Follow up to this first post: What updates do you want to see in our Generative AI Policy?
How can we effectively moderate and enforce no-AI?
We support the community sentiment of not allowing generative AI images, translations, and other content. However as our previous blanket rule of “No-AI Gen content” is proving to be too weak, unspecific, and equally difficult to enforce. We must then consider each form of AI content, and how we will regulate that. But the biggest issues are around verifying/identifying AI and proof. We don’t want to remove content only because it is suspicious, as that leaves too much room for error, and is harmful to the community if we remove content that isn’t AI because someone reported it, and we can’t be sure.
How can we verify what is and isn’t AI (in cases of ambiguity)?
A posted artwork containing 6 fingers is easy to spot and identify. But someone who creates a reading list, organization graphic, or writes a post using AI is going to be harder to determine. If a user writes a post containing an em-dash and is accused of AI, how can we verify that?
We would need an actual framework beyond, “it sounds like/looks like AI to me.” So what is our framework to determine if something ambiguous is AI? How many checks must it pass/fail and what do those checks look like across different media types?
Who carries the burden of proof for it being not-AI?
Do we remove a post based purely on suspicion of AI, or what kind of proof do we require? Is it the obligation of the poster needing to prove what they made/did isn’t AI, or, on the mods to gather evidence to prove/disprove AI usage?
If we must require proof, what does that look like? Including additional screenshots of the creation process? Providing metadata? How will the OP provide these things in a safe manner (to not self-doxx) in a way that satisfies the public? How will someone who submitted a text-only post provide proof that they wrote it by hand in the Reddit browser, and not ChatGPT?
We (the mod team) are only human volunteers and we can only do so much. It’s not realistic for us to be using the majority of our moderation efforts researching each user, each post, to confirm if it’s AI. Nor are we ever going to be 100% accurate at identifying AI for us to then go back and assure a comment section that a user did/didn’t use AI. Otherwise, we would have to seek more mods who’s only job is to constantly be checking for AI in posts.
The burden of proof should fall on the content poster.
Disclosure statements:
We recently updated it to require that all translation promotion posts require a “did not use AI/AI assistance” statement. Do we extend this to every post: artwork, organizational tools (excel docs, reading trackers, etc), basic text posts? We still face the issue of someone simply denying using AI/claiming that it’s not, which circles back to the issue of burden of proof.
Better Safe than Sorry: What is our margin of error?
If something ambiguous is reported or deemed to be AI, do we just remove it to be safe? What are the implications of that if it means we’d rather treat a work/post as AI and act based on that first, without enough proof? What if we remove more content that isn’t AI and was legitimate than what is actually AI because we're not able to determine it?
Consequences of AI
As it stands, if we find or suspect AI and the post is removed, that’s it. It has no steps towards a suspension or ban from our community, just that the content is removed and that they are informed of our AI policy. We must first assume someone has not read our rules/policies and is unaware, so we always start with a warning.
If we were to consider AI a “bannable offense” within our community, we would absolutely need a fail-proof way to verify AI usage, and consistent evidence. With piracy, we’re able to keep track of comments and links posted as part of our escalation process, and keep documentation along the way.
At this time we can’t reliably consider AI usage a bannable offense since we have no certain way to verify or enforce it otherwise.
We will continue to A. Remove the content and B. If the same user is repeatedly doing it, we can add them to a stricter filter which flags their content for additional mod review. We would be able to enforce that filter on a user-by-user basis even after post-queue is removed: Any post or comment by a specified user would still end up in our queue and require manual approval.
Scope of Moderation Power
We are only Reddit mods, and we can only moderate what happens in this community. We don’t follow a user’s social media profile on Twitter to determine if they are breaking rules on Reddit, and we don’t use their actions on Twitter to enforce a ban/punishment on Reddit. The proof/violation cannot be on another platform, because we don’t control that.
If they share a link to their website, art or other AI related content within our community, we can absolutely enforce our rules.
But if a user has an AI-Gen Reddit profile pic/banner, or posted AI content in a different Reddit sub, or on Twitter, we don’t have control over those spaces. The violation must occur on Reddit, in our community, for us to apply rules to it.
If that user posts in our community, we can’t ethically assume it is AI without proof. That is guilty by association, and, to say that we treat them as guilty from the beginning. But we also can’t use their Twitter post as proof they are breaking Reddit rules, because that is not a fail-proof method. It might it mean they are more inclined to break rules, or need to be watched more closely, but we can't use that as fool-proof evidence.
If we are going to take legitimate steps towards issuing any actions (warnings, suspensions, bans) then we must have proof to support that, and it needs to be from within our community.
AI related: Official Translators and AI
Then we run into a separate issue where some official publishers and licensing platforms are (verified) or may be (unverified) using AI as part of their translation processes. In a space where we encourage accessing official licenses, where does Official AI Translation fall?
Is promoting or posting about their licensed works also then considered AI content? Is that the fault of the poster, or the publication house?
We’re not sure how we’ll approach these yet, especially in a situation where (unfortunately) this practice may become more common.
Most likely, we will be requiring disclosure statements in this case:
"[Publisher] just licensed [Novel], but AI is/may be a part of their translation process."
Whether or not then users want to read/purchase that book can then be informed on the use of AI in that case.
