ContentDB generative AI disclosure

[Astrobe]

Using AI for learning of syntax and for basic syntax when code is so long, made by human contain the basic syntax help from AI (in mods without difficult logic), is it AI assisted?
Help for understand, why is something a bug in code, is AI assisted?

That's a legitimate question.

I have seen MPs of my country discussing the topic of AI in various contexts (education, media industry) and one idea that was suggested is to create a "no AI" label. Now, just like with ContentDB it would be difficult for our authorities to verify this.

So it would more like a "declaration on honor". If someone proves that you blatantly lied about it, reprisals (e.g. package removed, maybe ban from CDB for repeated offenders) could happen. ContentDB owners can decide whatever they want on whatever criteria in this case; their servers, their rules. Only their reputation would be damaged if they make questionable decisions.

[Mantar]

A question on where the line is: one of my team members generated some code via AI, then he went in and read and reviewed it, and altered it to fix bugs and whatnot.
Is that AI-assisted, or still AI-generated? I wanna say it's still AI generated, but I'm not 100% sure, so I figured I'd ask. I'm not changing our disclosure to "AI generated" so I'd have to reject any PR in that case, but I'd be open to maybe setting it to "AI assisted" if it will get this nasty bug fixed sooner so we can release our long-delayed experimental branch.

[MatyasP]

A question on where the line is: one of my team members generated some code via AI, then he went in and read and reviewed it, and altered it to fix bugs and whatnot.
Is that AI-assisted, or still AI-generated? I wanna say it's still AI generated, but I'm not 100% sure, so I figured I'd ask. I'm not changing our disclosure to "AI generated" so I'd have to reject any PR in that case, but I'd be open to maybe setting it to "AI assisted" if it will get this nasty bug fixed sooner so we can release our long-delayed experimental branch.

I think that works 1) generated by AI and 2) with AI mistakes without repair by human, is AI waste.

[MatyasP]

I think that may be good to split informations about AI to parts "media" and "code".

[Astrobe]

A question on where the line is: one of my team members generated some code via AI, then he went in and read and reviewed it, and altered it to fix bugs and whatnot.

I think it is similar to the situation when you modify heavily someone else's work released under a free license, to the point that it could be considered a new work.

From this point of view, what's relevant is what remains of the original work - in this case the AI, and the notion of "AI-assisted" would be mostly irrelevant because it would mean that AI helped them with developing the thing (it could be for instance finding bugs) but did not write it. Or small parts of it, like if they copy/pasted a few lines from an example found on the net (it's almost the same thing actually). Furthermore, one could argue that AI tooling is essentially no different (purpose-wise) from our existing development tools, like traditional code completion, "language servers", static code analyzers etc.

I think mod&games creator can tell if the AI wrote 50% or less of the thing, and it could be a criteria for them to say earnestly that they did write most of it or if an AI wrote most of it.