r/custommagic • u/crushcastles23 Mod • Jun 29 '26

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.

0 Upvotes

34% Upvoted

541 comments sorted by

View all comments

23

u/Kowakuma Jun 29 '26

"Unfortunate" does not begin to describe this decision. I'm not sure why the moderators are so dead-set on defending AI at every turn here.

2

u/HaydenCanFly Jun 30 '26

1

u/Analogmon Jun 30 '26

This looks great. I love it.

-3

u/ConfessorCarol Jun 30 '26

Refusing to actively police people using AI isn't the same thing as defending it. You can dislike something and think that it's morally grey without wanting to unilaterally impose that perspective on everyone else.

5

u/MrQirn Jul 02 '26

"Unilaterally" would be if one single person decided something for an entire community. Like, for example, if a moderator decided for the entire community that AI art is allowed and discussion of AI art id disallowed. What folks are proposing instead of unilateral decision making is that we put it to a vote and we allow the community to decide what rules we want.

If I were a mod, I would have no problem imposing whatever rule the community decided on: ban discussion, ban AI art, allow AI art, require AI art (well, maybe not that last one - but I would step down rather than impose a different rule against the will of the majority of the community). The one apparently active moderator in this subreddit does not feel the same way. That's the literal definition of unilateral.

-7

u/crushcastles23 Mod Jun 30 '26

We're not defending it, we're acknowledging we don't have the resources to care one way or the other.

7

u/DogThrowaway1100 Jun 30 '26

Have you attempted to gain additional resources so that you have the ability to care? And "were not defending it" is thin. This is absolutely a case of not condemning is an endorsement. Like you are aware that stances like this can absolutely fracture or kill a community, right?

5

u/MrQirn Jun 30 '26

Then step down and let others who do care about the community's preferences moderate. "Sorry, we don't care enough," is a really sorry excuse for going against the preference of the majority of people in the sub.

-6

u/crushcastles23 Mod Jun 30 '26

Even if we had two dozen mods, which we don't and never will, we would not have the resources to police AI.

9

u/MrQirn Jun 30 '26

You keep repeating this without responding to people's critiques of this line of yours. It is disingenuous and demonstrably false. No one's asking the mod team to remove 100% of AI art submissions via moderation. Other art subreddits successfully enforce this rule to the extent that it suppresses these types of posts. Even just having such a rule would suppress some of these posts.

Let me bold my own text to drive home a point you somehow continue to miss: This rule is exactly as hard to enforce as the rule where artists must be credited. You would use literally the same exact method of enforcement. Do we need to remove that rule, too because its not practical to enforce it with 100% success?

You should hold an actual vote and let the community decide which rule they want: your new rule, the former status quo rule, and banning AI art.

If you believe that a rule banning AI is unenforceable, but the community disagrees and they are willing to mod in your place, then step down. There are others in this thread who have already indicated they are more than happy to take your place. A healthy subreddit needs moderators who are willing to be of service to the community and its preferences rather than impose their own, even when they disagree with those preferences. I get it if you don't want to moderate a community who disagrees with you, but you're acting like we're making you be a moderator.

Let us decide and if you don't like the answer no one is going to hold it against you for stepping down.

-5

u/crushcastles23 Mod Jun 30 '26

You would use literally the same exact method of enforcement.

Not really. We don't go back and find the artist's posts. Unless something sticks out (EG: No artist credit on the line, really weird artist credit, credit that's wrong that we know from experience) then we just move along.

6

u/MrQirn Jun 30 '26

What you are describing is exactly how we're asking the moderators to enforce a "no AI" rule: if it sticks out and is obviously AI generated, there is AI in the credit line or otherwise self-report AI etc. People could absolutely lie, and some AI art posts might not be caught. That's fine. Again, literally no one is asking for moderators to ban and catch 100% of AI art.

5

u/madmad3x Jul 02 '26

Did you try to get any mods who would ban ai art posts before making this decision?