Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
A.I. GENERATION AND RMN
Posts
Liberty
View playlists
Close
Avee
5794
We and, from what I've seen so far, the majority of internet users all agree that AI-generated content shouldn't be encouraged.
I support the staff's decision on this matter. To know that RMN will not wait any longer to forbid such content is a giant green flag in my eyes.
I support the staff's decision on this matter. To know that RMN will not wait any longer to forbid such content is a giant green flag in my eyes.
It’s a shame there’s already some pushback against this, but I think it was the right decision at the end of the day. When it comes down to it, I’d rather have the artists who are anti-ai and create their own work on our side and in the community than people relying on ai generated works. Currently the site isn’t flooded with ai content, but it seems like a good preventative decision to ban it early on.
I don't feel as strongly as Sidewinder but I, as another artist's voice, also think this is a well-intentioned but "narrow-minded" decision.
The reason I don't feel as strongly is that just how this rule came to be shaped the way is is now, Im sure it will be inevitably changed or substituted by another one in the future, based on things that are happening _now_.
Like sidewinder mentioned, any artist learning Photoshop today has Adobe Firefly built right in. And just like the Healing tool when it was released (afaik it IS machine learning also, albeit an archaic algorhithm from a decade ago) people will use it to touch up a photo or a messed up texture. Scaling up images on clip studio paint is now powered by AI. The predictive text from the phone I'm typing this right now is AI -- machine learning -- and likewise it has been for a decade.
Sidewinder's example of "an AI generated planet texture trained off of public domain NASA satellite photos" is particularly interesting, and particularly contrasting with the Midjourney visual novels or the ChatGPT amazon e-books.
Personally, I have used google bard to help me find programming flaws (it is glaringly bad at that but sometimes it helps), it's different than writing "a novel in the style of Stephen King" or idk, npc dialogue. (In the style of Stephen King...)
I think this will all become clearer in the years to come. And us artists are absolutely not getting replaced, I think. Not anywhere we weren't, already.
For now, this may very well be a good measure and a good stance taken by RMN, but one that is either rather severe - moreso than Kentona and Liberty might be thinkig -- or actually really fair, but in a way that's kind of subjective
In any case, asking "good faith" from the developers is the kinda thing that's usually subjective yet morally easy to understand.
The reason I don't feel as strongly is that just how this rule came to be shaped the way is is now, Im sure it will be inevitably changed or substituted by another one in the future, based on things that are happening _now_.
Like sidewinder mentioned, any artist learning Photoshop today has Adobe Firefly built right in. And just like the Healing tool when it was released (afaik it IS machine learning also, albeit an archaic algorhithm from a decade ago) people will use it to touch up a photo or a messed up texture. Scaling up images on clip studio paint is now powered by AI. The predictive text from the phone I'm typing this right now is AI -- machine learning -- and likewise it has been for a decade.
Sidewinder's example of "an AI generated planet texture trained off of public domain NASA satellite photos" is particularly interesting, and particularly contrasting with the Midjourney visual novels or the ChatGPT amazon e-books.
Personally, I have used google bard to help me find programming flaws (it is glaringly bad at that but sometimes it helps), it's different than writing "a novel in the style of Stephen King" or idk, npc dialogue. (In the style of Stephen King...)
I think this will all become clearer in the years to come. And us artists are absolutely not getting replaced, I think. Not anywhere we weren't, already.
For now, this may very well be a good measure and a good stance taken by RMN, but one that is either rather severe - moreso than Kentona and Liberty might be thinkig -- or actually really fair, but in a way that's kind of subjective
In any case, asking "good faith" from the developers is the kinda thing that's usually subjective yet morally easy to understand.
The idea of having a grace period for what games that are hosted here that use AI resources is a good one. I don't know how long that grace period should be, though.
Maybe there will be a time when rips will be disallowed for new game submissions. However, as stated earlier, they are kinda part of the site's DNA, and retroactively denying games that used them would cull a lot from the site's library. We even have a thread dedicated for people to seek out the old, and obscure RPG Maker games. I can almost guarantee there are games listed there that have rips. Should we lock the thread, and move it into Archives if rips ever become illegal on this site?
Meanwhile, the use of AI-generated resources is a relatively newer thing (trend?), so there might be only two or three games that were hosted that now have to be denied, or revised to not include them.
*Edit: How would one go about sourcing AI-generated materials? With rips, one can say that a song is from Breath of Fire or that a tileset is from Treasure of Rudra. Would one provide a link to the tool and prompt used? This is a legit question, because I am severelydumb underinformed and inexperienced with this stuff.
Maybe there will be a time when rips will be disallowed for new game submissions. However, as stated earlier, they are kinda part of the site's DNA, and retroactively denying games that used them would cull a lot from the site's library. We even have a thread dedicated for people to seek out the old, and obscure RPG Maker games. I can almost guarantee there are games listed there that have rips. Should we lock the thread, and move it into Archives if rips ever become illegal on this site?
Meanwhile, the use of AI-generated resources is a relatively newer thing (trend?), so there might be only two or three games that were hosted that now have to be denied, or revised to not include them.
*Edit: How would one go about sourcing AI-generated materials? With rips, one can say that a song is from Breath of Fire or that a tileset is from Treasure of Rudra. Would one provide a link to the tool and prompt used? This is a legit question, because I am severely
Yeah, I think the rule is only applying to AI generated assets/writing and not things like AI upscaling, but I think it would be helpful if we could get some clarification on this. It might be a good idea to add a FAQ to the original post? There's two things I'd like answers to, personally:
1) Is the use of programmes such as ChatGPT allowed in instances where they are used for other purposes than writing? For example: Proofreading, generating names, helping develop ideas, etc...
2) Is AI generated content banned from non-game and non-resource parts of the site, such as forum posts?
1) Is the use of programmes such as ChatGPT allowed in instances where they are used for other purposes than writing? For example: Proofreading, generating names, helping develop ideas, etc...
2) Is AI generated content banned from non-game and non-resource parts of the site, such as forum posts?
the day final fantasy fangames are banned (the only thing to ever beat pom gets wifi) is the day i cease experiencing any emotion whatsoever
but objectively rips/fangames are iconic, love letters, and historically are the basis of all art to be honest. like, that's how people become artists. making fanart of sailor moon or captain america or david's cock
while AI, well. Machine learning has been there for decades, but flat out models that can spit out "new" images mimicking other artists's styles? that's new. And that's not a good new.
So I was thinking, maybe the rule would be fairer if it were something like "using ai generated assets directly is strictly forbidden, even if edited or altered" -- a bit narrower.
Meaning, for the case of text:
"Bard, write John's dialogue boxes when you first meet him"
*pastes text into game" = forbidden
"Bard, write John's dialogue boxes when you first meet him"
*uses text as reference, writes text into game" = forbidden?
"Bard, give me some cool game ideas that I can finish in a weekend"
*takes one of the game ideas as a base, makes a game in a month bc it was harder than expected orz* = ok
Or in the case of images:
"Midjourney: A screenshot of a visual scene of a purple haired priestess gasping in horror"
*uses image as a game still* = forbidden
*redraws image and uses as a game still" = allowed? IDK... I mean how could you even tell.. Most artists will have a hell of an easier time just using movie stills for reference, though, since they have much better composition than AI generated blobbery
Aaaaaaa maybe it's easier to just ban and say "act in good faith" yeah ´A`
EDIT: Frogge made some good questions. And on that topic, I like asking Bard stuff like
*describes my characters* what zodiac signs fit them, and why?
What do you think is their favourite fruit?
If they were a type of car, what would it be (I LEGITIMATELY ASK THESE THINGS SOMETIMES OK.......... not with the intention of that actually being their zodiac or favourite fruit, but moreso exploring archetypes and what the text algorhithm expects me to write)
but objectively rips/fangames are iconic, love letters, and historically are the basis of all art to be honest. like, that's how people become artists. making fanart of sailor moon or captain america or david's cock
while AI, well. Machine learning has been there for decades, but flat out models that can spit out "new" images mimicking other artists's styles? that's new. And that's not a good new.
So I was thinking, maybe the rule would be fairer if it were something like "using ai generated assets directly is strictly forbidden, even if edited or altered" -- a bit narrower.
Meaning, for the case of text:
"Bard, write John's dialogue boxes when you first meet him"
*pastes text into game" = forbidden
"Bard, write John's dialogue boxes when you first meet him"
*uses text as reference, writes text into game" = forbidden?
"Bard, give me some cool game ideas that I can finish in a weekend"
*takes one of the game ideas as a base, makes a game in a month bc it was harder than expected orz* = ok
Or in the case of images:
"Midjourney: A screenshot of a visual scene of a purple haired priestess gasping in horror"
*uses image as a game still* = forbidden
*redraws image and uses as a game still" = allowed? IDK... I mean how could you even tell.. Most artists will have a hell of an easier time just using movie stills for reference, though, since they have much better composition than AI generated blobbery
Aaaaaaa maybe it's easier to just ban and say "act in good faith" yeah ´A`
EDIT: Frogge made some good questions. And on that topic, I like asking Bard stuff like
*describes my characters* what zodiac signs fit them, and why?
What do you think is their favourite fruit?
If they were a type of car, what would it be (I LEGITIMATELY ASK THESE THINGS SOMETIMES OK.......... not with the intention of that actually being their zodiac or favourite fruit, but moreso exploring archetypes and what the text algorhithm expects me to write)
Marrend
Maybe there will be a time when rips will be disallowed for new game submissions. However, as stated earlier, they are kinda part of the site's DNA, and retroactively denying games that used them would cull a lot from the site's library. We even have a thread dedicated for people to seek out the old, and obscure RPG Maker games. I can almost guarantee there are games listed there that have rips. Should we lock the thread, and move it into Archives if rips ever become illegal on this site?
This is off topic, and I guess makes me a bit of a hypocrite due to circumstance, but I think it would be pretty much impossible to impose the rule in the same way if it ever came to be. The "problem" is too far gone and too pervasive to be fixed by simple black and white means like that. Just an artifact of time.
Besides, like I mentioned already, the community is pretty well moving away from that anyways as time goes on, so it's something that will eventually be either socially unaccepted or just a part of the history of RM culture.
For the idea of AI being built into certain tools, I think the "good faith" argument does come into play, but it's also a situation where responsibility and impact is more removed in certain cases. It's like... Many people wouldn't kill an animal themselves, but they'll still eat meat, and those aren't necessarily contradictory things.
AI being used to create entire assets, code, or writing is a more blatant sort of... replacement? It's more "morally repugnant" to people because it's very obvious and direct. Nobody thinks the same of using something like a re-scaling tool or a program that automatically checks code, because the overall input is still human, if that makes sense? Its sort of like the effective difference between a machine totally replacing a human job versus just making it easier and more efficient. That distinction is still obvious nowadays. Perhaps in the future it won't be, I dunno.
author=JosephSeraph
In any case, asking "good faith" from the developers is the kinda thing that's usually subjective yet morally easy to understand.
I think it's whether the AI is intended to be used as a tool or as a solution is what separates the two ideals. And it's unfortunate that the latter is what seems to be the overwhelming majority of recent AI use that gets put into the forefront.
The healing tool in photoshop is one tool in a set. Generating entire assets without lifting a finger is AI usage as a solution. One is meant to assist the creative process, the other is meant to circumvent it entirely.
I'm supportive of the staff's decision to ban AI-as-a-solution. Though I do think it needs to be a malleable policy that can adapt to how quickly the AI landscape is changing. Because we don't know where it's going to be even just a few months from now.
Darken
3952
author=Sidewinderauthor=LibertyThis becomes an issue when you can create new rules, that are then also retroactively applied.
We've always retroactively denied things that didn't fit the rules. Games that we learned broke rules, for example - Hawkman is one that jumps to mind right away - or had stolen assets. This isn't new.
If a gamepage is accepted, but then is later found to contain really edgy dialogue that violates site hatespeech rules, that's understandable.
If a gamepage is accepted and the game conforms to RMN's rules at the time it was uploaded, but then a later rule makes it illegal, that's kind of another issue entirely.
If you're going to apply ex post facto principles to everything you might as well apply free speech to a private forum or something. If a late hatespeech rule added in like 2015 retroactively got rid of homophobic or whatever submissions pre-2015, then idk I can get behind that. Not so much that I agree with retroactive illegality but that the negative consequences of a submission getting rejected just isn't that dire compared to the negative harm a submission could cause. In the case of ai content submitted to a hobbyist site, both consequences being incomparable to a humans rights violation (though we could argue ai being one but, not gonna engage w/ that)
What makes you think itch.io would align with your principles? Your reaction is kind of weird, does this actually matter? I don't mean this rhetorically, just kind of surprised.
Lascivaware
1247
I'll never use AI to generate resources because I want the creators to see what I did with what they made. I'm a fan of their work, and for example, nothing would make me happier than to know they played my game and noticed I used one of their tilesets as the currency.
Irog
4858
That's the spirit! I totally agree with you Lascivaware !
What about AI-generated entity behavior ? Like enemy AI ? (most of my games have it, including this one)
What about AI-generated entity behavior ? Like enemy AI ? (most of my games have it, including this one)
Just to answer the questions posed (I will add them to the OP)
1) Is the use of programmes such as ChatGPT allowed in instances where they are used for other purposes than writing? For example: Proofreading, generating names, helping develop ideas, etc...
I don't know that there's a way to tell, exactly, if someone has used a program for things like proofreading or name generation, but when speaking of AI generation, it's more about the implementation of such in the game itself (or more like, using it to create your game and/or assets for you), not as tools to help refine your own creations. If you really want to nitpick Ai gen, you could say the guassian blur in photoshop is technically AI-gen but that's not what we're talking about.
We are speaking of that which creates for you, from 'scratch', your game/resource/script/etc. Sgt M put it best, I think:
"I think it's whether the AI is intended to be used as a tool or as a solution is what separates the two ideals... Generating entire assets without lifting a finger is AI usage as a solution. One is meant to assist the creative process, the other is meant to circumvent it entirely. "
2) Is AI generated content banned from non-game and non-resource parts of the site, such as forum posts?
Forum posts should be fine as long as it's not the case of "Here's stuff I 'created' that you can use to make games with". I think if you want to show off things like Ai-gen memes or welp-worthy stuff, that should be fine. If, though, you want to show off something like ai-art that you generated and then slapped your name on, no. It probably depends a lot on the content you want to show off though. Say you were inspired by a piece of AI-gen art to make your own and want to show what you made then that'd probably be fine.
All that to say:
- Is it dumb fun worthy of welpdom? Okay, post it in welp.
- Is it art inspired by AI-generation but fully of your own make? That's fine.
- Is it actual AI-generated art/etc that you're claiming as yours? No.
- Is it an edit of AI-generated art/etc that you're claiming? No.
- Is it a resource that you're intent on sharing for others to use that was created by AI in any way bar inspiration? No.
- Is it used to enhance/change your creation by using other peoples' creations as a basis of amalgamation? Then, no.
- Is it used to enhance/change your creation as a tool, not using other unknown peoples' creations? Yes. (Think Gaussian blur or the healing tool in photoshop).
- Are you using AI generation as a way to avoid the creation process? No.
Hope that helps clear things up.
1) Is the use of programmes such as ChatGPT allowed in instances where they are used for other purposes than writing? For example: Proofreading, generating names, helping develop ideas, etc...
I don't know that there's a way to tell, exactly, if someone has used a program for things like proofreading or name generation, but when speaking of AI generation, it's more about the implementation of such in the game itself (or more like, using it to create your game and/or assets for you), not as tools to help refine your own creations. If you really want to nitpick Ai gen, you could say the guassian blur in photoshop is technically AI-gen but that's not what we're talking about.
We are speaking of that which creates for you, from 'scratch', your game/resource/script/etc. Sgt M put it best, I think:
"I think it's whether the AI is intended to be used as a tool or as a solution is what separates the two ideals... Generating entire assets without lifting a finger is AI usage as a solution. One is meant to assist the creative process, the other is meant to circumvent it entirely. "
2) Is AI generated content banned from non-game and non-resource parts of the site, such as forum posts?
Forum posts should be fine as long as it's not the case of "Here's stuff I 'created' that you can use to make games with". I think if you want to show off things like Ai-gen memes or welp-worthy stuff, that should be fine. If, though, you want to show off something like ai-art that you generated and then slapped your name on, no. It probably depends a lot on the content you want to show off though. Say you were inspired by a piece of AI-gen art to make your own and want to show what you made then that'd probably be fine.
All that to say:
- Is it dumb fun worthy of welpdom? Okay, post it in welp.
- Is it art inspired by AI-generation but fully of your own make? That's fine.
- Is it actual AI-generated art/etc that you're claiming as yours? No.
- Is it an edit of AI-generated art/etc that you're claiming? No.
- Is it a resource that you're intent on sharing for others to use that was created by AI in any way bar inspiration? No.
- Is it used to enhance/change your creation by using other peoples' creations as a basis of amalgamation? Then, no.
- Is it used to enhance/change your creation as a tool, not using other unknown peoples' creations? Yes. (Think Gaussian blur or the healing tool in photoshop).
- Are you using AI generation as a way to avoid the creation process? No.
Hope that helps clear things up.
author=Irog
That's the spirit! I totally agree with you Lascivaware !
What about AI-generated entity behavior ? Like enemy AI ? (most of my games have it, including this one)
There is definitely a difference between a plugin that automatically implants AI-generated text for NPCs or using graphics that were created by an AI bot for your game and one that allows entities to draw from in-engine scripts to have them act in specific ways in response to player movement (basically a much more detailed version of IF player x, THEN event y).
author=Liberty
There is definitely a difference between a plugin that automatically implants AI-generated text for NPCs or using graphics that were created by an AI bot for your game and one that allows entities to draw from in-engine scripts to have them act in specific ways in response to player movement (basically a much more detailed version of IF player x, THEN event y).
And it's a huge huge difference, if you were to call if-then AI then, well, RPG Maker itself would be banned. It's the name "AI" that's misleading, and I think what we're referring to here really is specifically a type of machine learning that uses scraped data to generate more data similar to that which it scraped. Entirely different from FF6 monster behavior code
I think Liberty's answers were pretty good at clearing things up.
Edit: That being said, that's exactly the type of machine learning that powers tools from the classic healing tool to predictive text to SOME upscaling algorhithms, which is why it's good that we estabilish clear boundaries
Irog
4858
A program based on if-then produces artificial output is AI. That's how Deep Blue won against Garry Kasparov !
What creates images for void are Generative Large Language Multi-Modal Model (Gollem AIs).
What creates images for void are Generative Large Language Multi-Modal Model (Gollem AIs).
Darken
3952
well the rule isn't "no AI" and arguing the apples and oranges of it is probably circular. the rule is "no ai generated assets", if you made a game with procedural generation that uses datasets then well, you made it at least. but if the actual game's code was made through automation, then I can see that against the spirit of what the site is for.
It's really hard to frame my feelings on this. As someone who uses it as a tool I can't really come up with a rubric for how you would allow content most people would shrug and be fine with without letting in some things people would be against.
On the other hand, this is a free website, that for the most part hosts free games people make as a hobby in their spare time. Telling someone "Hey, you can't use this tool." feels unnecessarily restrictive. Especially in light of how laissez faire this site is on using sprite rips or other copyrighted content in their projects.
Yet, in that same breath - this website, like any website, has 100% say in what it's about, and what content can be posted. Most image-focused subreddits have already banned AI generated art. Others simply want it to be tagged.
And there are already commercial games which either completely use AI art, or merely a small bit. Stasis: Bone Totem, for example, an example of the latter, who uses the uncanniness of AI art to set an unsettling atmosphere. The threat of jobs is real.
The blurriest of blurred lines will always be free content, though. It's like letting a nice guy wearing a black eagle into your bar. He's fine. He brings a friend. They're nice. And then you look up and suddenly you're a Nazi bar. And, I don't want this to become a place where AI trash outnumbers the regular creative trash :P
I understand the decision. I don't like it. But I will of course respect it.
On the other hand, this is a free website, that for the most part hosts free games people make as a hobby in their spare time. Telling someone "Hey, you can't use this tool." feels unnecessarily restrictive. Especially in light of how laissez faire this site is on using sprite rips or other copyrighted content in their projects.
Yet, in that same breath - this website, like any website, has 100% say in what it's about, and what content can be posted. Most image-focused subreddits have already banned AI generated art. Others simply want it to be tagged.
And there are already commercial games which either completely use AI art, or merely a small bit. Stasis: Bone Totem, for example, an example of the latter, who uses the uncanniness of AI art to set an unsettling atmosphere. The threat of jobs is real.
The blurriest of blurred lines will always be free content, though. It's like letting a nice guy wearing a black eagle into your bar. He's fine. He brings a friend. They're nice. And then you look up and suddenly you're a Nazi bar. And, I don't want this to become a place where AI trash outnumbers the regular creative trash :P
I understand the decision. I don't like it. But I will of course respect it.
I'm ambivalent as well, but I think it's cool RMN as a website has the ability to take a stance towards this
On one hand, I think situations like this:
Are a bit tricky because sometimes it's the other way around - it's an AI edit of your own created art - For instance I've played around with AI to "teach it" my art style, and I often like the result: Feels like looking at yourself in the strangest of mirrors.
On the other hand trying to draw a line too fine will inevitably lead to exploitation and headache for the staff
In the end, though, RMN's nature as a community with shared morals and values (a collective conscious, so to speak), and not just a generic hosting platform, means taking a stance when it comes to important and current topics like this an important thing to do.
On one hand, I think situations like this:
Liberty
- Is it an edit of AI-generated art/etc that you're claiming? No.
Are a bit tricky because sometimes it's the other way around - it's an AI edit of your own created art - For instance I've played around with AI to "teach it" my art style, and I often like the result: Feels like looking at yourself in the strangest of mirrors.
On the other hand trying to draw a line too fine will inevitably lead to exploitation and headache for the staff
In the end, though, RMN's nature as a community with shared morals and values (a collective conscious, so to speak), and not just a generic hosting platform, means taking a stance when it comes to important and current topics like this an important thing to do.
