Authors now choose between AI-Generated Content (when AI produced most of the code, voices, textures, or other core assets), AI Media (for promotional art, thumbnails, or page text created with AI), or AI-Assisted (human-led work that used AI in a supporting role such as texture upscaling or audio cleanup).
This is the biggest win. It’s not just a “yes or now” toggle, you have 3 tags/disclosure options and a separate text field to describe in detail what you did and what the AI generated. I can’t express how much I love that. The moment I got the rollout notification I immediately went into the settings of my mods and updated the disclosures. Hopefully this will calm people down and stop treating every mod that uses AI only to some extent like AI slop made by someone who has never managed to understand a single line of code.
If any non-mod developers wonder how these options look in the mod settings, here’s an example from one of my mods:
As much as I hate generative AI, at the very least, having to disclose is probably the better solution than an outright ban. At least with disclosure, you can make the decision to not download something someone tried their hardest to basically go full CEO on and claim all the credit for despite not actually doing any work on it.
I mean it’s a step in the right direction.
The right approach, disclosure it’s enough.
Banning Ai would only make it illegal and people would just use Ai withotu disclosing it. Plus it is a nightmare of reporting and checking if that is correct or not. That’s why banning Ai, as many requests it, wouldn’t be healthy I think. I think this is the correct approach, like Valve is doing with disclosure for using Ai on Steam games. If its allowed, then there is no good reason to not disclose it, as any creator would risk of getting the project banned, or worse, the developer itself could get banned from the platform for violation of the terms of use agreement.
That’s a very good point. When you ban something, all you’re doing is making sure that only bad actors have access to the thing. Just look at drug prohibition if you want a good example of how banning doesn’t work. Weed is now legal in over half of the United States, and usage has never been lower. I used to smell it all the time when it was illegal, now I hardly see/smell it at all.
That’s a bit offtopic, but as you mentioned it, here my thoughts from my side: Here in Germany weed is kind of illegal, but not really anymore. You are allowed to have a very small package with you, but not much more. I think this is to combat mass market and organizations. On the other hand, you can get more as a drug from the doctor, if you really need it to fight some illness. I personally don’t have experience, but don’t mind what others do as long as it does not bother me physically. My biggest issue I have is, that teenagers have easy access to it.
You made a good argument for full legalization. Teenagers having access isn’t an issue here, because every dispensary requires ID and they log every sale into a government database, pretty much making it impossible to buy weed if you’re under 21. The black market has all but completely disappeared too because they can’t compete on price.
Eh lots of amateur devs on there and there is some genuinely good mods with ai disclosure. I would be sad if they were gone. For this specific case
Honestly I’ll probably get downvoted for this but I think AI in mods can be justifiable. Like say you were modding an old game and used AI to upscale the textures of some stuff. People already use AI upscaling as like a setting in the game itself sometimes. I’m not in favor of like “Claude make a mod that does X for Elden Ring” sorta stuff, but if it can help modders, who already release all their hard work for free anyway, not have to do tedious things? I’m all for that. And a label makes it so people can choose if they want to use AI mods or not. So I think it’s a good way to handle it. Anyone that uses AI and doesn’t label it should be banned immediately tho.
The problem is that AI models are trained on material ripped off of creators, without any contribution back, not even an acknowledgement. It’s unethical to use it in the first place.
Well I’d say thank you to all the creators, but there’s no way this puppy is getting back in the box. The No AI! hardlining is only going to dwindle out over time, and that’s going to be a lot faster than you think
Indie dev here and day job is an AI consultant, engineer and academic. Truth be told genai just isnt that good. It averages to the mean so it will only really be useful for some things. The issue isnt no AI or all AI but about disclosing how much and when. Using llms to support (but not replace) programming borrows from stack overflow so is less a copyright issue. But fully replacing your code or artists with gen ai will make for shit games.
I haven’t talked to anybody who’s replacing IT, engineers, or developers, but let’s be real programmers are done. Even sysadmins will outlive them.
Speaking as a programmer who is actively using them: Hah.
This is like those ‘Nocode platforms will replace programmers’ spiel and all the ones before it. You still need some specialised knowledge, guess what those jobs will be?
So more of a developer then?
Said by someone who, presumably, has never tried to program something technical because LLMs are terrible at it.
I’m using AI quite a bit to help me write code, for work, but I need to review its output so carefully. While cheerfully reporting that it was operating on a test instance, and that no destructive operations would touch live servers, it never toggled to use the test server variables at all. Even worse, it had hard coded using the live server, but only for the delete operations. That would have been a disaster if I was slop coding it, instead of using it as an AI assistant, and very carefully reviewing every line it wrote.
Hard disagree. LLMs I simply next word predictors that’s all they really do. It’s the human driving them that makes the decisions.
LLMs don’t “build” they simply do what they’re told. So they’re only as good as the engineer using them.
I think you’re highly overrating them.
Not sure how you got that from my comment… I said that it’s completely unreliable and can’t be trusted to do even basic tasks, like not deleting the live server (in my example).
I’m guessing I didn’t explain that well in my advice post? But it sounds like I mostly agree with you.
(I think saying they “do what they’re told” is a bit too strong of a statement, but I think I get what you’re saying.)
Most fail to grasp LLMs were trained on over confident stackoverflow posts and terribly lazy tutorials, and worst of all we turned off human to human feedback loops to give it more training.
Its why comp sci circles of mine joke/worry we cant get past python 3.12 because LLMs have no human-created training data for new versions now that we stopped using traditional human to human platforms for that.
Lol. No. I am a life long programmer and founded a successful, profitable AI company, and train governments and industry around the world (my name is here, you can find me to verify) and I think this is hogwash.
Programming depends on creative solutions to new problems while LLMs are trained on an increasingly diminishing source material. They cant move past python 3.12 is the joke/criticism in computer science circles.
Evidence shows llms make engineers SLOWER and any serious engineer who gave them a full try understands why. They guess poorly and confidently, erase logic, have poor architecture.
https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/
https://fortune.com/2026/03/10/ai-productivity-workers-workday-efficiency/
LLMs are pattern machines not sources of truth or intelligence.
I think you’re really overestimating these LLMs.
All it is, is a next word predictor. It’s not intelligent and it doesn’t make decisions. It’s only as good as the engine you’re driving it.
Nah, you overestimate these tools.
Not sure you read my post as I was showcasing the limitations of these tech.
