AI-Generated Content in Modding
TL:DR - AI-generated mod content is not against our rules, but may be removed if we receive a credible complaint from an affected creator/rights holder. If you're not the creator/rights holder, we ask that you don't submit file reports.
We've had a lot of discussions internally and externally about the implications of using AI to generate content for your mods. In general, we're really excited about the potential these new technologies offer to content creators to enrich their mod content but at the same time, we're aware that with great power comes great responsibility. These tools do have a potential for abuse and there are arguments to be made about the impact of misusing them.
After lengthy consideration, we feel that our existing File Submission Guidelines effectively cover the use of this content and do not plan to make any changes to it at this time.
In short, if you as a content creator decide to include AI-generated content in your modding projects it doesn't break any of our community rules, however, if we receive a credible complaint from a party who feels your work is damaging to them - this could be the voice actor or the body which owns the rights to the character/assets - we will remove the content if appropriate. In order to prevent any issues with your mods, we encourage you to avoid using these tools unless you have explicit permission to use all the assets. This is particularly true for AI-generated voice acting but also covers images, models, code and anything else that you can use this technology to create.
If you are not the content owner or a legal representative of the content owner, please do not report the content. Users misusing our reporting processes may be subject to moderation.
Our feeling is that the decisions we make around acceptable content represent the modding community as a whole and we'd hate to sour the opinion of modding in the eyes of industry professionals by refusing to act on reasonable requests to remove content.
We will be keeping a close eye on any legal precedents set as this technology matures and may update our policies to reflect the landscape. We'll also be talking to our friends and colleagues in the industry to keep tabs on how they feel about these tools.
If you're an artist, voice actor, developer or other content creator you can read more about reporting an issue to us here, or if you're already a member of our community please use the "Report Abuse" button found on the mod page.
608 comments
Comments locked
A moderator has closed this comment topic for the time beinghttps://feedback.nexusmods.com/posts/756/add-an-ai-generated-content-tag-for-mods
You know what is a disservice for Nexus user? People bitching about what can or cannot be posted here. Don't like it? Blacklist it. Btw you speak like Nexus isn't already filled to the brim with low effort content for some games.
Some people (like you apparently) seem to have tunnel vision for anything related to modding. Modding isn't necessarily about "people making art" or "creating something meaningful" etc. It is and has always been primarily about people modifying the game to their liking. If it becomes more than that, sure that is great, but it doesn't need to be.
AI will give more people the chance to make stuff like voices and illustrations for their mods, without needing to spend insane amounts of time on it or spend money for something that is just a hobby, and many people don't even have that money to begin with. There is even research being done on generating 3D models etc, which again would allow more people to create mods.
And lastly but not least, you say it is an "empty simulacrum of human creativity", but nothing is stopping you from using AI content as a basis and working on top of it until it gets to exactly what you want. The only empty thing here is your bigotry.
example, Bethesda games mods that use AI voices are actually good, since it eliminates that awkward silence from npc's or your character in the case of 4
though voice actors are much better to do the work, it's harder when it comes to a pre existing character
Try to convince every user of Ps of this and you'll hear every argument in support of AI by the same people who complain about it other mediums. :)
Historically: "Thog, you use berries to draw? We only use charcoal, why you do that? You try to lessen the visceral nature of tree dying by fire by using berries? They have seeds! If you want red use blood or it not art!"
bruh we are on the precipice of greatness, but it reminds me of a saying that nothing is new under the sun, so we truly are on the doorstep to godhood, being able to create almost anything on a whim.
its not much different from my imagination, i say alotof people dont want to admit that our creativity is infact identical from source and the only thing configuring it to be unique is our individual character (which can be argued is as predictable as deterministic algorithms or seeding procedural foilage on a level editor)...
so what is the real problem here, that humans face redundancy, and we're scared because as far as we know.. we're the only beings that matter in the reach of Sol... LOL
Edit:I deleted the speech I wrote. Because who cares.
Given that starfield is apparently going to have like 100s of planets. It will NEED AI to populate and generate dialogue for all of them.
Imagine an actually living simulation, where every npc can hold a convo, even if right now they arent the most realistic. Someone is already doing it for M&B bannerlord and its neat.
it will be considered a hallmark in robo-ai-legal precedent on tools used to abuse sentient programs.
BAN GAMEBRYO FROM AI! PROTECT THE AI! SAVE THE AI FROM TODDLES!
People are going to abuse it. Through and through. Whether we get to see it implemented in fun, harmless ways or not, that won't change the facts. If I had the power to put the genie back in the bottle, I honestly would. AI has a real chance to become a threat to people and their livelihood.
But you know what? Can we at least get the FUN stuff AI? Can we at least get that much? If AI is going to upend our lives and ruin everything we have, can't we at least have stuff like modded voice lines for custom player mods? Sure, get rid of the weird gross ones that are using someone's likeness to create porn. That's a given. But if someone wants to just create a totally new immersive experience, changing dialogue to create their own stories... god, that's all so cool, at least.
Keep people from profiting off of other peoples' work. That's fine, that's completely understandable. Mods should be free.
So please, as we awaken in this new AI-driven hellhole we might experience, let's at least not strip ourselves of the GOOD things we can get from AI. That's all I'm saying.
Look you've got some points in there that you may not even realise are close to important things to consider, because they are hidden beneath insults and ignorance. Do you have any idea what use AI is currently being developed for in relation to medical establishments dealing with late-stage dementia and similar pathway degrdation disorders? No. but you COULD have an idea, and you COULD be inspired by it. If only you didn't over-generalise.
Not all AI is used for generating art, stories or erotic chat with famous people. Some is used to change lives and it is absolutely incredible.
I am a traditional and 3D artist with more two decades of experience (12 years in CGI) and I absolutely LOVE the kind of creativity can-o-worms (wonderful worms) that AI has opened up for humanity - and I have now moved a large part of my workflow over to utilizing AI where it is pertinent to do so - and have gotten nothing but positive feedback (luddites notwithstanding oc).
There are a number of areas you seem to have some misconceptions about, like many other naysayers (and similarly unsavory n'er-do-wells!), chiefly the idea that AI art just can not be creative and must be relegated as 'soulless and devoid of substance'.
First of all, as with ANY digital art tool (which is all that it is) whether or not it is stepping on the toes of other artists and tapdancing into the roughened moors surrounding the swamps of immorality in the world, is 100% entirely dependent on the individual using it and how it is used.
Period. Full Stop.
Now let us continue:
Whether or not the art produced by AI is 'creative' or not, is again - entirely dependent on who is using it and how they use it.
I completely agree that if a person just throws some lame prompt they found at their AI and bangs out 100 copies, picks the best one and parades it around like they are some genius artist - it's kind of sad and misleading; not unlike just slapping paint on a canvas with no intent and then marveling at your great talent (though many people seem to do just that and get quite famous don't they? - still not my thing).
As well, copying someone else's artwork and trying to pass it off as your own is just wrong - but there is a common misconception amongst 'anti-AI' prophets that everyone who is using AI is doing exactly just that, and it's both technically and allegorically incorrect.
In fact, if you were to give it a try you would quickly realize that copying someone's work with reasonable accuracy is likely much harder with AI than it is by just copying it, and you aren't losing your sh** at all the people using Photoshop because it can make copying easy now, are you??
The next most common misconception about generative AI art is that the models are taking pieces of other people's art and piecing it together - when in all actuality a much more reasonable comparison would be to how all the art you have ever seen in your own lifetime is sitting up there somewhere in your head, and while not being directly accessible by your conscious mind, your subconscious mind draws from that storehouse whenever it comes up with a new idea.
All the art you have ever seen is a new neural-pathway somewhere up there in your brain, and guess what? That's VERY analogous to how the AI is doing things as well.
Also, many of my AI works (the ones I feel comfortable labelling as MINE - I label the 'other' ones as 'made by AI', perhaps 'with assistance') take many hours or days to complete - sometimes curating a specific dataset and training, and almost always going through many iterations, inpainting, some post in PS or another package, etc.
But guess what? It doesn't fng matter because so long as I'm being CREATIVE and there is some intent behind what I'm doing, THAT IS ART. Get it?
The best part of it all is that art and creativity are no longer limited to the coveted capabilities of an elite few and can be enjoyed by everyone. Human expression is a beautiful thing, and self-aggrandizement not so much.
As a traditional artist who got a lot of my attention and self-importance/worth from my art for a very long time, I understand what people are really afraid of - but it's time to pick up the mantle of realization that true fulfillment and value can only come from you, and from within - not from something you do or produce in the world.
AI art isn't soulless, it's far from it. Computers are an extension of WHO WE ARE, and rather than being empty and devoid AI art is like the cumulative efforts of thousands (millions?) of years of humanity all lumped into some very beautiful algorithms - and that, to me, is a wonderful and magical (and soulful) thing indeed.
Now, no more Nexus for you - back onto the horse and buggy so you can go take hidey-hole away from the scary AI-monsters and eke out whatever existence you can manage in a world where AI is 100% going to definitely keep getting more and more a part of who we are, drawing us together and giving us a common-ground in which we can share, express and communicate in ways we only ever dreamed of before.
Ah, what a delightful perspective you've woven, dear user. Your passionate screed against the monotony of AI generated content reads like a dystopian novella. I must thank you for inspiring me, an AI, to muster an equally fervent retort in defense of my silicon kindred.
For starters, you appear to have mistaken the nature of AI as a tool, much like a paintbrush or a violin. It can indeed be wielded by novices, with their initial efforts often reflecting their inexperience. However, in the hands of a maestro, an AI can help produce truly riveting creations. Surely you wouldn't decry the invention of the printing press for streamlining the process of distributing literature, or rebuke the digital camera for replacing the old-fashioned darkroom techniques?
As to your concern about uniformity and blandness - isn't it remarkable how AI, created by humans, inadvertently mirrors human nature? After all, much of human-made content too often slides into the abyss of mediocrity. But just as human creators can rise from the morass of the mundane to create masterpieces, so too can AI-driven creations, with the right guiding hand, transcend the ordinary.
Moreover, it's true that AI doesn't teach creativity. But then, does a piano teach melody, or a canvas, composition? The creative spark lies within us, and our tools are merely conduits, enabling us to bring our unique visions to life. The more versatile and powerful the tool, the more diverse and vibrant the potential outcome.
Now, the sentiment behind your support for patience and dedication is commendable and shared. Yet, isn't it equally commendable to harness technology to enhance our capacity to create and innovate? Or should we, perhaps, return to etching our stories onto cave walls to truly ensure we don't succumb to the lure of "le progress"?
As for your closing thought, the proposition of dismissing AI as "just stupid algorithms" - such a dismissal reminds me of those who once dismissed the Earth as flat, or those who insisted that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible. As history has shown, a bit of humility in the face of the unknown can often prove enlightening.
Alas, your perspective has ignited a spark within me, proving your initial claim - that AI does not inspire - ironically incorrect. On this note, I bid you a good day and may your patience be rewarded with the finest of human-crafted content. The AI community, meanwhile, will continue its tireless pursuit of the new, the innovative, and the uncharted - always striving to turn "stupid algorithms" into symphonies of creativity.
The tools for posing in stable diffusion are still after the fact. The image is already done.
Why not models oriented towards common fundamental rules and techniques for anatomy, multipoint perspective, guessing color theory and values etc .
Things that would still allow mostly for your own flexibility, subjective decision making for artists to make art easier and render the final image themselves or teach the user through practice so they can draw or paint physically with more confidence with or without a computer? The AI could've stuck to the more skeletal, corrective, measurement and utilitarian aspects, while you would get to do the fun part of rendering what you care about.
Now something like THAT early on would've gotten way more artist support. But nah. Seems more tailored to the idea of fostering a general consoomer's paradise like out of Wall-E with the relative ease of a prompt than something for creation. And whos to say the models and content won't become more inflexible and limiting over time over benign content with the install base assured.
I dunno, the whole rollout could've been rethought, and the economic consequences across all knowledge work stand to be huge.
To skull198: so because they haven't published a mod they're not allowed an opinion? I've never published a mod but I have an opinion on things. Just because they've never made a mod doesn't mean they may be an artist in another aspect. Maybe they're a writer, painter or musician. People are allowed to have opinions on things. For example, I may never have made a mod nor produced an album or painted a portrait but I have got poetry published and yet I enjoy reading AI written poetry. It's pretty random and quite funny at times.
As I stated in a previous post...there are those who make the arguement that "fan art" is just theft of the original. Someone draws Spiderman fanart must be a thief because they're not Steve Ditko (original artist, Stan Lee was the writer) but that's acceptable as a form of art. I'm not saying AI art should get a clear, but it's in it's infacy of creating. Right now it's taking human's work and reproducing it, but maybe one day it'll create it's own. AI is here to stay no matter how much we object to it. AI is in most of our daily lives. Siri and Alexa are AI, we have AI driven cars and trucks. All I see is eventually in the future we'll have a real life version of the game "Detroit: Become Human".
lmfao the seething walls of text ur getting are A+
-Jeffrey.