How much % of AI counts as AI? If an artist traces over an AI image (but every line is ultimately done by hand) does it count as AI? If people report it and the artist says “Yeah it’s traced from AI” do you require them to use the AI tag? I understand this is a contentious topic but I’d like to know your stance on it.
Viewing post in Generative AI Disclosure tagging
It's kinda funny how a few month ago every product tried to brazenly promote the fact that they are using some kind of "AI feature". And now here we are and the ai-tag seems to be considered a dirty mark of shame that is to be avoided :D
I personally prefer it, if every minuscule usage of ai would be tagged because I do not want to support this tech and would like to actively avoid it. I see your dilemma with the generated code-snippets and it would be fair for most people to put that in a different mental category. However, it still should not hurt to be transparent and inform the users. The front-page should still be agnostic so that quality can rise to the top, no matter the tags. Quality wise, I am sure, that there are lots of hand crafted projects that don't look good or hand-typed code that doesn't work well. This is not what it's about.
I see the percentage question in this way: If an artist takes years to create a beautiful oil painting and then uses slave-labour to frame it, someone who doesn't want to support slave-labour should not be lied to, to get him to buy it.
If your oil painter worked a year to "create" the painting and then claims he created it himself, does this also mean, he made the colors himself and that he has woven the canvas himself? That none of his pupils helped color in the boring background?
The canvas is a bit overdone, but painters in the olden times did often mix their paints themselves. Some probably even made their own brushes.
In game creation there are engines used most of the time. How can a game developer even claim to have made a game, when 99% of the code is in the engine? And yes, there are devs that try to hand craft their own game engine. While there is no such reverse tag, you can imagine one: no-engine. There are engine meta tags.
People against slave labour gen ai might be surprised what can be considered such. I would not surprised if all or most game engines have some code in it that was created with the help of ai. And with the vegan mindset to avoid all things with even traces of animal ai, now that would be interesting.
I agree with the percentage being not applicable. See my example with the engine code. But I also think that use of ai code should not be put together with use of ai content, when classifying "ai". Creation of code is so much different from creating art. In other words: if you successfully can write a prompt for an ai to make the code do what you want, than this form of ai gen is not really different from translation natural language into machine language.
Strongly agree that AI code and content are not the same. 2+2 will always be 4 no matter who wrote it. Dithering shader does it work the same no matter if it's generated or hand-written. If I don't want to figure our how to write A* or sorting algorithms and ask AI, the results are the same, unlike art/music.
I belive this summary above from a user might desribe it very well, till a better definition comes along.
The tag looks like it's required for "project contains content produced by generative AI tools," not "generative AI tools were used in the production of this project."
So if you trace ai references, the content is not ai made. Even though other artists might give you the same stinky eye they would give you for tracing their art.
If you created the content with a prompt and hand edit it afterwards, it fits the definition in the initial post and that metainfo box.
If you wrote a story and spell and grammer check it with ai, you still wrote it. If you prompt a llm to give you a story and you fix some plotholes, it also fits the definition of gen ai in the initial post.
And the stance I read between and in the lines is: it's just a tag and only important for assets. And if you have to ask if your prompt made asset is gen ai, then it is.
As for percentages, imagine you take an image from an IP. Like a famous cartoon rodent. Then you modify the picture. How much do you have to modify it, for the new image to no longer be a legal problem if you would publish it as your own creation? If there is a clear answer to that, I assume it could apply to gen aI as well.