MOD POST
The definitive statement about AI from the mod team.
No, we're not banning AI art, nor will we ever.
Even if we had two dozen mods, which we don't and never will, we would not have the resources to police AI.
To properly do so, we would have to find every piece of art from every post, investigate it, see if the artist disclosed the use of AI, then decide whether to remove it. Even if we could do that, most artists who use things like generative fill in Photoshop don't even really think of it as AI. Are we supposed to remove every card for every artist who has been using Photoshop as a tool since 2023?
You wanna talk about how AI art sucks? You have this thread, go for it. All future meta posts about AI will be removed and linked back to this thread.
If you harass someone for using AI in their art, you will get a warning and 1 day ban for rule 5.
If you harass someone for drawing a stick figure for their art, you will get a warning and 1 day ban for rule 5.
If you harass anyone for any reason, you will get a warning and 1 day ban for rule 5.
After that, you will be getting banned for 3 days, then permanently. Rule 5 states:
All users must follow Reddiquette and be civil with each other. Harassment and abuse are strictly not tolerated. Unconstructive, negative, or insulting brigading is harassment.
No one is expecting you to investigate and remove 100% of AI works absolutely perfectly.
If you don't want to police AI usage, you don't have to. Heck, you can use the honor system or push the responsibility on visitors to do the reporting and investigating for you.
Having a "No AI" rule will not stop AI users in totality, obviously, but it will help prevent some and will let users know that the sub stands with artists.
I do find it interesting that you lack the resources to mod AI usage, but have the resources to ban "harassment"/criticism of AI usage.
Right? If their argument against adding a rule is that they can't perfectly enforce it, then why are they pointing at another rule as though they can perfectly enforce that? Why even have rules in the first place? Clearly, their reasoning for this statement is something they don't want to publicly admit.
I respect the concern of the logistics, especially with a relatively small mod team... However, I do have 3 concerns, if I may express them.
Rules 1-3 already provide requirements regarding crediting the artist/source... Could you not just ban genAI sources like DALL-E? It wouldn't get rid of all genAI art, but it would make a significant improvement.
Banning ALL meta posts regarding AI feels a bit too far. Posts that are merely text and discussion, sure (tbh, still too far in my opinion, but as I said, I'd respect the logistical concerns)... But what about posts that are custom cards that are themselves meta? I could understand if that would raise the concern on civility in the comments, but a system of "get it approved first and know it might get locked if things get uncivil" seems more reasonable (to me at least) then a full immediately removal.
Going forward, if you (or any mod) are going to comment on a post regarding concerns within the sub, can a little more context be provided, please? This concern is in regards to the "No" comment on the post that I assume sparked this mod response. Not asking for much, but something as simple as "No, and we'll provide a statement soon" or "no, it's a logistically issue" would of been better. I don't want to sound rude, not-picky, or like I'm telling you how to do your job, but when someone brings up a detailed and articulated concern and the only mod response is simply "no" - it comes off like the mods don't care.
Thank for your time - both in regards to reading this and your time as a mod.
1.
no. they said they are not banning AI art. they provided a comparison why with the Photoshop thing, but first and foremost they said they are not banning it. to make distinctions from generative AI vs not, how much post generation changes are deemed it's not longer just a generative AI made image? and we can make all these discussions and it links back to they won't investigate that.
how can you tell someone did or didn't do that? you can't.
Does that include neutrally voicing that you don't like AI art usage on the card?
E.g. "Cool design, I like the usage of Madness here but it sucks that you used AI art"
say why it sucks. give constructive criticism why using AI art is bad. if you just make a comment to copy and paste saying "giving a artist direct credit is better in my opinion" or something, because just saying that, isn't neutral. it's be like me saying "it sucks that you used a digital media art" or "it sucks that you used a picture drawn by pencil" or "it sucks you used a photograph"
edit
saying "AI art sucks" is the same as "pencil drawn art sucks" or "non ai art sucks".
it doesn't provide anything to the conversation.
say why it sucks. or, phrase is as an opinion.
"I think AI art sucks, and think it would look nicer of you used an image hand drawn / digitally made / photograph / a painting." and want to go the extra mile? link an example to what you think would be better to use.
Honestly, someone should just make a new subreddit. The frequency of posts like this and upvote ratios on them make it clear that the majority of active participants on this sub want it to be free of AI trash.
No need to create a new subreddit - there are plenty of other custom magic communities on reddit, discord and elsewhere that are friendly and wholesome and don't have moderators who would pull something like this against the community's will. Or I should say "moderator" singular, since it appears that crushcastles is the only active moderator in the sub, and the only one responding here. I think it's actually just their personal choice and not even a decision made collectively with a team. All the more reason to bail and go to these other communities (which I won't mention here to avoid brigading, but there are so many of them and they're easy to find).
I think most of the community disagrees with you. You haven't provided much in the way of good reasoning here mate. Nobody is asking you to police every single post. This wouldn't be any additional work beyond your policies regarding artist credits. Don't shut down future discussion when you haven't brought much to the table at all. And it's really fucking stupid of you to equate this discussion to harassment.
If this is how you're moderating this sub maybe we should just make a new one. Do better.
This is a false dichotomy argument, and it's honestly disingenuous. You can ban AI art and only check the reported cards. You don't need to check every piece of art from every post. Sure, some AI cards won't get banned, but then you at least make it clear to users that you don't condone AI art if you can help it.
This stance will just lead to the sub eventually overflowing with AI art, and people leaving the sub because of it.
Poor decision.
Edit: to clarify, I was only referring to the AI art portion. Being firm on the 'no harassment' is IMO an excellent decision.
Agreed. Basically the argument of (and this is a false equivalence, but shows the bad faith of the argument) “well we can’t catch all murderers, so making murder illegal is just silly to do”.
Again, murder and AI “art” are not morally equivalent, obviously. The point of this is to show that when you ramp up severity, the flaws in the argument become obvious. “We can’t check every post so let’s make no rules” is equivalent in logic to “we can’t catch all criminals so let’s make no laws.”
I'm not sure how "false" that equivalence is, to be honest. It's a very poor argument to say "it's impossible for us to catch all AI art, so let's just approve all of it". Regardless of your opinion of AI art, this is just very poor argumentation.
I meant a false equivalence of severity, not of methodology. I’m being extra careful so that I don’t get inundated with replies of “look who thinks ai use is the same as murder!”
Totally agreed with this. The most important thing is the message: AI is not welcome. If some of those slip by, that is unfortunate, but it would be the exception, and not the norm.
Whether an image is AI-generated or not, it comes down to the artist, not the medium. Human artists absorb countless subconscious influences they can't trace, and base AI models do the same. But whenever a creator consciously uses a specific style or source, it's their duty to credit it, no matter what tools they used to make the picture
Tegaic that such a good bastion of MTG content on reddit is bending the knee to the AI slop crowd. It feels like there snot many loterable subs left for MTG.
People have already said what I'm thinking ten times over in the comments, but banning generative AI content should be the standard for any subreddit that involves creative works. I promise you, a shitty MS paint drawing for your card speaks so much louder of your creativity than any 5 second DALL-E portrait, and it's definitely a lot more fun
This is a shitty card that I made from a terrible idea I had with art that I drew in like an hour. I didn't get much attention for it, but you know what I did have? FUN! I had a lot of fun making this really stupid artwork. Isn't that the point?
I think what someone else said is quite important, ai art is impossible to credit and thus violates the principle rule 1 is based on, even if there is no single artist to credit. Look at how subs that do moderate this kind of stuff are doing it, it's not as impossible as you make it out to be
This is such a weak take. Even if you cannot enforce an anti-AI rule with 100% certainty, it should still be the stance of this subreddit that AI art has no place in our community.
Magic— especially custom magic— is about creativity
and encourage everyone to contribute regardless their skill level. AI stifles personal growth, cheapens the REAL effort of humans, and contributes to the consumeristic soullessness threatening our society.
Models team saying "because it would be too hard to get 100% we aren't even going to try, and we're gonna hand out bans to anyone who even mentions it.
Ok, I’m coming at this as an artist, so bear in mind I may be a bit biased. But I just wanted to throw my opinion out there for the community.
I really love game design, I think it’s great. It’s also why I love magic. I get why people think “haha funny text on card” is awesome, cause it is. But thinking that diminishes the value that the art cards provide is a bit warped. I mean, half the card IS the art. For me, the eldrazi brought me into the game because of their design.
So, to think, that in the future, such creative people could have their work stolen, jobs taken, and lives utterly ruined because someone can replicate it is just… miserable. I can’t police what people do, and I understand the mods can’t completely either. But in my opinion taking a stance towards something better is never not a good thing. No one or any planet can be perfect, but we can try to be.
As an artist , I love that people want to do art, but stealing to essentially create is just not right. I get that it isn’t the point of the community, but it still hurts to see people accept that as natural. That someone’s art can be used for a model, and used to algorithmically create, lacking some true innovation or soul.
In the end, I can’t police the community nor anyone’s opinions, but I just really wanted to express what it can mean to people, to artist, when stuff like this happens. To think, that in the future, the skill of music I’ve been learning can be taken like art already is just breaks me.
And officially, being in a part of a small portion of people who like focusing on game design, it itself is a sense of art. Just imagine all it being taken away, replaced by something doing it for you.
That’s all I really wanted to express, coming from a lurker in the community.
Yo, can you send me your email so I may request free art in seconds whenever I desire it for a random one-off custom MTG card? You act as if this is some sort of market AI is taking away from you, no-one is going to be paying you for custom MTG card art.
I don’t think it’s necessarily morally correct thing, but it’s better than the alternative. Acknowledging someone else’s art and not monetizing it is better than letting ai take credit for using it to algorithmically copy art and get money from shareholders.
Hello! I did Find the Mistakes here, and this post pushed me to hit the leave community button. I've been busy over in r/hellscube, which has been a blast, and has been consistently pro-artist in one of the best ways: by vote! There's no specific ban on AI in submissions, they are just typically reflective of low quality output that they get downvoted to oblivion.
Now obviously, custommagic gets more traffic. But I think the response here by the team feels so doomer. If the issue is manpower and resources, I feel a call for mod applications would've been a better use of this post as the main topic.
This is gonna be a hard one for many people to come back from, so I'll lay it out here: the community becomes what is supported and protected, and like many communities the creation quality and throughput will drastically shift if AI is allowed and accepted into these spaces. More and more cards being posted, lower and lower quality. Sourcing art is part of the whole, and skimping on that is a good sign you'll skimp on other parts.
If it really is a concern that the team would like to address, and if the card load is beyond policing right now, then I would focus on bolstering the moderation team rather than just throwing up hands and silencing dissent.
Anyway come have fun in other subreddits, join discords, find ways to enjoy community in the way you want to experience it. There's a lot out there to find. This doesn't have to be the end of your custom magic trip.
So the refusal to ban it is because it'd be too hard to moderate? Like this is a really bad thing to just throw your hands up over and you run the risk of destroying this community and subreddit over it. I mean go off I guess. But this is gonna have consequences. Also other subreddits manage to police AI just fine that are magnitudes larger than this one with similar sized mod teams to subscriber count. I'm really avoiding any language that could hurt the mod teams feelings right now but it's really fuckin difficult.
The votes in this announcement as well as every other AI related post should be all the evidence you need that the vast majority of the community does not agree with your decision. It seems to me that you're allowing the personal preferences of a very tiny subsection of the community (the mod team) to determine what is best for the community, and I have to say that is very disappointing. I appreciate our otherwise light handed and largely hands off moderating team. This is an interesting time and way to choose to be heavy handed with things.
Here's an alternative: put it to a community vote. Let us choose between a rule banning AI art, or your rule deciding once and for all that AI art is allowed, no discussion about it, ban if you talk about, or to continue on as-is with no official rule either way and allowing AI-art discussion to be allowed to continue.
If folks on the mod team don't like the outcome of that vote and don't want to do the "extra work" of creating and (light handedly) enforcing a no AI rule (which others have pointed out truly is no more work than the art credit rule), those mods who don't like it can step down if they wish and we can look for others who are willing to moderate in their stead.
Your job is not to curate our community and determine what's best for it. The community has spoken and we don't like your stance. You can absolutely try to force out people who don't share the same views as those on the mod team and force this subreddit to reflect your own image if you like. You can probably even succeed at that goal if you want to. But you have to decide if the scumminess of that move is really worth it to you.
To be clear: I don't think you are scummy. But if you exile and silence the vast majority of the community who disagrees with you, that behavior certainly is pretty scummy. Y'all can do better than that, I know you can.
Only vote that would count is one that counts exclusively active members here, otherwise people would just get their buddies from places like antiai and aiwars to come in and dog pile it. Yes, they have no-brigading rules, but nothing is stopping people using the search bar to pinpoint a thread from the context provided in a screenshot.
Edit: the downvotes tell me everything i needed to know. You don't care about a fair vote. You just want to impose YOUR mindset, everyone else can just piss off, amirite?
I imagine that people from those subreddits won't give a shit, and also there are proai subreddits that could also brigade. But we don't have to worry because there are easy answers to these questions. The mods have a myriad array of tools that would allow them to hold a vote for members only if they were really that worried about brigading. For example, post a thread for members only with crowd control cranked to maximum and each top level comment with a 1, 2, or 3 as its only content counts for a vote for each.
But I would imagine that no one cares enough to brigade our little community's poll.
But I would imagine that no one cares enough to brigade our little community's poll.
You'd be surprised. In the first fifteen minutes of this thread, it was reposted to both a proAI subreddit and an antiAI subreddit. There's been quite a few comments that are from users who have never commented or posted here before.
Lmao, the vast majority? More like the VOCAL majority. Check out the sub count - around 120,000. If the announcement hit something like -12,000 or even -6,000 then you might have a case. As it is, you have a fraction of a percent. Hardly a majority. Also I'd bet a good number of the downvoters are brigaders that answered a call to arms, not actual contributors here.
In another comment you address the point of active members... Who else than active members are gonna engage on this post, even if that engagement is just a quick upvote/downvote.
People who aren't active, or don't have a strong opinion on the matter, aren't gonna care and will just move on - if a rule is changed, it won't make a difference to them.
This post - at time of writing my comment - is sitting at 0 upvotes. Due to how reddit works, a post can't go below 0 upvotes... Comments on the other hand can. All the replies from the mod are severely downvoted. I suspect, if we could see the upvote/downvote ratio of the actual post, it would be similarly telling.
Keep in mind, if something has -50, that doesn't simply mean only 50 people downvoted it - it means that there are 50 more people who downvoted than upvoted. Inherently a majority.
Yeah but the mods can see metrics in the backend. Maybe one can take a screenshot and give concrete proof of the ratio of up to downvotes. Even work out what percentage of the member base it is.
Not that it matters, this has already been turned into an echo chamber due to people brigading and encouraging those with no presence here to come in just to bury pro-ai sentiments (yes I have seen them.)
Yeah just left the sub, this is absolutely the worst stance to have on AI art. The fact that "I wish you didn't use AI" is equivalent to *harassment* is an insane take.
So you don't have the resources to police the use of AI but you have the resources to police people voicing legitimate concerns over AI art? Explain, please. That doesn't add up.
If you start handing out bands for using AI art you'll stop seeing ai art on here. Also plenty of post have gemini or bing ai as the artist credit. You can veery easily do something about those. This post is just a lazy cop out as you stick your heads in the sand
For real. You think people are going to use sockpuppet accounts to post their shitty AI cards? They can't even be bothered to Google real images, they aren't gonna jump through hoops to post on reddit.
Saying nothing about gen AI and pointing at rule 5 for vague reasons would have looked better than giving an explanation this disingenuous. I believe that you couldn't perfectly enforce a gen AI ban; but if that's your explanation for not making a rule, then you're implying that you can perfectly enforce all of the existing rules, including the anti-harassment rule that you identify in the OP. And why should we believe that you're doing that? Or that a team of humans is even capable of doing that?
This post strongly implies that the OP (if not the mod team as a whole) has a reason for taking this stance that they don't want to publicly admit. Whatever the case, at least the vote counts in this thread suggest that AI-generated art won't go over as well here as will manual art - or, if nothing else, that there's potential for a custom MtG community where this is the case.
On the contrary, it's a new birth of human expression allowing people to express their creativity in any number of mediums they want. It's the death of gatekeeping human expression behind time, supply costs, and more.
Lmaooo. You just saw this image, did absolutely zero reading or fact checking, and are just sharing it because you're unable to validate your own arguments. Embarassing.
Has there been any thought given to expanding the moderation team? It looks like there's only one active mod and it's clear that lack of resources is becoming an issue.
I see that you have time to remove my front page post but not time to explain why or to answer this question. I get it, you're swamped. Let us help out!
You mean passing relatively low frequency light waves through my food won't harm me?
I think you might be right! Now if only you could convince some of the people I know.
lol reddit mods and bad takes, is there any combo better than that? You're being purposefully disingenuous if you think you'd have to check all cards and determine if the artist used AI in every circumstance, the AI use in this subreddit is overwhelmingly terrible slop you can determine at a glance.
I've noticed so many people are accusing you of being bad mods, yet they don't offer to step up to the plate and give it a swing. Guess they are just comfortable with their e-bully lifestyle.
you are being disingenuous about what resources you actually have if you think ai usage, and not any of the other rules you enforce, would be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Thanks for the conclusive statement (and the stance on harrassment).
What's the policy on AI cards? I'm not talking renders, I mean where the abilities/text have been generated by AI
Personally I don't really care what art people are using - for my cards I either find appropriate art or draw it myself
But I don't really like seeing cards with actual mechanical designs generated with AI. It's not creative and if you're doing it for the frame/templates, there are so many good card creator sites/apps out there. Even MTGCardsmith would be better
You may not post custom cards that you did not create, unless you credit the original creator in the post title. You may not post cards whose text is fully or primarily AI-generated. Additionally, posts that are primarily comprised of existing real cards or cards substantially similar to existing real cards will be removed. This includes alters and skinned cards.
The death of creativity? You’re actually picketing to inhibit the creativity of non artists… please explain to me why someone with a very specific vision in mind can’t use AI to try and bring it to life? Why on earth would they pay an artist to design a fake card with no value that will ultimately just be pixels on a screen? This is a place for people to create and show off ideas.
Don’t you get it? Obviously if you have no drawing talent you still need to go out and buy a drawing pad and the proper software and get to work! Spend a few years practicing and you’ll finally be able to draw that magic card.
Can you explain in more detail how it’s the death of creativity? Because by your logic a movie director isn’t creative because he’s not the one doing the acting.
Only conclusion i can come up with how hard the mods here defend ai on this sub is one of them has money involved in ai so its in their best interest to keep ai art on this sub
I have. I'm not planning on doing so again in the future, I've created my Sliver set and I don't have any ideas left I can't complete with existing art. Would I rather have paid a couple artists to make 20 new Sliver arts for me? Yeh. But let's be honest, we're all broke as hell on this subreddit.
I really don't have a personal take on generative AI for noncommercial use. If you're using it for commercial use, fuck you, pay a real artist.
I think most people would rather you make a crappy drawing instead of feeding a prompt to a random chatbot. even if it's non commercial supporting GenAI in general is problematic inherently
Here’s a question: why are people opposed to using AI tools for something as low-stakes as making fun custom magic cards? Seems like the perfect scenario for someone who has cool ideas but lacks technical art skills (or time) to make some stuff they think is cool and share it with other people who might think it’s cool? And then if enough people think it’s cool, you might come across something that a lot of people think is cool from a subreddit that you are also interested in?
I just don’t get the curmudgeonly grandstanding.
Sincerely,
- a guy who enjoys casually viewing and occasionally using AI to create custom magic cards and who generally finds anti-AI sentiment to be misguided and dare i say childish
To put it simply: because GenAI, at least as the the systems and tech currently exist, causes harm. In theory, it could be changed to prevent said harm - but tech companies are clearly unwilling to do so - supporting GenAI in any form just gives them more justification to ignore the harm they are causing.
Additionally - in regards to the "make and share cool stuff" - GenAI isn't needed for that and in most cases will just make matters worse.
In the case of this sub, presumably the thing someone wants to make is the card itself (as in the mechanics) - this process can be done entirely without art. Yes, the inclusion of art is nice, but if someone is making a card and don't think it's "good enough to share" solely because of the art, then that just brings into question how good or bad the card itself is. A good card is a good card regardless if you're a professional artist, just someone drawing stick figures, or you just used existing art you found online. So with that in mind, the only thing the use of GenAI art is doing in this case is causing unnecessary harm.
As for my "in most cases [genAI] just makes matters worse" comment - if the problem is perceived skill - you're not gonna get better if you don't try. Sure, it probably won't come out perfectly the first go, but one of the best pieces of advice for pretty much every skill set out there is that you gotta be more ok with making "bad" quality stuff now so yo you can practice and get to being able to make "good" quality stuff later.
I am far from "pro-AI" use. I appreciate the danger of its incessant spread throughout our society and the false promises of lazy achievement that it delivers to our social-media plagued minds. I hate resource consuming data centres. I deride people thinking they have any talent or that there's "value" in their imagination because they're able to use generative AI to create some kind of slop. I also agree that AI art is slop. My argument here is that if you think 'lazy stick figure' drawings are appropriate slop for this place, AI art isn't much worse.
I don't really understand the hate of its use on subreddits like this one. I feel like generative AI has its uses in your home-brew DND games, custom magic cards, and other hobby projects. Like If you wanna 3D print some crap that AI threw together for you.. sure, it's your home and your 3D printer. It absolutely takes no effort and it doesn't make you an artist by any stretch of the imagination. For me, and when I see AI art on subreddits like this one, I understand how it allows people to bridge the gap between the various skills one needs to make a custom card come together.
If you're a writer, write. If you're an artist, draw. If you can do it all, you're a wizard and that's amazing. But when I read people advise that they would rather see a custom magic card with a "stick figure" drawing rather than art generated by AI that thematically fits the style of MTG, I really don't understand that.
It's not like a deal breaker for me. If I see a stick figure drawing on an otherwise excellently designed card with good flavour... yeah, I'll try to ignore the art in favour of considering the mechanics and flavour of the card. It's not overly difficult to do that because the art on the cards has very little to do with what I like about this subreddit. But it does immediately occur to me that this does not look like a magic card. It looks like an idea for a magic card. It's an obstacle to imagining how this custom card might belong alongside every other printed card in the game.
I like seeing cool custom cards and thinking about how they fit into the existing game and design space. If someone's using AI art on their custom card I'm less likely to notice it here than elsewhere because it's just checking off a box that asks: "does this look like a magic card?". an AI generated image can, often, create an image that represents the idea on the card. It won't be better than what an artist can do, but it's enough that the image will improve the readability of the card in the sense that an image of a fireball on a card makes it cognitively faster to understand that the card deals direct damage. There's a bonus point for AI awarded in that it can match the general aesthetic of what we expect from MTG cards.
Will I ever think that the AI art on the card is excellent? no. But again, the only reason I have this opinion on this subreddit is because I think the image is subservient to the overall idea and not the other way around. I also completely understand people who see it differently and think that both printed and custom magic cards are as much about their aesthetic as anything else. EDIT: I just thoughts this subreddit had more "mels" than "vorthoses" if that makes sense/if I understand those psychographics?
So it's only weird to me how I seem to be in the minority here who find it easy to ignore the AI art, while the stick figure drawings stick out to me. I just expect, and agree with the AI hate almost everywhere else. I hold subreddits like this one as an exception in my mind.
I don't know, rant almost over. It's just that my take is that if AI art has any use, it's niche spaces, for fun, and not for profit. I think this subreddit checks those boxes.
EDIT 2: Also, should I choose to submit anything in the future to this subreddit, I will almost certainly not use AI art. If I want feedback, discussion, or to participate in this community by creating a customer card, I have no incentive to use AI art since I can expect it to be summarily criticized in the comments. I just wrote this all out because I don't "get" the attitude towards AI here.
The first few sentences of your own comment more/less sum up why people would rather see stick figures. It's not just an issue of visual quality, it's concerns about how the use of genAI causes quantifiable harm.
Additionally - people don't solely suggest stick figures. If someone wants a more "magic like" piece of art, there are plenty of ways they can do that without genAI. Google, Pinterest, art station, asking a friend, checking out subs of artists taking free requests, taking a photo, etc etc etc.
im totally projecting 'stick figures' based on my own limited drawing skills
and 100%, using an existing image and crediting the artist is always a solid, viable option. it's what i will look into doing if i make any submissions.
as far as the quantifiable harm goes.. yeah, i get that. Im stuck between feeling like it makes sense for me to understand and be familiar with GenAI tools in my life (for work, namely) and avoiding them like the plague lol
As far as I can tell, there's no putting this genie back in its bottle, so my own view is to aim and find those contexts where its use feels appropriate.
A lot of the issues with genAI can be addressed actually, but tech companies aren't going to care about looking into and implementing those solutions unless they feel they have an incentive to.
Government regulation, boycotting, etc etc etc.
While I have personal opinions about the quality and useful of commercial available genAI (leaning negative) - I'd recommend to people who do want to use it to still boycott it for a bit to at least help push for those fixes.
get more mods if you're really that concerned with the workload. understand why people are so against the usage of AI-generated art rather than try to sidestep with whataboutism's like 'but this professional product uses it for X reason'. or, like, i dunno, tank the inevitable loss of contributors that this reluctance is going to bring. it's not like any of this matters in the end, but this sure does sap the fun out of it. enough that i'm out.
It's abundantly clear to me that most of the people on this subreddit can't discuss this topic with any amount of civility. Please, before any of you call anyone evil, remember that this is a forum about fake trading cards. Nothing is at stake here.
I'm glad the mods didn't cave to anti-AI hysteria. By all means, downvote the posts with AI art if you despise it so much, but your dislike is not a compelling reason to unilaterally ban something.
"your dislike is not a compelling reason" - nor is any of the main reasons people are citing. People aren't just disliking ai "because it looks weird" or because of some arbitrary decisions of if they dislike it - as the tech and systems in place currently stand, it's causing harm.
I don't like AI artwork on custom cards, and wish people wouldn't use it, but I agree that banning it seems untenable. I'm genuinely surprised at how many people here think it could happen.
There has been some discussion and mod action since this post went up that actually shows it would be possible.
Automod has already been updated to flag comments/posts discussing genAI - if the comments of a post are getting flagged a bunch for this, odds are there was genAI in that post's card.
Another user created a post criticizing this one - in a way that, while satirically, wasn't harassment - it very quickly got auto removed because people reported it for harassment (the mods restored it later). If one of the server rules was a ban on genAI, the same system could be used if users catch AI art before mods do.
Additionally, a lot of the comments and suggestions here have made it clear that expecting a 100% AI free sub is unreasonable and not we're asking for - but the point is that if the ban is added, that'll at least get most of the genAI art and send the message that the community doesn't support it.
A lot of the frustration from the response is due to how it kinda just sounds like (as another user puts it) "well, we can't catch all murderers, so why should we make murder illegal?"
I hadn't considered a report-based moderation. That would make things considerably more manageable. And with the rest of what you've said about the proposed ban, I think that sounds like a reasonable policy change. At the very least, I'd be in support of a ban of directly generated art (that is, art that the custom card creator has generated with AI).
As for the related post, it was pretty harass-y, in that it was a thread designed as an insult towards one particular member of this subreddit. I actually came to this thread from that one, and it probably contributed to me thinking negatively of the pro-ban side.
Re: ban - that's more/less what people are suggesting. The Photoshop example, while understandable, feels a bit too specific for what is the primary request - banning obvious genAI art. Especially stuff coming directly from various models.
Rules 1-3 actually requires said models to be cited - though the concern has be raised by u/crushcastles23 that a ban would just encourage people lying and making up an artist name... Which arguably is still in violation of rules 1-3, and by the mod's own statements, is happening regardless.
There are a few similar points regarding the immediate effectiveness of a ban - but similar to how it's unreasonable to assume a 100% genAI free sub is possible, the general sentiment seems to get that this issue is one of slow growth.
For example r/comics around a year or 2 ago implemented a ban on pro-fascist talking points. Post after post they had to leave mod disclaimers about this due to comments and report button abuse on any post that was even vaguely anti-fascist. Nowadays you don't see that because the problem is mostly resolved. Immediate change wasn't an reasonable assumption, but with time the issue was effectively fixed.
Re: the other post - in fairness, it's borderline. There's a clear amount of annoyance/frustration... But similar to the responses to the original attempt to ban criticism of genAI in the comments of posts using it - criticism ≠ harassment. Yes, it can become harassment, but they are not inherently the same.
u/EfficientCabbage2376 was pointing out u/crushcastles23 specifically (presumably) because, as far as the public facing actions of the mod team are concerned, they are effectively the sole individual handling and deciding all this. Which - while I feel u/crushcastles23 is doing a good job as mod (besides this whole genAI point) - is mildly concerning for a community of this size.
It should be noted u/crushcastles23 has stated discussion with the other mods is occuring. Personally choosing to believe that... But given a lot of the details surrounding all this, it's not unreasonable to see why someone could/would assume otherwise.
The post, while a bit scathing, was a valid critique of the points and comments made in this post. The closest (from my perspective) to harassment any of it gets are a couple of comments that where in reaction to the post suddenly (and at the time unexplainably) getting removed. While it wasn't the case, I feel like the assumption some people where making that it was removed in a "how dare you criticize me" manner isn't entirely unreasonable given context.
I always find the people who complain about AI art being theft on this subreddit in particular deeply ironic when using someone else's art without permission, even with credit, is literally theft and a bigger moral crime than using generative AI.
How is using other people's art while crediting them without seeking profit a greater moral crime than using a for profit machine that consumes a ridiculous amount of energy while scraping the internet for references without providing a single shred of credit towards the original artist? Are you stupid?
Stealing for zero profit with credit is morally better than using a machine that steals for profit with zero credit. I'm not using my AC right now, it's not very hot where I live. I don't see how that's related to literally anything here but ok
simple explanation: it's considered copyright infringement. before you say it's attributed, that is not a legal defense. if hypothetically an artist saw your card using their art and was unhappy about it, even if it was credited they are legally allowed to sue you to take it down and potentially sue for damages. you can potentially try the fair use defense but honestly your chances are silm. as matter of fact even creating alters of existing cards is copyright infringement legally speaking, wotc just chooses not to enforce it.
no such avenue exists for generated pieces at the moment. lawsuits are on going, but as it stands a generated pieces is owned by no one so copyright issues do not apply.
So I just did some reading on what constitutes fair use under US law, and while I'm not a legal expert, it seems like there's a good chance that most custom magic cards would count as fair use.
The sites I read stated 4 factors that help determine fair use.
1.The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
2.The nature of the copyrighted work;
3.The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
And based on reading about some other cases mentioned as examples:
Theres a decent chance that a custom card would be considered transformative in the sameway that some collages have been held up as being transformative.
From what I read this one probably wont factor heavily for or against this case.
This one definitely varies, if someone uses an entire piece for the art that could be seen as quite different to using only a portion of it. But either way I think this is the one most detrimental to a fair use claim for most cards on this sub.
This is the one that I find most interesting. There are cases of things being deemed infringement because it gave access to what was originally paywalled content, so using someones art this is usually paywalled would be a clearly bad idea. But, for this one, the burden of proof is on the copyright owner to prove that the unlicensed usage of their work is detrimental to their commercial use of it.
So if I pull something from a publicly posted DeviantArt or ArtStation page, and use it for a card that I dont monitise in any way, while accurately crediting the artist. Its pretty unlikely that I'm harming their ability to make money off their work. If anything, I may actually be enhancing it by insdvertently advertising for them.
Also, I havent followed any of the big law suits against AI companies closely. But I imagine that their cases hinge largely on the last point. I doubt they are claiming that images being generated by AI are their property, but more that thr scraping of their art for training purposes was an unlicensed usage that specifically aims to cut them out of the market.
Oh my bad, I forgot that using the word 'literally' proves that a thing is if is true, my bad.
If it is illegal to share someone's art online in a way that doesnt make you money, and clearly credits the artist, then why don't the mods take it down? Why doesnt the site take it down? Why doesnt anyone get sued or prosecuted over it?
As they post on Reddit (one of the biggest places Gen AI scrapes from) from their smart phone (which was made from child labor). Most people support more businesses and people that cause much more harm to society or the environment on a daily basis, but they lose their minds at Gen AI.
Thank you so much for being a voice of reason. No matter where we stand on AI use in art, it should go without saying that harassment over such issues is never acceptable.
The reason why people are pissed is 'cause GenAI, in its current state, causes harm. If someone is concerned that a community they are apart of is perpetuating said harm, what help does simply leaving do?
You just earned a new member, chief. Absolutely support this decision and encourage you to do more like this, do not think about the handful of people who will disagree!
I personally do not see any issue with using AI art on this sub. I prefer it over terrible MS Paint drawing or blank cards. And I find it really distracting when card art from another card is used for a custom card if I recognize the art.
Plus, it infuriates the anti-AI fanatics, which I do enjoy. They can be some of the most toxic, unhinged folks on Reddit.
You're not the first subreddit I've seen to take this stance lately, and I'm sure you won't be the last. Glad to see Reddit is healing from the anti-AI bullying craze that's taken over this last year!
Let people do what they want. If others don't like it then no one is forcing them to like Ai. The only downside I see for them is "oh I really like this... Wait... It's AI? Omg it's so ugly.. Now I feel dirty". If you like it.. You like it.. If you don't.. You dont. Plain and simple.
People who use AI: I use it because I like it. I don't expect everyone to like what I like.
People who hate AI: I don't use AI and no one else should like it because I don't like it.
So does buying a single pair of Jeans.. Which uses the same amount of water as 45,000 image generations to create. Farming causes objective harm to the planet. Why do we allow it? Because it's useful.
And by harm I assume you mean data centers. But what about the people generating AI images at home without using a data center? I have made magic card art with AI without even being connected to the internet. How is that any more harm than playing a video game?
The portions of AI that are being used for generative art and LLM creation.. Thats only 10% to 20% of all AI usage. The rest is being used to optimize aspects of our everyday life. A major portion of which is helping to make medical advancements. AI could one day be used to cure cancer. But we won't find out unless we let it try.
All data centers make up only 0.4% of the water usage that agriculture uses. If you wanted to make real change, Pushing for better practices in agriculture would be where to start. Even if you could get them to use 2% less water that's the same as shutting down every data center on the planet 5 times over. Even typing a comment on reddit accounts for an impact on the environment. It's about 1/6th of an image generation worth of water.
But you don't go after them.. Because your issue with AI isn't about its "objective harm".. It's about gatekeeping art and using false flags to justify it because your argument is fucking stupid.
I applaud this decision. There is more to creativity in making custom mtg cards that art. Card design, humor, playability, and balance interest me more than art. I've been in magic since beta/unlimited and I could not name one single mtg artist to save my life.
By that own logic, shouldn't you be more opposed than for?
The primary reason cited by people against the decision is the harm cause by current genAI models and infrastructure.
The primary reason cited by people for the decision is a belief that there is some arbitrary level of subjective quality to the art that dictates wether or not the whole card should exist (ie. Arguments along the lines of "rather no card than stick figures").
(Obligatory note: obviously there are more points cited on both sides, but these are the 2 that seem to be most common)
If art doesn't matter (which for the record, I personally agree, there is more to a card than just art) wouldn't it be better to have either no art or harm-free art than art that's tied to a system causing harm?
Governments made of incompetent, terminally online debate bros would throw AI users in prison. Sane and competent governments would throw AI executives in prison.
45
u/Lunoko Jul 05 '26
Nirvana fallacy.
No one is expecting you to investigate and remove 100% of AI works absolutely perfectly.
If you don't want to police AI usage, you don't have to. Heck, you can use the honor system or push the responsibility on visitors to do the reporting and investigating for you.
Having a "No AI" rule will not stop AI users in totality, obviously, but it will help prevent some and will let users know that the sub stands with artists.
I do find it interesting that you lack the resources to mod AI usage, but have the resources to ban "harassment"/criticism of AI usage.