Tech Robonaught I can tell AI has destroyed your critical thinking ability, because two apps where the user applies their own skill to make something is absolutely not comparable to a loser typing a one sentence prompt in order to generate stolen, glossy slop to sell for profit and zero effort

Nova AyashiI can tell AI has destroyed your self esteem.

Tech Robonaught These would be nice tags too, but not good filters. Software tags get more people into creating by giving them an idea of how something is made + allowing possible collaborations since you can get an idea if another creators in same workflow as you. They're well used on other sites!

lifeon13 Resident True, but that's typically on a 3d model site where you need to be able to mod it. I just think there's more important things to focus on like the ever dwindling population -

Tech Robonaught Wouldn't the population be improved if more encouragement is given to the concept of being and becoming a creator? Allowing people to feel sense of community over the commonality in software, inspiration to pick something new up and try, in one of the few game spaces that still allows it. Ultimately these things all add up, and are extremely tiny on the web team to implement given it would just be on marketplace. This is how platforms like Roblox have managed to produce their crazy userbase scale

lifeon13 ResidentAbsolutely - but the topic isnt abotu that its about adding a category for AI created content "vs" like, if we dont fix the population decline its not going to matter.

Tech Robonaught Sort of, my suggestion is a flag & filter, not a category. Gen AI products can still freely exist in any category the product is meant to fit into, and still be sold as they are without disruption. The only change would be that creators using gen AI disclose it, so consumers who wish to may have a choice in supporting products created by gen AI. The population decline is being quite aggressively sped up by the hostility towards creators, and why would there be any users at all if nobody is creating. These are all interlinked concepts, which is I assume why you brought it fourth in your original comment already, the only inaccuracy in your original point was simply the judgment itself of the software.

Just speaking jokingly, among dev spaces it's inverted, Autodesk software is usually an indicator that you are dealing with some college debt, Max was the go to back in the 2010s, colleges still push it because they have the long term student licensing deal and outdated coursework.

lifeon13 Resident the softwares were just examples really -

I think the population would bounce back if the creators felt more welcome and that in turn would fuel creativity which would fuel population expansion ... what perks to give them ... who knows ...

Tech Robonaught learn blender, it's every bit as good as 3ds max.. This is coming from someone that just ditched 3ds max for blender.

Your tools are only as good as the skills you develop.

Cynos3D Resident All I use is Blender. Re-read what I said.

VanessaChristy Resident It is important to clarify that using AI as a tool does not automatically produce low-quality products, and generalizing in that way is simply incorrect. Many creators use AI effectively to optimize their workflows, refine scripts, textures, or 3D models, and even improve overall product quality. The issue is not AI itself, but how it is applied, and whether the creator provides support, quality assurance, and proper attention to detail.

Moreover, according to the Tao of Linden, we should “assume good intent and practice good intent.” Blanket statements that label AI-assisted products as inferior are contrary to this principle. They unfairly harm creators who act ethically and produce quality work, while spreading unnecessary fear among buyers.

While it is reasonable to consider filtering options for buyers, the practical value of such a measure is limited. There is currently no technological method capable of determining with 100% certainty whether a product was created using AI, and any such claim would not hold up in a court of law. Therefore, the emphasis should remain on quality, support, and honest disclosure, rather than attempting to police the use of AI itself. This distinction is essential to maintain fairness and uphold the spirit of the Linden community.

The question of a product’s quality is also relative. Here’s an example: consider a simple sword made from three prims with a basic wood texture, and compare it to a realistic, finely textured mesh sword. Both creations have their own value, even if one might be considered outdated. What I personally regard as low quality could still be perfect for someone else.

The focus should not be on labeling individual products. Instead, a general framework should be developed that, in the spirit of the Tao of Linden, ensures buyers can exercise their consumer protection rights if they encounter legitimate issues with a product.

"While it is reasonable to consider filtering options for buyers, the practical value of such a measure is limited. There is currently no technological method capable of determining with 100% certainty whether a product was created using AI, and any such claim would not hold up in a court of law. Therefore, the emphasis should remain on quality, support, and honest disclosure, rather than attempting to police the use of AI itself."

You're right, there is no way to tell on some things. Which is why in your own words, "Moreover, according to the Tao of Linden, we should “assume good intent and practice good intent.”". Surely Ai generators won't have a problem with a filter and clicking an extra checkbox if there is 'good intent'. It's fairly reasonable and obvious that AI Generation is not desirable with people, so why this hard push to help users keep it away?

If this Tao of Linden you preach is the motto you go by, then you should be signing for it. Gacha items have a filter, demo items have a filter. There's even people who don't mark their demos as demos, the filter is never fool proof. But a method of being able to filter something is better than absolutely nothing done to avoid seeing them.

If so many Ai generators are doing it with good intent then there should be a major use for the filter. The people who don't want to see it have a massive haypile of why they do not want to see it. Ethical, environmental, and principle.

jackiewallace Resident hard disagree on all of that. There is plenty of validity to the complaints from people (like myself) who do not support AI-generated content, and wish to have a filter to remove it from our searches. Zanya Resident's comment below gives some good examples of reasons why many people do not support the use of AI as a tool for creation, and there are many more reasons beyond that.

I once believed in and supported AI too, until I learned that it was stealing from other artists without consent, that it was harming the environment, that it was basically a cheat code for creation that would come to somehow compete against real artists, etc etc. Folks like myself are allowed to state these facts, and to form our opinions around them, and our request for filtering out AI content is perfectly reasonable.

Also, I know some AI content is hard to identify, but a LOT of it is very very easy to identify, and it has completely flooded search results on marketplace. For me and others like me, it gets in the way of finding the things we actually want, thereby making searches take longer, making many customers give up, and not spend money, which reduces income for creators as well as for LL. There is a myriad of realistic reasons to require sellers to disclose AI content, and to allow buyers to filter it out. To argue otherwise is to support dishonesty and/or ignorance.

Opal Velvet In many cases, it cannot be proven whether something was created with AI or not.

Since filtering is based on self-declaration, there is no guarantee that something not marked as AI-generated is in fact 100% human-made. Therefore, by itself this function will not be able to prevent the mass appearance of AI content in this form.

Using a blunt expression, I categorize “AI creators” into several groups, because you cannot examine under the same magnifying glass someone who mindlessly relies entirely on AI to create something, someone else who uses AI only for certain tasks, and yet another who merely optimizes what they have already made.

Let’s look at a product that contains mesh and scripts. Suppose the mesh was created by human hands, some elements of the texture were generated with AI, and the script contains certain code snippets written by AI. This product will, in total, be a hybrid product, created jointly by human and machine. Where do we classify it?

Let’s also break down the AI question a little, because we use this word very broadly. AI, or artificial intelligence, is not the same as, for example, ChatGPT, which is a language model. Very few people have ever encountered true artificial intelligence, as such systems are most likely running around in some hidden, top-secret military lab somewhere. But what are we really debating here? A cleverly written language model? An artificial intelligence? Or perhaps a new form of life? Today we still don’t know the precise answer...

Moo Boo You are absolutely right. The problem, however, begins when numerous residents spread fear, planting the idea in the average buyer’s mind that using AI automatically equates to producing low-quality products. As a result, even if you act correctly, you may end up labeling your own product as “low quality.” That is the practical outcome of all this.

I’ve read many arguments regarding this feature. Some have said that there are already countless low-quality, unusable products on the Marketplace, and that this feature is merely a preventative measure before low-quality AI products flood the Marketplace.

If we take a step back from AI-specific products and consider general consumer protection concerns related to products, no meaningful response has been given. The reactions have largely consisted of personal attacks and intrusions. None of them seem to understand that personally, I have no issue with any of them; however, I believe it is essential to highlight the interests of buyers, regardless of whether a product was created with AI or not.

Moo Boo I really appreciate your addition, this is the kind of integrity that is important to support even amid a complex conflict like gen AI, thank you!

Carlle Tordenskjold The people who use generative AI don't care about how it was built on assets stolen from people without their consent, so it comes as no surprise to me that they don't want to need our consent to shove their soulless garbage in our faces.