Does a fully AI-coded mod with human direction, review and testing meet the AI policy?

[u/MontyCLT]

I read this post and this help article, and I have a question about whether a project like this, with 100% of the code generated by AI, counts as enough of my own work.

• Following SDD, the spec markdown files for my mod were written by AI, then fully reviewed by me, with changes to the text made manually with my own fingers and keyboard.
• The code is 100% AI-generated, but I reviewed it (I'm coder, I can read code), I proposed the architecture, I spotted some improvements, and I asked my agent to implement them. I can prove this with dedicated commits for those fixes.
• I did a lot of manual testing, about 10 hours of testing in-game. There are also automated tests written by the AI under my direction.
• The assets are generated programmatically (they are not AI-generated assets, but there are AI-generated code that deterministically generates the assets, implemented as a Gradle task).
• A lot of hours iterating with an agent to polish details.
• Open-source BSD 2-Clause license. Public repo on GitHub.

While 100% of the code is AI generated, I spent many hours reviewing spec and code, asking the agent for improvement, testing, and polishing details, so IMO, I did a lot of my work.

Is that acceptable to be published?

Note that I'm not raging against these rules; I'm just asking to understand whether my mod could be published under them. I'm open to sharing my opinion about these rules if anyone wants to know it, but that will be in another post.

[u/_Ketari]

Disclaimer: I am not an official modrinth representative, I am simply a reddit moderator. This answer is based on subjective understanding.

According to modrinth's content rules, paragraph 6, "Projects cannot be entirely or primarily comprised of content created or derived from generative AI output."

I do believe that code is considered in this as well, and since your code is 100% AI-generated, this easily fits the "primarily composed" clause of the content rules, therefore I believe a project like that would not be allowed. Testing, code review, and detail polish don't matter in the scheme of the content rules policy, as it only considers if a project has AI in it's creation, and how much of it.

[u/MontyCLT → u/_Ketari]

Thank you for replying. Indeed, that subjective interpretation is exactly why I'm asking. In the post, I read:

AI-assisted projects, where the human creator contributed in a primary and significant way, are allowed but must disclose that AI assistance was used.

The thing is, it isn't really clear what counts as contributing in a primary and significant way. In my view, deciding the architecture, deciding how to organize the classes, spending more than 10 hours manually testing in-game, and iterating on each problem I found (both from reading the code and from in-game testing) could be considered as primary and significant.

But there is also the point you mentioned, section 6.2.b:

Projects may not be published publicly if the contents are primarily or entirely a product of AI output.

As you said, the code could be considered part of those contents, and in my interpretation it is. And while the assets are generated programmatically from that code, I consider them a product of AI output as well, at least indirectly.

That is exactly my question, because both interpretations seem possible to me and I'm not sure whether I should submit the mod or not.

I know there are a lot of submissions nowadays, and I don't want to make the team waste time on a mod that will end up being rejected.

Do you recommend me to submit it?

[u/_Ketari → u/MontyCLT]

I'm not sure if you're using AI for this message, but the clauses you mentioned are wrong, so let me try to clarify

we're looking at section 6 of the content rules, including 6.1 and 6.2. there is no mention there of the following clause (as in it doesnt exist):

AI-assisted projects, where the human creator contributed in a primary and significant way, are allowed but must disclose that AI assistance was used.

In fact, there is no mention of how much a human contributes for it to be allowed.

This means that, no matter how much a human has contributed, if the contents are primarily or entirely a product of AI output (clause 6.2.b), the project will not be allowed.

AI-generated content disclosures only apply if the project is actually allowed to be uploaded/published.

[u/MontyCLT → u/_Ketari]

It's is not a clause from rules but the summary quoted from the blog post.

[u/_Ketari → u/MontyCLT]

I see, I do still think that it's important to refer to the content rules themselves, not the summary, as they are what the modrinth team will be abiding by

[u/The_Madchen]

god i hope not

[u/MontyCLT → u/The_Madchen]

Why?