the same amount of damage on both sides of the playing field. People who do not want AI cannot avoid it; People who do want AI cannot find it.
It also feels disingenuous and fragile to me to paint the entire discussion under the banner of "this is faliable, so it is a full stop", when there are many people here attempting to have discussions about better implementation than the base suggestion. Clearly many people here who are in favor of tagging believe there are improvements that can be made to the suggestion and have offered more than a simple checkbox. If anything seems emotional, it is the way that your last few paragraphs here just sweeps all of those people under the rug as if they are not attempting to have a discussion in between getting accused of being sensationalist.
N
Nya Jules
Archetype Vile "when there are many people here attempting to have discussions about better implementation than the base suggestion"
Many people here attempting to have discussions about better implementation? I have just re-read every post in support of this suggestion. 2 people in support of this suggestion explicitly mention that a label would be fine. That's your many people having discussions about a better implementation.
The rest of the productive discussion is:
"disingenious dingleberries"
"naysayers are whining"
"people here are very mad"
"I do not want to support any kind of AI art slop"
etc.
If that's not emotional to you, then we are not discussing on a common level anyway.
Archetype Vile
Nya Jules 19 hours ago, you personally responded to a comment citing one alternative to checkbox-style implementation. And it is far from the only one here. If you are going to simply lie to me, then I'm done speaking with you.
It is very exemplary that, rather than engage with anything I wrote regarding potential support for AI and its consumers, you chose to respond to the talking point that puts a chip on your shoulder.
N
Nya Jules
@Archetype Vile
You literally said that my impression of the thread being emotional was wrong and that I was the one being emotional, and I think it's fair that I respond with quotes that clearly show why I call this thread emotional.
"If we predicate the argument on AI as a good, positive advancement for art, then what do a lot of these questions matter?"
I'm trying to have a honest discussion with you but I don't understand how you got to the point of implying that I said that everything AI in general is a positive advancement? I never said that.
- I acknowledged the moral implications of AI training. To be precise: If people don't wanna use ChatGPT or buy a product that has been created with the help of AI, totally fair. That's hard to keep up in the world since almost every company is or will be working with AI, everything you're coming in contact with.
- At no point I said that the idea of people mass uploading AI-created products is a great thing. I don't wanna buy messed up LOD levels. Many of these already exist without AI involved.
"If AI is just another tool, then what does it matter if one person tagged as AI uses that tool more than another person tagged as AI?"
It is obviously a fundamental difference between uploading an AI-generated mesh and using ChatGPT to help coding an lsl script for your prefab house that you sell. If your argument is ethics, then maybe not for you. But a lot of concerns in this thread apart from ethics are 1) creator laziness and 2) product quality. If somebody wants to filter out AI because they fear it's of inferior quality, then they should rightfully filter out AI-generated meshes (as of today), but they may not wanna filter out items that got improved with AI. Steam does not have an AI filter, and I suspect it's at least party out of that reason. Here again, if we can't even agree that AI can increase product quality, we're stuck.
What is the win here when we have a great quality store labeling their product as AI-supported if they get filtered out by an AI-checkbox and the marketplace is flooded with AI-generated textures because those people are surely not interested in labeling their product as AI. I asked how you can enforce and prove it, and the answer was "trust".
Excuse me but I feel like there is a complete abundance of practicability and it's mind boggling to me. If I need this as a disclaimer, I have no shop that sells any AI-generated or even supported products.
Archetype Vile
Nya Jules "I don't understand how you got to the point of implying that I said that everything AI in general is a positive advancement? I never said that."
-- And I never said that either. I never implied that. I don't think that. I was approaching the argument from the point of view of the terms you used, and continue to use in your post here, multiple times. But if you would rather see dishonesty in that, then there is nothing I can do.
Have a good one.
N
Nya Jules
Archetype Vile " If we predicate the argument on AI as a good, positive advancement for art, then what do a lot of these questions matter?"
You are asking why MY questions matter if we assume that AI is a great advancement for art. If this is not implying that I'm of the opinion that AI is a great advancement for art per se (and I NEVER said Anything like that) then we're absolutely speaking different languages. Let's leave it at that.
Zexen Alecto
There is a problem with low-effort AI content that is flooding the marketplace. When consumers see a lot of these items, it discourages them from shopping on the marketplace, and brings sales down for everyone.
If a solution like this is not acceptable, then another solution (blocking merchants causes them to not show up on marketplace, user-added tagging, etc.) needs to be added to marketplace in order to curtail the growing problem.
Zanya Resident
A lot of people here are very mad about the idea that consumers should be allowed to make an informed decision.
Paul Hexem
Zanya Resident If we wanted informed decisions, we'd have implemented a "this was ripped from a game" flag a long time ago. "Made by AI" pales by comparison.
Zanya Resident
Paul Hexem The suggestion being discussed was always a compromise, but hey, if your argument is that we should treat AI use as any other form of stolen assets, as a DMCA reportable ToS violation, then I'm all for that. End the discussion right here and ban it outright. :)
On a more pragmatic note, another key difference is the assets ripped from games are at least more likely to be optimized than whatever gen-AI hallucinates.
Maxwell Graf
I think advocating for the consumer on the marketplace by providing creators with a method for identifying that AI was used in the production or marketing of an item is a good thing. There may actually be creators using AI who would disregard the fact that a portion of sales would be lost by doing so (because a bunch of folks really dislike AI), but the consumer can feel protected and have a choice, and the creator can feel ethical and moral about their honesty and integrity. They will do so because you can easily feed your family and pay bills with good intentions, nevermind that people consciously using AI to save time or effort or to compete on the MP do so to increase sales.
While we are at it, I would also like to propose we continue further advocating for consumers by providing sellers on the marketplace with a tag that they must include on listings that indicates that the item has been copybotted or that include a really good idea that my friend had that I stole from them, and another to indicate it includes a mesh downloaded from sketchup or any of the dozens of places readily providing 3d objects. Another tag for textures or fonts used without permission or representation, also one for stuff that was obtained by questionable methods but altered so as to be different from the original in ways that only a courtroom would be able to decide, but that the seller feels is acceptable because money. We need these tags so we know what we are buying! We should be able to filter all those items out of our searches. Who can argue against such a thing? This will certainly put a stop to unethical behavior by letting everyone know what they are dealing with, especially folks that can't tell the difference.
I mean, if we are going to look out for the consumers, which is a great idea, let us not be picky about limiting that protection to just one sketchy practice. I have no doubt these tags would benefit just about everyone and we can all sleep better at night knowing we did something about it! If only we had done this years ago.
Niri Neon
Maxwell Graf YEAH! Lets have zero protection entirely because we dont have it for everything. Thats how the world works.
Sarcastic dummy.
Maxwell Graf
That is absolutely not the point I was trying to make. My point was - since you missed it completely and just want to hurl insults to anyone who disagrees with this idea - is that while it is a GOOD idea, it WONT MAKE A DIFFERENCE. This offers no protection! I tried to make clear through sarcasm and irony, which did not work because you clearly still do not get what I was saying. The people who are using AI will not put tags on their items, the lab has no way to enforce it or the people or methods to ensure compliance. When you list something on the marketplace, you have already agreed to follow the TOSA and subsequent EULA. AI is not against those rules, and, since Philip is one of 4 advisors on the board at Midjourney and the Lab just purchased a mobile AI dating app, it's not likely to happen. This idea is a paper tiger.
I am not in favor of AI. I do not like it showing up more and more in SL. I've been a creator in SL and a business owner in it for almost 2 decades. I've been an artist my entire adult career, and began a life of seriously creating much earlier than that. I am a porcelain sculptor and a pen and ink artist, a DIY proponent, maker and product designer. I spent many years in traditional art markets and many in corporate design environments. I am being directly affected by AI. It is showing up in all the tools I use for my work and the markets I earn from. I see it in images, in models being sold, in texturing, avatars, clothing. It saddens and worries me.
Maxwell Graf
Notice, I added myself to this feature request, i'm not here to poo-poo on rights or make fun of anyone or say how great AI is. The bottom line is this idea will have no effect on the problem. I am not an advocate for AI, I am an advocate for creators and consumers and have been an active, vocal part of the community and user rights during my time in SL. I've fought the fight before. I've stood up for my and your rights before, in big ways. My stance on things like this is solid, my past involvement is proven.
Dismissing my comments and name calling because you don't like my tone or understand my point is just not helping any of this, but I don't matter and neither do my comments. Come up with an idea that will make a difference on more than your feelings. That does matter.
This has become an emotional campaign, with 90% of the discussion devolving into argument and mud slinging. I see almost no discussion about how this will work or how it would be enforced, the punishments if it is not utilized, the legalities involved, the results of what is being suggested, what other options exist to make this happen, practical application, etc.
I will continue to advocate for user rights in SL whether you agree with me or not. Keep being angry in any case and hating AI. That fire IS necessary to cause change.
Niri Neon
Maxwell Graf I got what you were saying just fine, I just didn't think it was at all helpful. Essentially suggesting that it's pointless if we don't sweepingly also take care of every other problem. It's generally called whataboutism and is particularly unhelpful. There are many problems in SecondLife's market, and AI is indeed only one of them. It's also a fair concept to think grifters aren't suddenly going to turn honest. But your method of delivery, via sarcasm and whataboutism, sure derailed the whole thing and ultimately made it about nothing.
This essay of a reply in which you try to prove you're definitely one of the good guys is good for you and the only reason there's no further namecalling, but sincerely, think about how you engage with things like these because your sarcastic tone, and dismissive stance against ideas like these are non-constructive and derail actually helping the community you portend to support here. If this is your form of advocacy, maybe stop.
Maxwell Graf
Niri Neon You are still not understanding my post at all. The part about flags for every other problem? Thats the sarcasm part, included to point out the ineffectiveness of this campaign. I don't actually suggest we put those flags out there. They would serve no purpose and cause no change, much like this idea. Comparison was my point, not whataboutism, but please feel free to toss out some more buzzwords to make your point, along with cursing people up and down on social media because you disagree with them. If that is YOUR form of advocacy, maybe stop. Snark ain't helping your cause.
I don't need to prove to you, me or anyone else that I am a "good guy" (whatever that hell that is, I DGAF), nor do I "portend to support the community." Check yourself.
I'm nobody and what I do in SL is no more valid or important than what you or anyone else does. My advocacy and my stance in fighting for the community, however, is well-founded and proven. I've put myself out there, got the scars to show for it. I'm adding my comments in the hope that it might point out some flaws in the methodology, not the ideology. That is what derails this effort. It is specifically constructive, you just don't want to hear it because it is not what you think or prefer to say about the issue. I did offer some reasonable suggestions as to how we might affect change, you are just ignoring them because don't want to hear any dissent.
Niri Neon
Maxwell Graf I read and re-read your comments up and down. All I read is "There is no hope of stopping this and I am scared" I love dissent, let's go for dissent, but have something of value to add besides fear and mockery. And I love my form of advocacy, cursing on social media included. And your essays of comments betray that you absolutely require validation, and hey, here it is:
You are one of the good ones, Max. By pointing out how hopeless everything is and how powerless you are, you help EVERYONE.
/s if it wasn't clear.
Please, reiterate your supposed constructive ideas, because all I see is "Philip is on the board of Midjourney" "They already agreed to TOS, and this idea is a paper tiger" "i've got the scars to prove i'm on the right side" and other nonsense.
How would YOU combat the AI slop takeover of SL's content? If not for a simple consumer choice tag?
Maxwell Graf
Niri Neon My comments don't betray my needing validation. My past involvement does that. I posted them to respond to your accusations that my advocacy is flawed or that I should stop because you don't like what I say or the way I say it. This ain't about me.
As for constructive input, I included plenty of that, you chose to ignore it and in doing so absolutely proved my point. You see only "I am helpless and there is no way to stop it and I'm scared."
Here's some you decided to skip over: I see almost no discussion about how this will work or how it would be enforced, the punishments if it is not utilized, the legalities involved, the results of what is being suggested, what other options exist to make this happen, practical application, etc.
There is not a practical discussion here attempting to solve anything. This is a mudpit so far, and we are all getting dirty.
The way anything will get done about this is if the Lab decides to enforce rules they first apply concerning AI. Currently there are no rules against it, most likely because they realize the mess enforcing it would cause, a rabbit hole they don't intend to go down. You can still buy Mickey Mouse wearing Nike's and having a flag to put on the listing won't do a damn thing about that, but it's strickly against the rules and breaks a few laws. Self-governance and The DMCA are the only tools we have. The discussion needs to happen, but if we cannot suggest that this idea is flawed, it never will any more than a real solution might happen by insisting people flag their items. I am now backing out of this conversation, I've offered my criticism and I have offered suggestions of how to change course, some ideas about how we can actually, maybe, affect change. Yell all you like, that fire is necessary.
Niri Neon
Maxwell Graf Most of that is not in your original comments. It's like two lines between all your virtue signaling and sarcasm. Also, I didn't say you should stop, but that you should check the way you go about it and I think, after this discussion, we both should check ourselves. Neither of us is going about this the right way.
As for enforcement; simply asking the question isn't constructive discussion. So you see a flaw in this implementation, how would you combat it, what would be a decent alternative method, how would you circumvent the issues you're running into? THAT would be constructive.
"This won't work because of XYZ" is just putting a concept down. THAT is what I've been railing against with what you've been saying. Well, that and your initially sarcastic and dismissive tone, combined with your whataboutism pulling in every other issue in SL. You claim to be constructive, but you're not. Check THAT.
Maxwell Graf
Lastly, come to my region. Sit and talk with me. Let's friend each other and discuss this. Meetings are productive sometimes. Maybe we agree on some things, who knows? I am not here to hate you for trying to do something.
Maxwell Graf
Whataboutism, virtue signaling...any other terms you want to throw out there at me? I'm sure I'm gaslighting and mansplaining in there somewhere also.
I did offer suggestions, was constructive. I did come up with an idea I think might work and some honest criticism of what is being suggested here, among all my ill-placed sarcasm and dismissiveness. But continue to point out those things I did wrong so you can label them with more buzzwords.
Niri Neon
Maxwell Graf Mate, if the shoe fits... I get that you don't LIKE the "buzzwords", but it's what you're doing in most of your posts here. I'm using the lingo to help you understand where you misstep, not to score points with some imaginary audience. But hey, you're not gaslighting nor mansplaining, so far :P And clearly, we agree on some things. That's why I'm still replying. Still trying. We're just a tad hostile because we both started off real strong and aggressive.
Maxwell Graf
If you say so, it must be so. I made no missteps here. I used sarcasm, which you perceived as a misstep; you perceived my ideas as whataboutism (which would actually apply if I was seriously suggesting we implement them.) We did not both start off aggressive, passive or otherwise. I posted legitimate concerns and some ideas about changing course. You insulted me a few times, then called me a sarcastic dummy. Responding to your personal attacks is not virtue signaling, nor is mentioning my past involvement or history in the SL community. You have issues with me - questioning my intelligence, my participation, my advocacy, my position, my motives and my statements. I have an issue with this feature request. That's the difference.
Niri Neon
Maxwell Graf You think replying with two small essays is not "starting off aggressive"? Your initial statement was a sarcastic hodgepodge with little of substance to it, so yeah, I took issue with your position and statements, then you puffed up your chest and yelled about how hard you've worked for this community already, so then I took issue with your motives. In this discussion, you do not just have an issue with the feature request. Very few words were wasted on your issues with this feature request. In fact, most words were wasted on yourself.
I see your point about implementation, but your high and mighty nature rubs me the wrong way and it's why I won't be coming to your sim or sitting down with you. You do not seem to be true with yourself, and that irks me beyond all reason. I know I'm an agitating lil gremlin, I'm self-aware enough to admit that. I doubt you can recognize what I've been pointing out.
This is my last reply, since we're going in circles. Take care, Maxwell.
Maxwell Graf
By all means, insult me some more before checking out. Of course you wont come talk with me. I understand why. It's much easier to just snipe and insult me here, instead of having a conversation or providing any positive information to add to the discussion. I did not notice you doing any of that. You are great at insulting people, though. Good for you. Hit and run.
My first post used sarcasm to make my initial point. Then I backed it up with ideas and reasoning and suggestions on how to make a difference. The rest of this has been responding to you throwing rocks, insisting that I and my posts here are critically flawed and unproductive, shallow and insensitive. You offering none of what you accuse me of not providing after ignoring when I do.
I did not puff up or yell about my past in SL, or spend all my time talking about it, here or elsewhere. There is not a single line about me or my past in the first post. I will not, however, sit and take being called out unreasonably or having my past or present efforts called into question. You don't get to insist that I'm blowing my own horn or virtue signaling when it is simply responding to your accusations. I defended myself by proving that your repeated insults and attacks are unfounded. That's not bluster. It's a corrective rebuttal, and I still have to keep doing it, apparently. We are not going in circles, you just still don't like what I am saying, or that I have offered valid points to consider. Meanwhile, you have offered nothing.
Where are your ideas? Your fixes or solutions? How have you done anything so far to counter what you accuse me of not doing? My ideas and solutions are clearly defined in my 1st post here, sarcasm and all.
Gaffe OwO
On a platform as creator driven as second life, the next best thing to an outright ban on generative AI products - products which are inherently unethical - being able to identify them is the next best thing. LL please implement this if you won't outright ban generative AI.
Kindcore Resident
I would prefer AI to be gone altogether, but most platforms (like steam) require AI be tagged, and that's fine enough. It's the simplest answer, and not above the means nor use of the search function anyway.
CrimsonAcanthus Resident
I should be able to choose not to see all of the quickly generated prompt images on the marketplace. There are SO many people that just generate hundreds of images and then post them for sale on the mp, absolutely flooding the market and overtaking the people who actually create with their own hands and not with words in a prompt. With real skill they've honed over time. Patience and inspiration and motivation to be better. Everything generated via prompt is stolen from artists that already exist and their work without permission. It's theft. You're allowing people to steal from artists and post their stolen collage to sell to unsuspecting people that don't know any better. At the VERY least, require them to set a filter the way we all do with every other category for GenAI. If Primfeed can do it, so can you with the marketplace.
The sheer amount of people that want this, on multiple different kinds of posts, and they still haven't implemented it... I'm so disappointed in the SL management team for not pushing harder to implement this. There are SO many people that would happily volunteer to help recognize what is and isn't GenAI so you don't even have to do anything. TONS of us want to help stop the infestation that is GenAI prompt crap that's being thrown all over the marketplace. It's unethical to let them sell on the same platform and not make them label it. During multiple meetings, including one that literally was about AI, we've been brushed off. Actual artists. The people that helped Secondlife grow. The backbones of the SL community. We should not be shoved to the side to allow these people to continue to steal from artists with a paragraph to generate both mesh and images to sell to people without at the very least labeling it as such.
Zoxin UwU
AI tags so we can distinguish who's actually made something to who's had a half baked thought and typed it out with the quality of a contextually broken, fading dream in the morning.
For a constructive argument, these items aren't made for SL:
- Customers will find these items will only ever look good on one angle, if at all.
- Texturing/UVMapping of these items is garbage and usually unintelligible to even professional artists, dissuading basic users from ever getting to grips with creating their own content mods without furthering the problem itself.
- Said texturing is lowering the quality standard set by SL creators of present and past. (This naturally wasn't high to begin with, meaning we're falling into nonsensical, smudgy nightmares)
- They don't have mesh physics which consider avatars - they have fudged mesh physics for the sake of pushing it through the uploader which just ends up as "deocrative" junk nobody can use.
- Usually, the land impact is intensely high or suffers from LODs that make it look better at a distance (you can't see it).
Most people don't come to SL to purposely spend their time and money on cheaply made AI junk (they can do it themselves if they want to).
We need a way to filter them out and have enforcement behind that tag, at least where it's obvious - though I do admit there are logistical concerns on how LL would do this.
I don't know if this is actually possible on the grand scale of things, but the consequence is that people who want to spend serious money will now only buy from community-trusted sellers.
N
Nya Jules
Zoxin UwU you are saying that AI generated meshes will be of bad quality. While I have talked to creators who actually fear the exact opposite, that AI generated meshes will become scaringly good, I also can't imagine that any AI generated mesh currently will be of decent quality.
That said, we currently have a lot of bad meshes out there. Meshes that fall apart when camming out a few meters. People putting 2048 textures where it's not necessary. Meshes that don't use custom physics shapes but SL auto generated shapes. Completely without AI. The marketplace is full of them, this is our reality already. That's why we have upload cost, land impact, product ratings and demos. Those tools already exist and they help customers identifying products they don't want, whether they are manually created and bad or AI-generated and bad. I almost never buy anything without a demo. No AI needed.
Furthermore, if an "I used AI" checkbox can mean that the creator used AI to complete the click-function in their lsl script for their otherwise manually created prefab house but also that someone generated a complete mesh including textures, what informative value does the checkbox really have? What does it say about actual quality?
oop Resident
Nya Jules 3d artist above, and 3d artist below you telling you ai mesh is not good. I'm assuming your also a 3d artist so you can make your own call on that.
Steams ai disclaimer is a box where devs will disclose what the use of their ai is. The only ambiguity about the use of ai is if the devs lie.
N
Nya Jules
oop Resident "3d artist above, and 3d artist below you telling you ai mesh is not good."
So you're agreeing with me who literally says "I also can't imagine that any AI generated mesh currently will be of decent quality." in the post that you are referring to.
What's your point apart from wrongfully implying that I believe that an AI generated mesh is of good quality after I stated the exact opposite?
"Steams ai disclaimer is a box where devs will disclose what the use of their ai is."
You should mention and also ask the question why Steam did not add an official filter with it, a filter that this feature requests suggests. But I have an idea: maybe because a lot of people do not disclose it, maybe because Steam does not want AI-supported content generalized and treated in the same way no matter how far the AI-support went.
But if we had info about the use of AI on the product page but NO filter, just like steam does, this would limit the degree honest creators are disadvantaged compared to those creators who are not going to disclose the AI usage, and it would also prevent generalizing AI-supported content since there would not be one filter checkbox for all. (And even then, nobody who uploads an AI-generated mesh will disclose that, just like nobody is disclosing an unlicensed texture they got from the internet. So I'd still not see the big win here.)
oop Resident
Nya Jules Not reading all that but failing to disclose should be punishable the same way as any other incorrect info on MP is already punished.
N
Nya Jules
oop Resident "Not reading all that" considering you misrepresented what I said in my other post, I didn't actually think you were reading, but thanks for clarifying.
Load More
→