The way Itch implements AI disclosure is not quite satisfactorial. I think the textual disclosure as seen on Steam to be better. Also, the way these "tags" are shown, or rather not shown makes it feel like a hack. Also, some devs select those tags manually, adding to confusion of players and other devs. Not many people read this thread and understand how this really works. Maybe 5000 users read this thread. Probably less.

Itch currently has a yes or no and that might be ok for assets, but not for games. Customers look for different qualities in games and assets. Being AI free can be a vital quality for assets, so yes/no makes sense.

But players will have other standards for games. If they care for AI, it will be most likey be for the "content". To my understanding of language, content is what is shown, and not the method how it is shown. So, code is not content. It might be in some cases, but not generally. Using state of the art coding technologies and being lumped togher with ai slop creators is not really good for morale of developers. Not answering the AI disclosure might be prudent, but it is not elegant.

If the goal is to unobtrusively give users the option to filter against or for ai, maybe remove the obsolete filter "type" and use the space to have the ai content filter visible, instead of only showing it, when one of the filters is selected.

A few thoughts about how things are currently.

The "ai-assisted" filter changes the browse section on the left side. The same way that clicking "released" does. A previously hidden filter option appears, where you can change released, in development and so on. For ai you can switch between the positive filters of code, text, audio, graphics and assisted - and the no-ai tag is linked.

While the release status filters are mutual exclusive, the ai filters are not. But the filter options switch between them.

It is unclear what "assisted" would mean. I know only because I read this topic and tried what it does. It is mapped to the ai-generated tag, so it means having at least one of the other ai filters. But do casual users understand what "ai assisted" means in the context of the filter or of the info box? Maybe I have a different perspective, since English is not my native language. But I would say, no, it is very unclear. At closest it would mean basically the same as the ai-code filter. Assisted game making. But that's not what it means. It means that one or more of the other options is true. Assets, code, any combination. That's not what assistance is.

It should read something to the effect of "any of the ai categories". And in the more information box, it is redundant and ads to confusion. "So the game does not only use ai images, it also was made by assistance of ai..."

The ai filter on the left side also contains the no-ai tag, but that does not map to a filter, just the virtual tag that is generated by the ai disclosure question.

The ai filter options on the left side do not appear, when using the no-ai tag, which matters little. But it also does not appear when using the ai-generated virtual tag.

About 1.1. million games did not fill out the ai disclosure question. Will casual users understand that an empty section on the info box means just that? Is that maybe even the intended behaviour, or what should be intended. Steam has no ai filter, as they have no tag or feature for it. But as far as I know they do have mandatory disclosure questions that are more elaborate than yes/no, and the answers to that are listed in game descriptions to games that do contain ai generated assets, and possible code.

To my interpretation of quality guidelines, it was always meant for developers to mention ai usage for assets on games, maybe except for code, even before the ai disclosure question.

Since I did read this thread I do know what it means if I see a no-ai tag in a game's tag list. But tags that are not tags but still in the tag list are confusing. And doubly confusing, since some developers do use them as regular tags. Just like some use Unity as a tag.

The no-ai and the ai-generated tag appear in the suggested tag drop down box and appear when typing ai. But neither will activate the ai filter on the left side of browse.

AI Assistance is really unclear as a name for a filter section, if you would show it regularly, like platform and the likes. Assistance? Like an input method? Who assists whom, with what? It's generative ai usage. Or something like that. ai generated content. Ai content. If you say "assistance" I am gonna think "installation wizard"

And the type filter is really outdated and could be removed to gain space for a permantent new filter, if need be. Html5 is included in web under platform. And there are games that have both on the same page, but the combination of html5 and downloadable has 0 games.

There is a fundamental question about what people expect from a no-ai filter/tag and what Itch can deliver. The tag can currently only show games that actually have answered the ai disclosure. Only about 40k games have answered with a yes. So using the no-ai tag will not simply exclude those 40k games, but it will exclude 1.14 million games. The 40k games that definitly have ai, and the 1.1 million games that have not answered. This might be what some hardcore ai avoiders would want. But will it be what the average user expects.

The solution would be to have two different "no-ai" filters. One that only shows games that have answered with a no to the question and one that only excludes games that have answered with a yes.

I’ve been enjoying the new field on project pages the past few days. I open the details box on nearly every page I visit— would be nice if we could select to have that open by default, by the way— and the link on no-ai projects is appreciated. That link is reassuring, because it means more to me than the AI-generated links do.

Without the no-ai link, old pages where the box wasn’t selected would be indistinguishable from projects where the No button was selected. We’d have to guess by the date of the last update. I don’t know or remember when the box was added for developers. Then there also wouldn’t be an easy link to see more no-ai projects.

It would feel like AI-using projects would be promoted— favored by itch.io— when developer- or team-made-only projects aren’t.

The AI stuff is supposed to be noted in the project descriptions, anyway. It often isn’t. When it’s there, the link under details is redundant to me. When there’s no mention in the description, I’m looking for the no-ai tag in details.

For me, as a game maker, it is very important to see at a glance if a game asset is AI-free.

If the "No AI" marker (less of a warning and more a mark of quality) would be removed, I couldn't be certain if a product is AI-free or if the author just hasn't answered the AI disclosure question (esp. on older assets where the disclosure is not yet mandatory).

Since I refuse to use assets in my games unless I have confirmation that they are AI-free, removing this information would mean I couldn't buy assets on itch.io with the same confidence as I do now.

When browsing games, where disclosure is optional, positive confirmation that a game is AI-free is also important so I know that a game is worth my time.

As it is right now, the information does exactly what it is supposed to do.

Thank you for answer

Oh I agree with your comment, you know how people are now about AI? Well I was the same about the easy mode game editing systems such as Unity / Unreal and so on. That said, that did not ruin the app stores, greed and stupidity ruined the app stores. When the only way to compete was to make your game free and then attempt to screw money out of people with in app purchases and ads. The whole thing has been a race to the bottom benefiting only those with large amounts of cash that can push the games into visibility. Those are the ones that the likes of Apple and Google will bend over backwards to help. AI is just an additional layer of mess on top of an already massively broken system. That there is where I give up, I no longer care about how a game is made, my craft has been demolished and made easier and easier for millions of laymen already, so what's wrong with a few million more?
The issue with AI is that it has been unfairly demonised, we di not demonise any of the previous tools that allowed the app stores to be filled with junk. Don't get me wrong, it will destroy my trade but the powers that be want it so they WILL have it. It will demolish my sector and many associated sectors. But there is a short time window right now (and maybe for next 5 years) where you can utilise AI to make something of your ideas. Why would I with insane amounts of knowledge waste my time working at my typing speed when I can get an AI to analyse my code base, adopt my style and do what I would have done but in 1/10th the time? (very heavily directed by myself of course). AI is not able to just take a comment such as "recreate me Minecraft" and actually do that, maybe in 5 years but not now. For those of using AI correctly, its not SLOP, its enhanced our existing skillset. Sure some people will create slop but most of us professional developers will not use it that way.
Working on games for years makes zero difference by the way (if you don't see it as a hobby then stop doing it), you either have to be very lucky and find a nice niche such as Stardew (these are disappearing daily) or you need big publisher backing which means giving a lot of your money to someone else. There is no other way anymore. Those days of Flappy Bird are gone and never to return.
I will add that I am coming at this more from a professional development point of view where this is my livelihood, if a pro dev does not use AI now he / she will fall to the bottom and lose jobs quicker than the rest as AI pushes people out. AI allows me to do the job of 5 coders, why would someone hire someone who would not use that efficiency boost? I'm hoping governments restrict AI use but they won't, too much money to be made and at the end of the day they care far more for money than they do people.

If you would create images by a thing that is not a so called generative ai system, those images are not gen ai made. 

If the thing contains ai code, is not relevant for this question. Neither is it asked, if the compiler used to create the executeable did contain any ai code. Or if the operating system used to develop the game did contain any ai code.

You were also not asked, if you developed the idea of the game by talking to an ai system and getting inspiration. Or if you used a gen ai system to develop play test scenarios. 

Some viewpoints about ai remind me of vegans. Like a vegan going to a restaurant and ordering vegan food. But also requireing the waiter and cook to be vegans, the menu not be bound in leather and the candle on the table not be bees wax.

so it would make sense to call it AI graphics

Reverse the question and see if you would still feel so. Would a player seeking games with gen ai graphics aprove of the gen ai graphics tag?

If you promise ducks in a game, there better be some quacking and walking like a duck in the game.

Might I suggest the Atari Title ET as an early slop game? (The one often cited as "the game that killed video games in America [until Mario came along]?") Also, what business did Quaker Oats have getting into games?