ADD Do Not Show "AI Generated" Filter on Marketplace
lifeon13 Resident
Please add a required bool while creating a Marketplace listing that asks the creator to disclose if AI generative tools were used in part/all of the products creation. Add this bool to the 'Do Not Show' section of the Marketplace search filter. Allow listings to be reported if they do not honestly disclose this.
----
For the health of the market we need the use of AI tools to be disclosed by creators.
I would prefer personally that no AI generation be supported. I understand that tolorance of it is an effort to avoid censorships slippery slope, and is complicated by the sheer variation of AI tools that currently exist. But regardless of opinions or complications, it's existance cannot be ignored.
So lets focus on what can be done, by giving some power of choice to the consumer instead.
Users should be provided a way to choose products with or without AI generation while shopping, and naturally creators who choose not to disclose or to lie should face the same reportability and moderation as any other creator that would choose to lie while listing.
The moderation half of this should not necessarily focus on trying to prove the use of AI gen tools, it doesn't actually need to. Creators who have done the work to provide support and actually prepare the AI generated content for its use in SL are unlikely to warrent being reported, and should not need to lie about the useage anyway. It is products that blatantly lack support, have egregious LOD & LI values that would be inclined to lie, and would want to be reported by users, this is the same for ANY product currently listed.
If you buy it, and you don't get what was described, it should be reportable, the same goes for AI generated products, AI generated should not get a pass because you have to 'prove' something first, when the fact remains that you didn't get what thought you bought.
So do not focus on "did you use a tool?" focus on "can you fix & support the product?" If it can't be supported, then disclose it was made via AI generation and move on.
This is a similar complication to full perm and gacha resales, but also ripped models, copybot etc, in they will all lack support due to not being made directly by the creator of the listing. There is a big difference between fullperm & gacha resale vs ripping & botting, and that difference is honest disclosure.
Log In
Nova Ayashi
The AI apologists in this post will be the death of Second Life. Short-sighted, uncreative, soulless jerks. But they’ll have to kill Second Life without me, because until Linden Labs regulates slop content, I’m no longer paying for land, I’m closing my store, and I’m logging out indefinitely
VanessaChristy Resident
100% if it just isn't gonna be stopped and can't really be stopped from flooding SL. At least having an option to avoid it is desirable.
When so many places have a filter for it, it's very clear that it's a wanted and needed feature nowadays.
The only ones i really see against it are those looking to deceive consumers, otherwise they'd have no problem with their products not being shown by people who do not wish to support the method.
It is the case with many of products in the world (avoiding shein for sweatshop workers, avoiding buying meat that was abused in a factory, avoiding artists/bands because of controversial or bigoted statements), it isn't that deep.
jackiewallace Resident
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.
VanessaChristy Resident
jackiewallace Resident
"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.
Opal Velvet
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.
jackiewallace Resident
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...
Zanya Resident
Found online (I'd link to the source but I don't believe they're allowed.)
Banning AI-generated products outright is the desirable outcome. Letting us filter it is the compromise, and the bare minimum we should expect.
------------------------------------------------------------------
AI impoverishes us at every step of the process:
- data centers pollute our environment
- energy use drives up costs
- content theft robs creators of income
- the actual output is used to displace workers and depress wages
- using it harms our mental health and impairs our competence
- the flood of AI slop is damaging our sociopolitical landscape
All in service of making a worse product - and world - to enrich a handful of already spectacularly wealthy people
Moo Boo
It's been brought up at several meetings whether LL will have policies regarding AI content and so far all of the replies have been that they do not have plans to make any policies about AI content.
I however fully support labels for AI generated content.
For humanitarian reasons, as it's good to support the added passion that goes into making a product by traditional means, as well as a form of quality assurance as human-made products will by nature have a lot more care and attention put into them than ones generated by AI.
I'm a creator whom use AI for several parts of the products that I make, and I'd be happy to tag my products as "Made using AI", whether it be for people specifically looking for AI things or preferring to avoid it.
jackiewallace Resident
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.
lifeon13 Resident
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
I find the lack of self believe from the naysayers funny, this whole thing is not about banning AI off of SL, but giving the consumers the choice to say they don't want to see it, just like how we currently can opt out of seeing resold gacha items or demos, by clicking on the "do not show" button for said items, it is all simply about clarity for the consumer, and when you are against that I have to be a wee bit concerned why you want to deny them that, clearly you must think that if this was an option there would be no market for these items/pictures, which I can calm you by saying I am sure there still will be a market for "your" creations.
Signed Renowned SL Creator Carlle [Thenotecard&bloggerman] Tordenskjold.
Zanya Resident
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.
Monkey Banana
I dont care about AI. Use it or don't. I support this though, a little flag never hurt no one.
jackiewallace Resident
I took the trouble and randomly selected 5 names of those who support the idea. Of course, I checked what kind of renowned creators they are. Well, let’s see:
Mentally Morbid - gacha reseller
Carlle Tordenskjold - 4 textures + 1 gacha
24601Convict Resident - not merchant
Talvin Muircastle - not merchant
AnnaThanas Resident - not merchant
Of course, everyone has the right to express their opinion here with all their possible alts about something they clearly don’t seem to understand. LOL
Vicvoc Resident
jackiewallace Resident So customers that are using the marketplace can't have an opinion?
Why is it so hard to understand that a lot of people don't want to pay for AI-generated content?
You just picked out a bunch of people for no reason, just because they support the idea. None of them ever claiming to be a renowned creator?
This is so unhinged.
jackiewallace Resident
Vicvoc Resident When it comes to AI-generated content, it is essential to recognize that discussions around its value and role carry very different weights depending on who is having them. A debate led by professionals within the field, those whose businesses are directly impacted, or by the customers themselves will naturally reflect different priorities and insights.
Professionals working in the industry bring technical expertise, an understanding of quality standards, and awareness of the effort required to create meaningful content. Their perspective ensures that the conversation remains grounded in the realities of craft and skill. On the other hand, those directly affected on the business side evaluate AI through the lens of market sustainability, intellectual property concerns, and the long-term effects on livelihoods. Finally, customers - who ultimately decide what succeeds in the marketplace - contribute an essential viewpoint about demand, trust, and value perception.
For the conversation to be fair and productive, all three voices need to be acknowledged, but it is especially important to distinguish between them. A customer may say, “I don’t want this,” which is entirely valid, but it is a fundamentally different statement from a professional who can explain the implications on the industry, or a business owner who weighs financial risks.
Note: I was fully aware of what kind of reaction my comment would trigger, and I knew exactly how I would respond to it.
lifeon13 Resident
jackiewallace Resident You are a reseller as well, what do you believe is the difference?
nulshift Resident
The mental gymnastics.
jackiewallace Resident
lifeon13 Resident Me reseller, because you found one product what is not original? LOLOLOL Is this one of those “I’m just looking for a flaw so I can be right” games?
I understand that your problem is that I disagree with your mistaken claim that every product created with the use of AI is of poor quality. What you’re doing is trying to put a label on certain people, something you’ve explained quite thoroughly before. But sticking labels on products won’t reduce the amount of “junk products” on the Marketplace, nor will it improve their quality.
Consumers have rights - set aside AI for a moment. A consumer has the right to purchase a product with their money that is of flawless quality and to rely on a warranty. This is true in every country. We’re still not talking about AI here. The real question is: who assumes legal responsibility for consumer protection when it comes to products uploaded to the Marketplace? The Second Life Marketplace does not provide automatic warranties or mandatory refunds. Warranty or refund depends solely on the seller’s intentions - best case, you can contact them; worst case, you cannot.
You don’t start building a house by trying to slap together the roof first, hoping to prevent low-quality AI products from appearing, and then move on to raising the walls. Try not to approach the problem with tunnel vision.
Strict, clearly defined rules are needed to determine who can sell on the Marketplace, so that the word “creator” has real value, and we don’t call someone a creator just because they are able to upload a picture of a painting they downloaded from the internet - one they did not paint themselves - and then put it up for sale on the Marketplace. That is a mockery of the word “creator.”
Zanya Resident
jackiewallace Resident Shockingly, a proposal designed to make things easier and more convenient for the consumer, and harder for (dishonest) sellers, is going to be more popular with consumers.
If AI is the future, if its inevitability is assured, then why are so many of you so afraid of people being given the option of filtering it out?
Your posts seem more like a confession that you know how deeply unpopular generative AI is, not only for the unprecedented mass copyright theft it represents, but the catastrophic environmental damage it's done and the immense pressure it's putting on our electrical grid even as the planet continues to heat up.
People in Texas are being asked to avoid showers while new data centers suck up water tables to cool their hardware.
All so the laziest people online can press a button to produce mediocrity.
jackiewallace Resident
Zanya Resident You still don’t understand that this function will not be suitable for people to filter out what is AI and what is not. Just because something was created using AI doesn’t automatically mean its quality is poor. If the quality were poor, then why would Linden Lab itself be using AI in different areas?
Anyway, if it reassures you, I’m running one of the AI models at home on my own IT infrastructure, completely independent from anyone else. Nobody has to avoid showers here, and I wouldn’t want you to worry about it - come over and wash my back instead! :-D
lifeon13 Resident
jackiewallace Resident I appreciate that you are a live demonstration of why moderation for this flag is not required to prove gen AI use at all, products speak for themselves. Being accused of being a reseller would be the best case scenario for a product library of open source script snippets that are not disclosed as gen AI.
So again, sorry this suggestion has stressed you out so badly, but you are seeking engagement on my post, I'm obligated to reply!
If you would like me to actually nitpick you, and look for the "one thing to be upset by" I can just point out the lack of SSL on your "alternate payment vendor" website, it's a much better head scratcher than anything else on your uh...enlightening, profile
VanessaChristy Resident
jackiewallace Resident It turns out customers and creators both don't wanna see it! Who would've thought! Crazy the one person has made 173 alts to upvote this!
jackiewallace Resident
lifeon13 Resident Your claim about SSL is simply false: the payment interface itself is of course protected with SSL, as expected. Your personal attacks, however, do not advance the discussion – on the contrary, they only undermine your credibility. If you truly wish to debate the topic, then let’s stay focused on that, because this flailing and misrepresentation is downright pathetic.
What’s particularly amusing is that while you feel entitled to nitpick on my website - something that is entirely unrelated to you - you show no ability to contribute anything substantive when the discussion concerns general international consumer protection issues for Marketplace buyers, which naturally also affect AI products.
Still, no one has been able to show me a solution that could, with 100% certainty, determine whether the script I described here was generated by AI or not. From that point on, what you are suggesting is practically meaningless and not even enforceable.
The outcome will be that many naïve sellers, who honestly admit that their product was created with the help of AI - and that product may in fact be of good quality - will be branded as offering low-quality goods because of fear-mongering users like you. In doing so, you would deliberately harm other people’s businesses.
By your line of reasoning, since Linden Lab itself uses AI technology within Second Life, then Second Life as a whole must also be a shoddy, inferior product, and we should slap a label on it saying it contains AI.
jackiewallace Resident
VanessaChristy Resident I’ll repeat: stigmatizing AI products in itself is not the problem. The real issue is that many people deliberately spread fear, claiming that products created with AI are inherently low quality. Such behavior runs contrary to the spirit of the Tao of Linden. The problem here is not with AI products. The problem is that on the Marketplace anyone can upload anything, and there are no guarantees regarding the quality or usability of those products. As a result, international consumer protection rights that apply to software products are not being upheld.
lifeon13 Resident
jackiewallace Resident I Think I have done quite well to give you a fair shot, but it is clear you have no intentions to be rational on the topic, you simply change the argument when challenged. Maybe check your website again if you wish to bluntly lie here, perhaps you just haven't noticed it's access is blocked by multiple browsers for lack of valid SSL, it will likely be a better use of your time
jackiewallace Resident
lifeon13 Resident So your tactic is to resort to personal attacks while ignoring my specific, general consumer protection concerns, which clearly shows that your goal is not to seriously address the topic but to provoke. I wish you further struggles.
lifeon13 Resident
jackiewallace Resident Do you have general consumer protection concerns?
Mentally Morbid
jackiewallace Resident I dont see why you "took the trouble" to do this when this is meant to be about AI? Make it make sense.
Journey Bunny
Many of the complaints here rely on the allegation that AI steals content, or that AI is "slop", or that AI generated content is undesirable.
Both humans and generative AI tools are capable of producing stolen content, content of poor quality, or content that people don't want.
Similarly, not all generative AI content is trained on stolen materials, and not everything that benefits from the use of a generative AI tool is of poor quality.
We should address the problem, not the opinions. Notice that nobody is requesting a mandatory disclosure of the means by which the product was made for anything other than this newest type of tool.
There is a significant concern being expressed by many people here about what this tool does to our marketplace. This is really important because it has the potential to do harm. Regardless of whether people want AI content or not, the ability for these tools to generate volumes of content far greater than our capacity to view, search, and use the content threatens the usefulness of the marketplace and will drive away Makers.
Based on the concerns voiced, I propose:
- Rate limits added on the marketplace to prevent some of these AI "art gallery" product dumps
- Useful tools on the marketplace to describe products. Preview the LOD levels, the physics shape, the poly count. Add an in-world product review widget.
Better tools address the stated problems like the flood of content and l "slop" in a way that keeps competition honest and consumers informed.
I do not think that we're going to find a way to get every member of the community to feel the same way about an AI policy. But it's obviously here and affecting us. This is why I would greatly prefer tools to allow each user to examine the content and make their choices as individuals.
jackiewallace Resident
Journey Bunny AI by itself does not cause harm; another person can cause harm, just as before. The Marketplace being full of poor-quality products is due to anyone being able to sell without knowledge. As long as this continues, the word "creator" loses its value. At the same time, Linden Lab's business model must also be understood, since the Marketplace is a tool for extracting linden dollars from the system.
lifeon13 Resident
Journey Bunny I'd love if we had better tools for viewing what is listed and sorting it, honestly I wouldn't mind a way to list all software used (Ex Artstation lets you tag and search by software, I see it as useful for encouraging new creators by making it less spooky "how" something is being made). Additionally anything that gives more accurate info will help in cases where creators have chosen not to offer demos.
This is a great addition, thank you
Vicvoc Resident
Journey Bunny Calling it just a new tool is so disingenious and shows a lack of understanding of how it works and how big of an impact it has, compared to any other tool that has ever existed before.
It's a database filled with (usually stolen) content that is used to generate new content.
The ethically trained AI that exist today are a minority, and they generally don't produce good content yet, so they're not used.
There's very little transparency when it comes to AI firms today and a lot have already been proven to train their models on content pulled from the web without consent, and even pirated content.
That aside, you still make really good suggestions and good arguments.
AI exacerbates existing problems so yes it makes sense to fix those problems too.
At the end of the day, a lot of people want content produced by people, and not generated with a prompt.
I'm not gonna pay someone for a prompt, but I will pay someone for the hours they've put into making a handmade product.
Zanya Resident
jackiewallace Resident "AI by itself does not cause harm..."
Tell that to the people forced to live near datacenters paying three times more for electricity and have mud coming out of their taps.
Zanya Resident
Journey Bunny "Both humans and generative AI tools are capable of producing stolen content..."
A human stealing content doesn't deplete the local water reserve and cause electricity prices to double overnight the way AI datacenters do. AI is just another way of privatizing the profits and socializing the costs.
jackiewallace Resident
Zanya Resident Beeep! It’s honestly pathetic how you’re trying to steer the conversation in a direction that only serves to let you pat yourself on the back - it’s painful to watch. The discussion is about AI-generated products being sold on the Marketplace. And by the way, if excessive energy consumption bothers you so much, then you really don’t need to turn on your computer or use Second Life at all. Just get yourself a chessboard, problem solved. If the thought of energy use stresses you this much, don’t hesitate - chess is waiting, and so is a good psychologist. I wish you plenty of luck with your ongoing meltdown! :-D
Zanya Resident
Journey Bunny "Many of the complaints here rely on the allegation that AI steals content, or that AI is "slop", or that AI generated content is undesirable."
If it wasn't undesirable slop then the people who use it wouldn't be fighting tooth and claw to prevent it from being filtered.
Zanya Resident
jackiewallace Resident Are you okay?
jackiewallace Resident
I’d like to ask everyone a question. Please decide whether this script I’m about to share was generated by AI or not.
default
{
state_entry()
{
llSay(0, "Hello World!");
}
}
I’m waiting for your practical suggestions on how it could be determined whether this script was generated by AI or not. The true value of creativity outweighs technological tools, and artificial intelligence is a tool that can enhance creative work, not endanger it. Ultimately, this is what matters – not whether a particular element was AI-generated or not. First, the word "creator" should be given a value that guarantees the buyer is purchasing a quality product, with a warranty. I wish you continued good struggling. :D
lifeon13 Resident
jackiewallace Resident I see you are still taking offense to this post, I am sorry it has caused you so much distress.
The restriction & regulation of gen AI is necessary as there is currently no moral or ethically safe generative AI available, this might change some day but isn't the case yet, and will be the case never if policies do not change.
But it is a process, like anything else is, one step at a time.
I agree it is difficult, the most practical response to your question is to suggest you reread the main post, as it addressed this already; proving gen AI use is not actually the necessary focus of moderation.
We do not need to prove the usage of gen AI at all, it is clear in the resulting products quality and lack of support. Creators who use gen AI and can provide a quality product with support are also most likely to be the creators who do not lie about their usage, they will still get customers who wish to interact with AI. But given this is not the case for majority of AI, and AI is a complex moral and ethical situation it should still be the choice of the customer to buy or not buy gen AI products.
I have so far not read any compelling suggestions from you on ways to either iron out the moderation conflict, or prove gen AI is not harmful. Again feel free to add on, but I think most users have already acknowledged you're downvote of the suggestion.
I do want to pick your brain though about the other side of this, I just have to post a second comment because of word limits sorry
lifeon13 Resident
jackiewallace Resident
cont:
On the topic of theoretical support of gen AI; should it not instead be banned from individual creator use and instead be consolidated under a anon open market of products?
This way at the very least restrictions on upload pace can be added to somewhat slow the impact of prompt generation while tolerating its existence, while also solving the filtering issue by giving it a separate section of market to occupy. This seems to be what gen AI creators are aiming for, and what the software itself is developing towards, mass production of resources and anon creation.
You have repeatedly described it as something close to a pen in an artists hand but everything I read points to gen AIs development is actively against this concept. It is free use software that offers the same potential outputs to all users, there is an intentional drive to the pen being the artist and nullifying the creativity of the artist that is directing prompts in this way. Full autonomous function has been the development roadmaps of StableDiffusion since the earliest releases of their failed covid heatmapping.
I am curious if this is a concept you also hope for? Your offense to the topic tells me that you do have artistic integrity, I think you can do perfectly fine without gen AI as a crutch, but I am now wondering would increasing anonymity and decreased distinction push you away from it's use as a tool?
Would you hate a shared market or is this actually a potential alternate solution to the overall AI conflict?
Personally until someone decides to solve the global energy crisis (which if we want to talk pessimistically, we can look no further than that LOL) I won't be supporting current generative AI. But I have in the past helped fund and develop neural networking & machine learning, always in cases where it runs per machine, its scope limited. More effective brush tools that simulate different paints, smarter UV unwrapping & quick seam generation, motion matching & better IK algorithms, etc etc, in these examples there was a distinct purpose as a named tool. I find generative AI to be too broad, operating at a loss, and short sighted.
jackiewallace Resident
lifeon13 Resident Forgive me, but I haven’t seen a single comment that contains a concrete technical description of a procedure that could prove 100% in a court that a product is entirely or partially AI-generated or not. And I’m not referring only to 3D models here, but also to textures, scripts, and other elements. You talk about the majority of users - could you perhaps tell me what percentage of them are IT engineers? Or how many of them develop AI models? To be honest… only intelligent and reasoned comments can convince me of anything.
Let’s imagine the scenario where you falsely claim that one of my scripts is AI-generated - I haven’t seen any solution that can prove 100% whether a script is AI-generated - who will take responsibility for the financial and moral damage caused in court? You? Or Linden Lab? You cannot claim something about someone or something without proof.
The problem is not with AI itself, but with the people who flood the Marketplace with tons of junk, unusable products, thereby harming the other residents of Second Life. Most creators do not offer any quality guarantee. In many cases, they are unreachable if you encounter a problem. We are talking about AI-generated models having poor quality, while there is no quality policy on the Marketplace.
The European Union’s consumer protection regulations are changing, and new legislation has also been introduced concerning software manufacturers. For example, software manufacturers are now liable for damages caused by their defective products, regardless of whether the product was sold as a standalone item or incorporated as a component into another product. This will soon apply to all EU Residents.
Believe me, when I speak as a “real creator,” I am not speaking against the “real creators,” but against the ones producing junk, the self-proclaimed “junk creators.” I know exactly what AI is capable of in professional use, and that is not what is being used by “junk creators” who lack the necessary knowledge. I pay attention to potential legal issues arising from the regulatory framework, and I also keep the Linden Lab business model in mind.
Beatrice Voxel
jackiewallace Resident Considering you picked the script/program that is used as an intro to nearly every programming language since BASIC, this wasn't "AI generated" but simply "AI researched". You need to come up with something less iconic and more complex.
lifeon13 Resident
jackiewallace Resident Hmmm so my focus when describing gen AI products is that they do not respect SLs systems (land impact & LODs & materials) and lack support. Gen AI products are not junk by default but they lack support given the purpose of gen AI is to do what a creator cannot themselves do, its subject to the average use case and average output and that average is not what is best for SL. There is a significant difference between a creator who is ignorant (accidentally making something poor that they dont know how to support) and a tool that has strict outputs and cannot offer any support at all, gen AI suffers from its broad use case.
The creator can learn, the tool cannot, not in a cautious way, the concept that generative AI learns at all is a misconception of its function.
You are still choosing to misunderstand the point of the suggestions moderation as well, again it is not necessary at all to prove the use of gen AI, the existence of the flag will naturally change how people interact with products and creators who choose to lie in disclosure. This would never reach a court in the first place because SL is free to filter search results at their discretion, and can ask users to disclose just about anything during the listing process (so long as they update the policy prior and in a stepped fashion).
Also I have to disagree, I think the problem is entirely with the software, generative AI as is currently popular is a short sighted attempt to recoup investment cost on a failed prototype of a covid case heat map. It operates at a complete loss, requires more resources to maintain than the companies who are attempting to support it can actually fund long term, and is in feedback loop with itself. It does not have a professional use case, just a professional sale package with a company willing to eat the resource costs.
It does not matter who is using it, because again its developmental roadmaps are actively seeking to remove the distinction between artists/prompters and have more consistent outputs, there is no "high level" professional versions (just more user friendly + interfaced) due to the point of its aggressive free database releases to be mass uptake.
So again unless someone solves the global energy crisis, I cannot see a reason to support gen AI, nor that it will stick around.
jackiewallace Resident
Beatrice Voxel I would like you to explain on what basis you claim that this script is AI-generated or not. So far, it has been nothing but evasive talk.
jackiewallace Resident
lifeon13 Resident You want to put a label on every AI product in general, while many people, out of their own ignorance, will spread the idea that AI products can only be of poor quality. Tao of Linden: "Assume Good Intent and Practice Good Intent".
nulshift Resident
jackiewallace Resident It's a pointless script that no one would create, buy, or sell.
Make something that someone would actually desire and use and ask the question again.
jackiewallace Resident
nulshift Resident Beeep, wrong answer, that wasn’t my question. It’s possible that this issue was too mentally demanding for you, so I apologize. I wish you continued good struggling. :-)
nulshift Resident
jackiewallace Resident Thank you for making a legitimate response to my reply. Good talk.
Edit: Like, my reply is telling you that it's a loaded question.
Wouldn't be any different from making a 1x1 image with a singular red pixel and asking people if they can tell if it was AI generated or not.
The question has no point but to tell people they're wrong when they criticize the question itself.
ANGELHIVE Resident
i don't have anything particularly new to add to this. thank you for making this post, i really wanted to myself but did not have the proper ability to articulate it in a satisfactory way. please god. making it just the same type of option as demos and limited items is acceptable. depending on our fellow users to self moderate is the best bet (since, frankly, it seems like AI is here to stay...) i really, really hope LL does this, it really would be such a massive QOL improvement ;_;
Load More
→