Death

The fact you're using AI to make your responses is some kind of beautiful irony.

This is completely incorrect. First off, it would be more work and take more time to depend on Copilot unless you're stuck on a specific problem. Also, autocompletion has nothing to do with copilot. This is called IntelliSense which we've had since the 90s. Even the very old model of ChatGPT can make completely functional plugins from a couple word prompt with very little effort, albeit very terrible plugins, but it seems the people who rely on AI don't really care for quality anyways. The downplay on AI here is a bit sus 👀

@Covfefe Please do not share private code in public channels, and especially don't feed AI code that doesn't belong to you so it can train off it... Thank you.

As long as we get GTA 6 first idc

@Whispers88

Yeah, using RustEdit. It requires quite a bit of skill but it's easy to learn, just hard to master.

RustEdit is really the only choice. But I'd have a look at https://codefling.com/prefabs first to see if there's not something similar already made that you can use instead.

Having chatgpt make a plugin is not doing it yourself. I often use chatgpt to generate plugins to identify patterns to help us detect AI-written code. It's pretty simple, and even if you have errors you can just copy and paste them back to have it do all the work. People aren't going to buy it if they know it's AI because people don't just want something that works. They're paying for the expertise and the commitment to support and updates. But to clarify one point, you may have skimmed over the part where we don't mind the use of AI if it assists you. You can find our AI policy here: https://codefling.com/upload-guidelines/

The key word is to "help" and not do all the work. I don't see why people who are unwilling to learn should be allowed to make a living off of selling people plugins they could of made themselves using chatgpt? That's a very interesting take.

That's completely unnecessary. If it weren't supported, it wouldn't be listed there. If it is, it should be removed. It would completely defeat the point of that.

Not a terrible idea, but I argue that communicating with said creator would be just as effective and doesn't require an additional workflow for creators and development overhead for us to achieve a similar outcome.

Due to the lack of response, we've disabled the file to prevent future sales. If you do not have a response by the 23rd, please follow up here, and we'll proceed with a refund since you're still under warranty.

It's both easy and generic. Quite literally, anyone can ask AI to make you a plugin. But by all means, you're more than welcome to seek out a marketplace that will sell you AI-generated plugins 😄

Please submit a support request here: https://codefling.com/plugins/pookevent?tab=support

It's a great concept, but in reality, it'll become a huge moderation issue. We'd need to make sure these files actually work with the other, and even then, authors can easily add support for it simply to be included in the other file's dependency list. I don't think creators would be thrilled about the idea personally.

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.

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.

As a server owner myself, knowing the only way you were able to solve an issue is with AI, and it still took you 2-3 hours, is a bit concerning. At that point, I would question who's actually doing the work, and why would I pay you to do it if I could just make the prompts myself?

There's been a tremendous trend in AI-generated content in this space, so we felt it was essential to get ahead of it before it spirals out of control. We've seen quite a bit of feedback on our official stance against content made primarily using AI, so before we go full send, we want to make sure we're making the right call. Our current stance on AI content is as follows: Submissions generated entirely by AI are not allowed. However, AI-assisted content is welcome if it enhances your creative process and that any AI usage is clearly disclosed in your product description. We've been more lenient towards product thumbnails and free content where we felt the author was making a reasonable effort to learn. With that being said, I personally feel like it's getting out of control, especially for thumbnails. While we likely won't prohibit the use of AI-generated images, we want to set a clear quality threshold so the site doesn't become a wash of generic looking content. Personally, I feel the biggest concern at the moment is AI-generated plugins, especially those that are paid. I dislike the idea of someone trying to profit from content they did not make, nor are they capable of maintaining outside of their reliance on AI. Full disclosure: I find AI to be extremely helpful, and I use it quite often, but I use it as a tool to improve my process, not completely replace it. Let us know your thoughts about this. Are we being too harsh, or are we making the right call? This may seem pretty obvious from the perspective of a developer, but that's because we understand the code and know how cooked a lot of these AI-generated plugins are. It would be great to have a consumer perspective.

Is this still an issue on the latest version of Carbon @steampunkvalley?

@SrMiller

$5 paypal

@Answer