Our stance on AI-generated content

[CoreSnap]

It may have been mentioned in here already, but maybe do what other companies are doing... make it mandatory that a disclaimer is placed on the product advising that it's 100% AI-generated and that support is/will be limited. This will still offer the opportunity to try out a cool idea with the understanding that it may break and not be easily maintained / updated.

[Apoco]

I think if your making a plugin and people are paying for it then you should be able to update the plugin and fix it without AI or you shouldn't be selling it.

If you cant maintain it on your own then don't make plugins.

Edited yesterday at 05:01 PM by Apoco

[Malkizid]

From a customers perspective: its more important that a plugin is flagged with Ai coded content. Or rejected on the basis of being purely ai coded.

Perhaps an ai generated image  content tag can also be applied to the product where relevant?
for example a product consisting of imagery or graphics

As a traditional artist and digital illustrator who has tested and worked with and witnessed many forms Ai tools from the early years up until now,
I have to chime in and say this absolutely should apply to imagery too.
Its just as unreasonable that "art" or "graphic designs" are sold when completely unmade by a human. 

I personally generally dislike all ai tools, due to how autmation affects people and causes disassociation, laziness, detachment etc. 
Spoiling the standards of quality and appreciation of effort, skill, practiec, patience.
As fascinating and useful as these tools are, they can be really helpful and enhance many peoples work flows but I'm against how we as people, humans, tend to lean on the tool too heavily or as evidenced all over the internet in recent years, completely rely on the tool to do all the work.

Images completely created by Ai should also be prohibited here if part of a paid product.
I've seen hundreds of horrible images used here on Codefling on paid products and free ones by Excellent developers and the opposite side of the spectrum.
My point is not to point a finger and make accusations, of being unprofessional or lazy but merely to point out how I think this problem has affected poor product appearance on the entire site. 

Yes, its easy to do, yes it saves time but is the result really worth the cost?
Am I biased because its my profession, I will honestly say no. I come to Codefling to buy great plugins from trusted developers. Not to buy Art.
I also have to say that quite a few content packages that sell image based content for Rust Servers are merely using the original Art from the Rust game and slapping in some stencils.
These products should also be reviewed for originality. I suppose that's another can of worms to open...

I hope I made my points clearly enough without sounding one sided.

Edited yesterday at 05:47 PM by Malkizid

[Zand3rs]

It’s simple.  If you want to fix all ai plugins that people have bought codefling+ for because dev don’t know what they are doing keep accepting them. 
 

if not just deny them. 
 

I use ai a lot but then again I don’t sell them because I have a brain. And know my limits. 

Edited yesterday at 05:38 PM by Zand3rs

[devshadow6]

1 hour ago, Neighigh said:

Very appreciated. The large wash of generic off branded plugins and thumbnails creates a stale environment where viewers are unable to sift through to find product made with care. 

Plugins are a no brainer, need to do the work to have a product you can maintain.

Thumbnails are important for the community too, lots of artists here that would love to have a job making quality depictions of your plugin. Not a sloppy representation of the source material. Seriously not that hard to consider an artist for a fraction of the sales. AI may cost nothing, but it isn't selling your product idea either.

AI will never do same good job as a human do, also i can say same about some creators "DEVELOPER" there is good creators and bad creators.

I will give an example from y life.

"An year ago one of the server owner (Dekaron) send me a message on Discord and ask me do make a launcher, because the guy who already make a launcher for my server are not working and have 50MB only .exe"
I say ok man no problem just let me prepare a test version for you that you can test and send all feedback, when he see that my launcher have only 1,.5 MB looks good and works perfect, 
he send me a message: man I take it."

So guys there is lots of many "creator - developer" that knows how use AI as a tool to make a good job some or this "creator - developer" just make a crap to make easy money (because to day all is about money not about how your products look or works - "at the end is always customer fold")

I was see many fake things done by AI so all depends from ppl, creators, developer, coder, programmer and many other ppl artist, graphics designer, UI designer and UX. AI can just help to get some process faster.

 

[Bad Cop]

Like IIIaKa already mentioned, this should in some circumstances extend to thumbnails too. 

 

It's not an issue if there are 3-4 like this,  but lately it's been high volume and in a sense they all look the same and as if they were related to a completely different game

 

I myself am guilty of a sloppy midjourney thumbnail for one of my mods. Circumstances at the time made it necessary but I aim to do better   I think the thumbnail should have at least some representation of the content as it appears in game. With a lot of the current thumbnails , you wouldn't guess the mod is for Rust  (more like for call of duty )

Edited yesterday at 06:50 PM by Bad Cop
crypo

[Papa]

I fully agree with the stance in the original post. Plugins created completely by AI where the submitter cannot maintain and support the code themselves should not be allowed. AI-assisted development is fine and should be disclosed if AI has a major fingerprint on the codebase.

The AI thumbnails aren't that problematic in my opinion, but some are really low-effort/quality with the trademark garbled AI text/phrases. It would take folks an extra 2-3 minutes to re-generate those to be higher quality or have the text removed.

[casey.jonesjr]

AI is the future. There is no avoiding that. Learn to live with it or become obselete. What should matter is if it works or not. 

[COSMO]

Before we know it the landscape will change again and AI will have leveled up so much it wont matter. Give it 1 year. 

[Emigo]

1 hour ago, casey.jonesjr said:

AI is the future. There is no avoiding that. Learn to live with it or become obselete. What should matter is if it works or not. 

Some people wont accept it so the developers that charge for a plugin twice what the game costs can keep filling their pockets. The prohibition of those things that cant be handled has been happening forever. The great side is that soon, every server owner will be able to create their own plugins for their servers and wont have to pay ridicuolous amounts of money to those who take advantage of the needs of costumers.

[Lincoln]

Hey Death,

I think your stance is balanced. Allowing AI as an assistant, but not a full replacement, ensures content quality, developer accountability, and customer trust.

 

Key points I’d highlight:

• Transparency: I think there should be some level of transparency for disclosing AI use is fair and helps consumers make informed decisions.

• Quality Control: A clear threshold, especially for paid plugins, prevents the marketplace from becoming flooded with generic or unreliable products.

• Maintenance: A fully AI-generated plugin risks long-term issues, since the author might lack the skills to fix or maintain it reliably. 

 

From a consumer perspective, people pay for plugins expecting support, updates, and accountability, not just functionality. Ensuring plugin developers are genuinely skilled (and not merely AI-prompt users) protects consumers from instability and frustration.

 

Overall, it’s not harsh—it’s responsible. However the use of AI will continue to grow regardless of what choice is made here ~ cheers

[c7zn]

AI genned plugins should 100% be denied, thumbnails just give an unprofessional look to the site, especially to a new user. Should just be an instant rejection, better if it's just an amateur thumbnail

[Wizla]

As a customer it’s very off putting when a plugin has a AI thumbnail that either looks like a different game or has obvious spelling mistakes. Just feels like It cheapens the hard work that devs put into plugins, and if they are happy to pass off on a sloppy image then it kinda reflects badly on everything else. 
 

It’s a tough one with AI plugins tho, even if there is a fully AI built one that does something useful it would be nice to have to option to accept the risks and give it a try. Shouldn’t let people charge for them though, make them free and fair game for established devs to use the idea to make their own better versions

[Mikel Rae]

The AI-generated thumbnails make the site look trashy.

[20K]

I get the concerns about fully AI-generated plugins. Especially those that might be  sold without the backing of someone backing it with an understanding or maintenance. BUT, I do believe setting a clear, reasonable threshold (maybe allowing up to 30-40% AI generated code) would be beneficial. Completely ruling out AI content limits innovation and the introduction of new and exciting ideas into the game/community.

As a newer developer myself, I've seen AI significantly enhance creativity, allowing me(and others) to focus on bigger ideas rather than getting stuck in repetitive tasks. When used responsibly, AI elements can help developers push beyond previous limitations (if that makes sense), ultimately benefiting the players by creating fun, unique experiences.

Transparency about AI use in submissions is important sure, but outright rejection risks stifling creativity rather than ensuring quality. Balancing usage and disclosure seems like the best approach to me.


EDIT: Yes AI generated thumbnails DO suck.  But if the code works and can be supported and breathes life into something positive...... go for it. 

EDIT 2:  Just noting that with new models being released on a daily basis these days ... I  guarantee you a years from now ... Flagship AI models will be able to hammer out plugins without any issues in one shot and it will completely change the landscape.

Edited 19 hours ago by 20K

[Neighigh]

2 minutes ago, 20K said:

I get the concerns about fully AI-generated plugins. Especially those that might be  sold without the backing of someone backing it with an understanding or maintenance. BUT, I do believe setting a clear, reasonable threshold (maybe allowing up to 30-40% AI generated code) would be beneficial. Completely ruling out AI content limits innovation and the introduction of new and exciting ideas into the game/community.

As a newer developer myself, I've seen AI significantly enhance creativity, allowing me(and others) to focus on bigger ideas rather than getting stuck in repetitive tasks. When used responsibly, AI elements can help developers push beyond previous limitations (if that makes sense), ultimately benefiting the players by creating fun, unique experiences.

Transparency about AI use in submissions is important sure, but outright rejection risks stifling creativity rather than ensuring quality. Balancing usage and disclosure seems like the best approach to me.


EDIT: Yes AI generated thumbnails DO suck.  But if the code works and can be supported and breathes life into something positive...... go for it. 

Totally get ya dude. Repetitive tasking is definitely something worth cutting out of a workflow.
I would 100% do plugin thumbnails for $50 a pop myself, so I'd hope people would consider getting off the AI thumbnail needs, it's not crazy hard to get an artist to do the work properly inside a budget.

[20K]

5 minutes ago, Neighigh said:

Totally get ya dude. Repetitive tasking is definitely something worth cutting out of a workflow.
I would 100% do plugin thumbnails for $50 a pop myself, so I'd hope people would consider getting off the AI thumbnail needs, it's not crazy hard to get an artist to do the work properly inside a budget.

Yeah I'm not opposed to the use of it for coding so long as it's properly backed. But the thumbnails are BLAH. I take pride in making my own. 

[BR_Rust_Nation]

AI is here. But not alone. Ai wont come here to choose what do do. So, it need assistance. And ai devs must receive the feedback of they work. Good AI is not free, and if done all with free ai, go to Umod. I think the right call is not content make by AI, but if  is, there must be mentioned AND a good work. Ai learn, and soon or later all plugins will be the same. Real people use ai in a lot of works. If it get poor quality, must be removed, ai or not. So, if you use ai, credit it, and users will choose based on it. Hide it and may be baned (slavery?). Maybe, if question persists, put a new tab (AI Gen Plugins). Give a 3 month to Study it. And all will know if is acceptable or not

[Death]

We appreciate the feedback. Seems the vast majority agrees with the direction we're going, and we hope to define the quality threshold for AI thumbnails very soon.

[COSMO]

Allow AI stuff but only if it is free and it should have its own section on the site. 

[R0gerR0ger]

On 3/13/2025 at 7:05 AM, Death said:

This seems like a contradiction, though, since you said you disagreed with rejecting AI submissions, implying that most of it was made using AI. Using AI to help is not an issue, as reflected in our guidelines. Before AI, I was dual-wielding Google tabs like a crack head.

I use AI for multiple things but I am still a crack head on chrome tabs, with multiple profiles. one profile is for this type of research, the other for that type.  The biggest issue I see is how coders have been lazy even before AI.  Now with the onset of AI they just copy/pasta and go.   i think setting codefling with a strong (human adherence) is a positive move for the future.