Tag AI content

I have a small suggestion regarding the new AI disclosure rule for plugins and other content.
Instead of relying only on authors mentioning AI somewhere in the resource description, maybe the Hub could add a dedicated AI-Assisted or AI Content tag/checkbox when publishing a resource. If the author selects it, the resource could automatically display a visible label such as AI-Assisted next to the resource title or somewhere near the other resource information.
This would make the rule much clearer for both creators and users. Authors wouldn’t have to think about where or how to write the disclosure, and users could immediately see that AI was significantly involved in creating the code. It could also be useful beyond plugins in the future if the same kind of disclosure is needed for other types of content.
Personally, I think a standardized label would be cleaner and more transparent than everyone writing their own version of this was made with AI in the description.

If this is implemented, I would suggest making it a required choice, just like the "I have read and understand the TOS" kind of check box. You would have to choose yes or no to the AI question. Of course, for me, it would be no with three exclamation points!!!

We discussed the implementation of such a policy before publishing the new rules, and ultimately decided against a permanent label or checkbox.

There is no policy against using AI assistance in the creation of your content, other than the specific items listed in our recent policy update. It is up to creators to accurately describe their skills and their content when uploading their resources, including the amount of AI assistance they have used.

I think most users that use AI say that they used AI to build their plugins already in their descriptions, but here's something I would like to know since copyright is involved. Shouldn't AI made plugins fall under FC license then? Depending on the contribution of the code by the creator the license changes.

murn said:

I think most users that use AI say that they used AI to build their plugins already in their descriptions, but here's something I would like to know since copyright is involved. Shouldn't AI made plugins fall under FC license then? Depending on the contribution of the code by the creator the license changes.

Click to expand...

There was a policy update regarding this just recently. It covered copyright issues.

I’m not talking about copyright or content quality right now. I also don’t want this to come across the wrong way or sound rude, but here’s how I see it. At the moment the wording feels less like a rule and more like a guideline or recommendation. I guess strict rules can easily turn into a whole new headache, especially when the boundaries are still pretty unclear right now.

As the site administration, you could phrase the rule very softly for example make the tag completely voluntary and leave the decision to the creator. At the same time, you could make it clear that the administration won’t get involved in arguments over whether something was vibe-coded, generated, how much AI was used, or who exactly authored every part of the code. You could simply stay out of those disputes while still reserving the right to remove content if the quality is exceptionally poor. The part about creators describing their skills also feels a little strange to me. turning the hub into linkedIn now?

I have one very strong skill myself I’m extremely good at doing absolutely nothing. Does that mean I should put that in my description? I’m joking, of course. I’m just trying to point out that some parts of the wording feel a bit odd. To me a voluntary at tag seems like something everyone could benefit from. The administration gives users an easy way to see that AI was involved in creating the content, and for creators like me it removes a lot of unnecessary headache. At the same time if the rule clearly says that using the tag is voluntary the administration doesn’t have to take responsibility for policing every case or proving whether something was generated or vibe-coded.
I don’t have any other arguments to add, I can only guess why you chose to word the new rules so broadly

murn said:

Shouldn't AI made plugins fall under FC license then? Depending on the contribution of the code by the creator the license changes.

Click to expand...

Don't go down that rabbit hole, you're gonna have the AI bros explaining how hard they prompted to do something and how this requires the licence they want.

Beyond the sarcasm, some people use coding agents to support a really solid knowledge and coding/testing/validation process, a couple of persons on the hub work like that. These coders obviously know what they're doing and are only just using tools to compensate a potential lack of skill/knowledge.

For instance, if I take my example: I'm somewhat ok with basic maths and vectors, pretty ok with nodal shader creation... but really advanced maths or physics, manual HLSL, I'm really bad at it. So I could use an agent to do that for me on top of the rest of my coding skills. ( notice the "could"... I never use agents, and will most probably never do )

Now, licensing and IP. There's a reason why there are cases and lawsuits currently happening. We are currently in a situation where the Trump admin backs OpenAI with the fair-use argument on the biggest theft humanity has ever seen. So communities like us, trying to enforce a "this is not original code, most certainly stolen somewhere so you can't choose this or that license" is a fight you're not gonna win, or a stance you can't really keep without going crazy.

Yes you are right, it's a fact that diffusion is a statistical result based on a massive amount of protected content amongst others ( others being public, CC0, fair use and whatnot... )... this has been proven numerous times and recently admitted by OpenAI and Microsoft. Can we do something about it and enforce licencing rules up until there's a clear regulation on the subject? No, definitely not.