itch.io Community » itch.io » Ideas & Feedback

AI generation disclosure

A topic by FourDivineAbidings created 93 days ago Views: 611 Replies: 12

Viewing posts 1 to 7

I think AI generation disclosure can be improved:

+ Currently any AI code or text output falls into AI generation disclosure. But today using AI for code or text checks is a standard.

+ The problem is: games that use AI art is currently marked the same way as games that use AI for reasons above.

+ I got the feedback that this is misleading. Players want to know (in most cases) if the art is AI generated or not.

Suggestion:

+ Remove code and text from AI generation disclosure or put it into a separate category.

Thanks you.

Like Reply

Afloof.devModerator92 days ago(+4)

Honestly I’m on the fence on this.

At the end of the day, the users want to know if AI is involved in a project or not, especially in the indie scene. It’s hard to make everyone happy. Maybe if there was a separate flag for AI Art and AI code?

Either way, this is just my opinion, I have no say on what the platform plans to do.

Like Reply

redonihunter92 days ago(+1)

An additional ai-content tag, or rather a no-ai-content tag to encompass art/text/sound but not code would be handy. Yes.

There is six AI tags generated by the disclosure. 4 positive for each category, 1 for having any and 1 for hanving none. Only the yes/no for any are in the suggested tag box.

From the discussions about AI, I did not get the impression that the average AI avoider cares about code. And with the usage of game engines, one can not even be sure, if those engines are AI free. It is a state of the art tool for coding to ask an AI for examples, templates and sometimes more.

Like Reply

redonihunter92 days ago (1 edit) (+1)

I like how Steam puts a detailed info box in the description.

Itch does not even put any info on the game page. Currently.

As you have pointed out, you do not know which boxes where checked in the AI disclosure. And there are no nuances. You cannot formally explain to the users what you do and what you do not do with AI. It is yes or no. Oh, a savy user could do some tricks and try to find out in which sub-ai-tags the game is and in which it is not to recreate the disclosure information. But that is overly complicated and quite obscure. The only tag in the drop down box is no-ai and ai-generated. I guess not many people even know about the other four AI tags. And those do not even have a negation tag. ~~If you were to specifically search all games except the games with AI, and excepting from that the games that only use AI for code, you would need to use this:~~ Sigh. It is confusing. You can't do that. You might exclude specifically the graphics, or sounds or text, but not all 3 and leave code alone.

https://itch.io/games?exclude=tg.ai-generated-graphics

What you can do on your game's description, just spell out the AI usage in detail, so any concerned user can make their own decision.

Like Reply

A Fals Fiction90 days ago

I want to know when AI generation makes up any part of the project, including code or text— especially for text, to be honest. My writing has been scraped for training datasets, and I’m still sore about it.

The normalization of this in technology doesn’t make it acceptable to hide its use.

When I read the topic title “AI generation disclosure” I was hoping it was a request to add an automated note or tag on the “yes AI” pages.

Like Reply

AlSoKnown84 days ago (1 edit) (+1)

I actually lean in the opposite direction. Seeing so much discrimination against small developers using AI, I would rather mark my game with “AI” tag even though there is (probably) no AI content currently in game, both as a show of compassion and to avoid any backlash if I do use AI in the future. The reason I say “probably” is that since practically every modern graphics, sound and code editor uses AI heavily, by applying Photoshop filter or googling some API call or rare English phrase I have possibly “contaminated” my game.

So in practical terms, I would like to see additional “Some AI may be used somewhere” tag, for neutrally-minded developers and users.

Like Reply

redonihunter83 days ago

Translators are not AI usage. It is a different system. They should have used another term to describe the usage of llm generative type things, instead of AI. Artificial Intelligence has several established meanings and now "AI" confuses people. What is meant by it?

Anything that uses a "prompt" to generate a thing is "AI" in context.

Translating something is not a prompt to generate something. You can use an AI prompt to do so, but that's like cutting bread by baking a new slice of bread.

In apps like photoshop, the "prompt" might not be a text prompt. But the concept applies. You tell the system to generate something and the black box doing so uses training data to simulate and predict some creative outcome. The outcome might be nonsensical, but will look like the expected outcome from afar.

I would like to see additional “Some AI may be used somewhere” tag, for neutrally-minded developers and users.

That would not be for the neutral minded. It would be for the "vegan" minded.

There is claims that maybe a quarter of new code in major software is "AI" generated. So the very browser people play a game with would be contaminated. And one can expect that game engines will also have a function here, a template there being done with help of AI. Like your example with googling calls. The examples one rehashes might have been AI written.

Rehashing code is standard, so what AI does, is not so uncommon for coders, as it is for visual artists. You just do not rehash other people's art without some backlash. There is "tracing". Meanwhile, coders reuse whole libraries, as that's the point of libraries. Artists do not do that. They do not copy paste the picture of a table, the picture of a glass bowl and pictures of different fruit to "paint" something like that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still_life

Like Reply

AlSoKnown83 days ago

That would not be for the neutral minded. It would be for the “vegan” minded.

I would compare that to the sign like “We eat meat here” on the door of restaurant to drive off zealous vegans.

Artists do not do that. They do not copy paste the picture of a table, the picture of a glass bowl and pictures of different fruit

They totally do, here is first result of googling “still life collage”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APMyrjKVlIc

Like Reply

redonihunter83 days ago

I guess those vegans would search out restaurants with a vegan sticker. Just what "no-ai" tag does. Not having a sticker at all or any of the AI stickers would do. But that's what I meant. It is not for the neutral minded. If you take the effort to proclaim to eat meat, you are not making the statement for the neutral or indifferent people.

(Actual vegans go to normal restaurants and complain about lack of vegan options, but let's not discuss this here ;-)

I had a mind about making the exception of collages, but I write too much as it is and a collage will be recognised as a collage. The analogy works better with the tracing.

Like Reply

AlSoKnown83 days ago

The analogy works better with the tracing.

Of course I was joking, I understand what you were trying to say. Nevertheless, both analogies actually hold. Humans learn to draw by looking at existing drawings/objects and trying to repeat them in whole or in part, there is just no other way.

The main difference is that AI is much more efficient at both learning and drawing. This story is quite similar to many previous waves of progress, such as industrial revolution. Of course, there is inevitable fallout when manual work is replaced by technology, and those affected deserve sympathy, just like Luddites did 200 years ago.

Nevertheless, even Luddites did not go as far as to attack customers of the factories they destroyed, so I think discrimination against AI users is entirely unjustified regardless of position on the AI as a concept.

Like Reply

A Fals Fiction83 days ago (3 edits) (+1)

Customers are customers.

In your Luddite comparison, generative AI users in professional jobs are factory workers, forced to use the technology to keep an income. Amateur developers who choose to use related tech while trying to hide its problems are like the huckters of the time…? Anyhow, AI developers are the factory builders who aren’t much different than the line workers other than receiving higher pay for being less likely as a demographic to be children, women, and marginalized immigrants. Evil companies are evil companies.

Back when the massively polluting and employee-endangering line factories went up, some customers did care about which parts were made in those factories, for quality and moral reasons.

In today’s world with the massively polluting and employee-endangering generative AI industry, customers want to know which parts were made in these programs, for quality and moral reasons.

In both situations, fans of the new technology like the labels, too.

If honest disclosure makes the project look bad to everyone, including the people who don’t care how it was made, then the project is that bad. A clear disclosure would only scare away those of us who will get angry at the promoter (responsible for the project page) if we later feel tricked.

(edited b/c I was raised up with post previews— I miss those— and I don’t have an automated spellchecker here)

Like Reply

AlSoKnown83 days ago (2 edits) (+1)

AI developers are the factory builders who aren’t much different than the line workers other than receiving higher pay for being less likely as a demographic to be children, women, and marginalized immigrants.

This sentence is a bit hard to parse, so maybe I misunderstood, but I am pretty sure that “AI developers are paid more for not being children” is true only in very convoluted sense that (most) children not good in AI development. I suspect the proportion of immigrants working in AI development in countries with comparatively weak CS education (such as US) is actually quite high, although I do not have the numbers.

customers want to know which parts were made in these programs, for quality and moral reasons.

I disagree with forced labeling of any product for “moral reasons”. This is a huge can of worms and very prone to abuse.

Now, quality reasons are different matter. It is certainly true that many games containing some AI content are junk. However, same is true for games without AI content. Usage of AI is maybe statistically noticeable signal of quality, but I doubt it, especially due to the fact that many developers may not even realize they used some piece of AI-assisted technology somewhere.

Voluntary labeling of products is of course fine. Like “proudly made using only X”. As I random example, my game is coded from scratch with no game engine, and I would like to label it as such, but of course that does not mean in any way that I am somehow against game engines.

If honest disclosure makes the project look bad to everyone, including the people who don’t care how it was made, then the project is that bad.

I disagree with the usage of word “everyone” here. First, people who don’t care will, by the very definition, not care, so it will not look bad for them. Second, “everyone” is still very suspicious, assuming unanimous bias across all the potential users.

We can re-state this statement more correctly as “If honest disclosure makes the project look bad to some people who care, then the project is that bad.”. And I do not see how we can reasonably support such a statement.

Sorry if paragraph above sounds like sophistry, but that was extremely general statement, so I am forced to respond in extremely general way.

Like Reply

Lionbarrel65 days ago

I gotta say I strongly disagree with this when someone doesn't want anything to do with AI generated content they mean all of it. As in late, people don't understand the differences between like a grammar checker on words compared to something being generated...

Who doesn't code a lot herself I wouldn't even be able to see and notice if code was generated but somebody who does code would be able to see that, and I'm really doubtful something like the Godot or these open source engines that are being collaborated on by multiple people somebody wouldn't have spotted it. What about Engines have been around forever, and it will be very doubtful that the curator of said older engine was to start implementing AI code...

People want to be supporting other people, especially at this time when money and jobs are harder to get, nobody is going to hand money over knowingly understanding that the person who's receiving it had no participation or very little participation in said product.

Also with the aiding of AI generation content it seems like we're being flooded with said product and people who are amazingly able to just forget to put the label of generated content and simultaneously having the strongest memory to charge people... Just feels like another way to confuse people and to blur the definition just enough where you're not technically lying.

Like Reply