Forum:Policy on usage of generative AI

A week ago my attention was brought to a proposal on the RuneScape wikis regarding a policy on usage of generative AI drafted by Cook Me Plox. Please note that, if accepted, the intend is that it would come into effect on the RuneScape wikis and not the Minecraft Wiki. However, I'm bringing this up as, sooner or later, we'll have to deal with this. Three questions: 1) Do we see the need for such policy, even if pre-emptively; 2) if so, what should be in this policy? It could be a copy-paste of the draft or resulting policy (with changes made where necessary, obviously) or something new; 3) if this AI policy is going to be a copy-paste of the Cook draft or policy, should we instead refer to that policy rather than having our own?

Additionally, I wonder if this can be a policy for all the Minecraft Wikis rather than just the English one. As it is, even in its current state, it's written rather broadly and not focused on one specific wiki. This is, of course, depending on the support from the language wikis. I'll ask them for their opinion. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve never used generative AI, I don’t intend to use it in the future, and I don’t want to be replaced by it as an editor of any wiki. I’m all for disallowing usage of such software on MCW. In my personal opinion, which may or may not be correct, those who develop such technology are not focusing enough on the ethics side of things. AI must not learn from our worse sides and traits. — BabylonAS 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Slight oppose – I don't think it's necessary for a policy regarding GenAI to be created, as there aren't a large number of, if any, edits using, let alone abusing such technology. I think this should be already covered by rule #4, although I'm not completely against reiterating such concerns. I also worry about "global policies" and their approval process. --GIM Dianliang233 T C 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment — We would have to see what type of AI you were referring to, because we at the Portuguese Wiki use translation tools to translate pages from the English Wiki. But we only translate to keep it updated. We don't do this with discussion pages or community pages. — Jonasagra (talk) 👁 Image
Director [PT] 15:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It refers to generative AI, i.e. ChatGPT and Gemini (formerly Google Bard). I don't consider a translation tool like Google Translate to be AI. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support – All points mentioned in the draft are valid, and even if covered by other rules, some AI-focused tech bros need it spelled out. Also, this is not necessarily about AI tools for translation (the draft specifically says "unless the purpose is to translate your original thought to a different language", but specifically for generating new content or using the content for AI training. Wormbo (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Overall, I 👁 Image
 support the creation of this policy. My responses to your questions are:

1. Yes, generative AI should never be used for writing wiki content due to the abundances of mistakes it creates, therefore burdening editors with fixing AI generated content. Wiki content being stolen by becoming training data should also be prevented when possible. So I think there is good reason to implement this policy, and while it can be considered pre-emptive, I don't think there's actually anything wrong with that. AI generated content being put on the wiki or wiki content becoming training data is not a far fetched idea to me in the slightest.

2. I think it should be a full policy, I think the RSW draft goes into a good amount of detail that would be lost entirely if we instead just made a new rule in MCW:Wiki rules saying "don't put AI generated content on the wiki", or if we considered rule 4 to cover this. I don't mind whether we write our own policy or copy over RSW's, it might be unnecessary to write our own because RSW's draft looks pretty great to me already, but I think there's merit in writing our own. So I'm neutral on that.

3. If we enforce this policy, I certainly disagree with directing people to an RSW page. Even if we copied the policy from them, it just feels odd, I think a casual user wouldn't be that aware of the connection between RSW and MCW, and therefore could be confused about why they're being sent over to read RSW's policies.

About whether or not this should apply to all lang wikis, I don't think the policy is important enough to be implemented on all lang wikis because of one discussion. I think we should casually encourage lang wikis to have their own discussions about it and implement it themselves though. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
15:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I change my stance to a much 👁 Image
 stronger support now that I've been able to witness a user casually use AI on this wiki. I've been proposed for admin, and the user used AI to write the proposal. I genuinely find that insulting in a weird way. No doubt this discussion needs to be nuanced though, translator tools are a necessity for those on the other language wikis, but in no way shape or form is it necessary for a user to perform basic edits like grammar checks with AI. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
21:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Yes I don't know what the best way to word it is, but a user should not use AI if they don't need it. And the only case of needing it is where the user wants to translate an article, and lacks sufficient knowledge on the language they are translating to. Going further, most wikis might benefit from having a template, like {{wip}}, for AI. Maybe {{AI Generated}} would be the right way to do it. The template would say "This article has been AI translated because the author could not effectively translate the source article. Please help by rewriting it and correcting any mistakes you can see." Of course, this wording would only work for the English wiki, and the English wiki would be in the least need of such a template, due to the sheer prevelance of the English language. Nonetheless, I believe that using a template and having a strict AI policy is the best practice going forward. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 22:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strongly disagree - I don't agree with having global wiki policies. We should not have a specific AI policy as it will limit the ability to translate, edit and improve wikis. --Eduaddad _(talk) pt.Wiki Administrator 18:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

As has been said, translators do not/would not apply with the policy. Otherwise, generative AI does not help improve wikis in any way, it hinders the ability to improve the wiki quite a lot actually. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
19:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

how exactly does AI hinder the ability to improve the wiki quite a lot? -BrianGLHF (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It would cause problems with copyright and licensing, plus we would have to identify and remove such content if it is alleged it originated from AI. AI may introduce subtle errors or false information, and it may not be vetted by human minds before addition to the wiki. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you can "copyright" or "license" basic grammar rules, but I'm seeing in the discussion here a planned carve out for translations being okay but not grammar. I'm pretty sure "copyright" is not ignored in languages other than English. Does MCW or WG have an actual copyright lawyer on retainer to refer to? -BrianGLHF (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be best to refer to [1] for this particular issue. It's worth remembering MCW is under the same host as RS wiki with the same licensing terms. I can't imagine the polciies having to differ significantly. The major difference being that MCW comes in much more langauges. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the link is relevant for this particular issue considering I'm not talking about using MCW as an AI information source. Also "This does not constitute legal advice" hence the question about access to an actual copyright lawyer with actual knowledge on the subject. -BrianGLHF (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong Support yes, we should write out own policy, and make it similar to the one on RuneScape. This policy is not super important, but it is a good thing to include in the wiki rules, or as a subpage of the wiki rules. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 19:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support We're entering an age where AI regulations will be very important, and this should be a good starting point --TreeIsLife (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, but the fact it doesn't apply to translations should be made clearer. –MetalManeMc, 👁 Image
French👁 Image
Wiki admin (Talk to me!👁 Image
) 20:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

While I do 👁 Image
 Support having a local English wiki policy preventing AI generated content, it should not be global. It's easier for RuneScape Wiki because they don't have as many languages, but we have a tradition at MCW of having different policies on many topics. But if we decide for making this global, as MetalManeMc said, the policy should specifically not include translators, because the AI can be very helpful on those cases. I'd also like to add that using ChatGPT to translate paragraphs is way better than using Google Translate and I personally think no content should be published without a human review in any language. --Dr03ramos (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I make the words of dr03ramos mine. — Jonasagra (talk) 👁 Image
Director [PT] 22:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - His words are mine either. - by 👁 Image
Faariaz, an 👁 Image
Editor (PT) (talk | contrib) at 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - His words are basically what I would say. Chinese wiki may be stricter on using machine translations, thus having each wiki having their local policies on generative AI would be better.-- Lakejason0 (Talk • Contribs) 01:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Most dicussions on the English wiki should stay here on the English wiki. I find the idea of making this kind of policy global to be somewhat strange, but I guess I can see the logic in it. – Unsigned comment added by Simanelix (talk • contribs) at 02:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC). Sign comments with ~~~~

👁 Image
 General comment: Throughout my education, I have been tought that AI is plagiarism. I don't see a mention of plagairism on our MCW:Wiki rules (oddly enough), but I still think that plagiarism is unethical and should be against the wikis. Of course, plagiarism can be hard to define, but you get the point. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 02:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Long overdue overall reply (caught a cold and got highly distracted by Iceland). From what I gather, there's no need for a global AI policy, just local to the wiki. From what I can gather, RSW's proposed policy goes in enough detail, but ours need not (necessarily) be a direct copy of theirs. This also precludes redirecting users to the RSW page. I've got enough information now, thanks for the input. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. Due to copyright and licensing concerns, we definitely need such policy regarding AI. I'd suggest/recommend the AI policy apply to all language wikis. One cavat being that translators are often of assist for language wikis, and as such they benefit from having such tools valuable. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Slight oppose - I agree with the fact that AI can finish originality in the wiki and could also be used for vandalization but, it can be used to improve wiki pages (eg. correcting grammatical mistakes, adjusting spaces, correcting punctuations etc.). So, my opinion is that this policy should be rather specific than just entirely banning the usage of AI. -- 👁 Image
StizzurpXDDtalk | contribs 19:51 , 5 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose the above reply. We do not know fully about where copyright stands with content coming from LLM generated content. As such, a full ban with very limited execptions should be the way to go. The proposal on RS wiki is roughly identical with what would be proposed on wiki, plus allowing tranlation aids used by some language wikis. I don't see any benefit or need from carving out any additional exceptions. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose with your reply. I strongly oppose the proposal for a full ban on content generated by LLMs with only limited exceptions. While acknowledging concerns about copyright and LLM-generated content, a blanket ban risks stifling innovation and hindering the valuable applications of these technologies across various industries. LLMs play a crucial role in tasks such as summarizing complex information, generating ideas, and providing translations, which could be particularly beneficial in multilingual communities. Responsible use, with proper attribution, can adhere to fair use principles, and clear guidelines can ensure legal and ethical practices. Community consensus, based on thorough discussions, should guide decisions rather than rushing into a ban without considering diverse perspectives or potential benefits. Therefore, instead of a ban, efforts should focus on developing clear guidelines and fostering discussions to promote responsible use. -- 👁 Image
StizzurpXDDtalk | contribs 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This is discussion about the policy proposed on Runescape wiki and adapting it to the needs of MCW. Refer to the policy described on RS wiki for actual policy specifics and what it allows and doesn't allow. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment. "LLMs play a crucial role in tasks such as summarizing complex information, [...]" is just not true. Wiki projects have historically never needed (and may have been better off) without LLMs. -- mschae23 (M_S_72 | talk) 20:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment yes, the subject is much more nuanced than "AI bad. Ban all AI usage except translations because "copyright" and "it will ruin the wiki forever" or "because RSW is doing it we need to do it too". -BrianGLHF (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment. I don't think banning AI is even necessary. I believe most major LLM services don't waive the copyright holder status of their output to the user, so they do not have the right to use it on the wiki anyway, which requires a CC BY-NC-SA license. If you can't be sure that the generated text is licensed that way, you cannot use it. -- mschae23 (M_S_72 | talk) 20:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 No There have already been lawsuits that ruled that these copyrights are listed in the terms of service (ToS). Look at the ToS of your LLM of choice, and you will probably find a claim to "copyrights" or "reserved rights" in there. Everything generated by an LLM is legally considered the intellectual property of the company who trained the LLM. Even if an LLM's training data is entirely within the public domain, its output is not. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 23:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said. If you do not hold the copyrights to an LLM's output, you do not have the right to use it in the wiki - and you usually don't. On an unrelated note, "intellectual property" doesn't exist, and even if it did, this is purely about copyright. Trademarks, patents, etc. are not involved. -- mschae23 (M_S_72 | talk) 11:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose - This is my final answer for the Policy on usage of generative AI. I strongly oppose a ban on the usage of AI as even though it makes mistakes and is not always reliable, it can help a lot when it comes to improving the wiki. AI can do the work which would usually take hours to do in just seconds. When it comes to copyright issues, generating the full thing in AI will have owner rights as the people who trained the AI but the text which already has a copyright owner, in this case The Minecraft Wiki, using AI to improve the pages by correcting errors will not transfer the copyrights to the trainer of that LLM. And also, I have seen users referring to RuneScapes Wiki and saying that “They have introduced a ban on the usage of generative Ai” and all that stuff but the point to be noted is that Minecraft Wiki is not RuneScapes Wiki. It is a completely different wiki based on a completely different topic and I think coping with what they are doing is just stupid. Using technology to improve wiki pages should always be appreciated. So, even if a policy is introduced on the usage of generative AI, I think it shouldn’t completely ban the usage of AI (referring to other things like improving pages, not just language - based usage). --👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 09:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support I agree with the draft cook made almost entirely. i think Ai might be helpful for translating purposes but other than that it should be totally banned. In the draft cook made a few good arguments why but it's helpful to note that Ai will always be be behind. I.E someone using the free chat GPT, it won't have info to new mechanics and will give incorrect info; it wouldn't know any new feature, and if a feature changed it wouldn't know. GPT-4 seems to be more or less up to date (checked that myself) but it's still unreliable as cook stated. Im not totally against it being used for grammer checks, fixing error codes etc on pages as long as we know it will be accurate (but I doubt that will happen soon), if that's possible it will be a rather helpful tool. Edit- I would rather have our own policy rather that RSW's. thirs isnt very detailed (not that it needs to be) so writing out own shouldent be a problem. Consumed (Talk│Contributions) 02:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support I fully support this. I think generative AI is something we, as Wiki editors, should never use. Generative AI is not a tool for editing, editing takes creativity and innovation, we can’t just use an artificial intelligence to replace that, so I’m all for it. Element (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

From the above discussion, I think the following consensus can be inferred:

• GenAI should not be used in wiki-editing.
• The policy on the Weird Gloop Meta Wiki goes in great depth in why generative AI should not be used.
• (Because no one opposes to the wording of it,) the policy can be used verbatim.
• Although the language wikis support it to some degree, they prefer to make their own policy on this matter.

Therefore, now that the policy is no longer a draft on Meta, I propose amending the MCW:Wiki rules by inserting subarticle 4.1 after article 4 that reads: "Using generative AI (for example, ChatGPT) to edit the wiki is not allowed.". In addition, [2] can be reworded to incicate that this policy applies to the English Minecraft Wiki.

--GIM Dianliang233 T C 23:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support I was going to suggest we complicate it by mentioning Weird Gloop in prose and using some colons, but considering the rules already state that Weird Gloop's policies apply to this wiki, I think this format is perfectly clear enough. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 00:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose at this time. This topic is still being discussed, with unanswered questions, and there is still some opposition here. A few have said they don't want to just copy RSW/WG. Also, what makes a Translation different than correcting Grammar? Why is there a carve out for one but not the other. Do you think copyright lawyers only speak English? Can we translate our text to German and translate back to English? How will this rule be enforced? Also still wondering exactly how translating with AI doesn't damage the wiki but using AI of grammar does hurt the wiki. Also perhaps a new post is in ordrer for this proposal rather than burying it at the bottom of a discusssion. I think these are important things worth considering. Thanks for understanding! -BrianGLHF (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Language wikis generally operate under the same license as the English wiki (and vice versa), hence that is why many of the copyright issues go away when translating content from one wiki to another. Wikipedia already has a handful of pages that are translated from the language Wikipedias to or from the English Wikipedia. They also come with a disclaimer against copy pasting machine generated translations, so a translator must validate a translation is done correctly before a translation can be completed. The situation is not that different with MCW language wikis. A tranlation of an article from one language to another can generally maintain attribution with referencing the original article. With AI generated LLM content, we don't know what content or sources it was generated and trained from. This is why translations are generally acceptable, and translation aids are often valuable for translators, but LLM generated AI content is not suitable for a wiki for any other purpose. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. It's pretty complex and we don't really know that much about AI anyways. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 17:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the distinction between AI for translation/grammar and "generative" AI is pretty clear. Generative AI produces content for you. Other AI transforms content for you, whether it is translation or correcting grammar. This proposal only seeks to ban tools that are of a generative nature. GIM Dianliang233 T C 03:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support - Since this is not a global policy, the discussion about translation tools is largely irrelevant and serves only to delay this policy's implementation. The English wiki never translates content from its language wikis, and therefore no matter if we feel translation tools should be included in this policy or not, it would not affect anything. Because of this, the conversation doesn't need to be had in my opinion. Otherwise, GenAI should undoubtedly be banned from use in editing and this proposal is a clean way of implementing it. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
00:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Some langauges are too small or inactive to discuss this issue in depth. We should try to have a global policy, but I suppose a temporary local policy specific to the English wiki may be useful to allow quicker implementation of the AI policy on the English wiki. The global language wiki issue should still be discussed, as the original proposal discusses implementing an AI policy globally for all language wikis. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

"Some langauges are too small or inactive to discuss this issue in depth." Well it's a good thing it's not necessary for them to discuss this, I'm not sure why it would be. Aside from that, you've made no argument for why this should be a global policy. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
09:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, there's a few articles on language wikis that are yet to be created on the English wiki despite meeting EN wiki notability guidelines. In that case, translations on the English wiki do need to be addressed as such. For example, some articles exist on DE and ZH, but not yet translated into English. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Yes Having a discussion here is a good thing, because new / smaller language wikis can read this discussion to get a feel for what their AI policy should be based on. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 13:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Then my opinion on using translation tools is that text translated by them must only ever be the basis of a translation. It should be the starting point that you then modify into essentially being a human translation, that way you are not putting a purely AI translated piece of text on the wiki. I still think this is largely irrelevant to EN anyway. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
09:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support adding it to the rules, but I think it would fit better under rule 2.1, as the result is disruptive even if the intent may not necessarily be. I would also prefer to copy the AI policy to this wiki rather than using Weird Gloop's, even if unchanged, as well have the link to it in a separate sentence to make it clearer why AI is disallowed (e.g. "For more information, see the [policy on generative AI]"). –Sonicwave ^talk 03:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 I don't know which section would be more appropriate. In my opinion, AI can violate rules 2, 4, and 6. So, it should get its own rule clause. Rearranging the rules might also be a good idea. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose - This disscussion is still is in its process. Taking such a proposal for such a vital decision like this is almost injustice to this disscussion. There are still many oppositions as to why such rule shouldn't be devised in this wiki. It is just too early for making a proposal like this. --👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 17:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If you have oppositions and questions, please post the exact, specific points where you object instead of just saying "there are oppositions". From my point of view, I think it's clear that most people like this policy, do not want to make it global, and agree with the text from RSW. GIM Dianliang233 T C 03:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I echo Dian's point. You haven't really explained why you oppose the proposal here, it more so seems like you oppose creating the proposal in the first place, not what it contains. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
09:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong Support - I have some pretty strong feelings against the useage of generative AI on the wiki.Drour1234 (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Yeah, some people use AI fradulently. Of course, that's already covered by our rules. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 03:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Clarification, I support the policy against the usage of generative AI. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 10:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a draft on our own generative AI policy to address some concerns raised above, including additional exemptions, and just having our own copy of the policy for the sake of it. I also took the opportunity to simplify the wording.

Since the use of AI can violate multiple rules, I also suggest that we add a separate rule in MCW:Wiki rules after rule 10 that reads:

Content in the "User" NS should be exempt from this rule.

(edited: changed proposed rule to #11 due to the concern raised below regarding altering the rules' order)

--GIM Dianliang233 T C 00:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Placing it as rule 7 would shift all other rules down by one, making it more confusing for existing links to those rules. I don’t seem to find any flaw in the draft, but at a first glance; deeper analysis might require knowledge that I don’t have. — BabylonAS 07:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Important What about the use of generative AI by search engines? For example, Yandex uses their own implementation of GPT technology for their “quick answer” feature, though it cites the website used for compiling the answer (and is even subject to filtering by Indie Wiki Buddy if the source ends up being our Fandom shadow). There are concerns that making our wiki off-limits to generative AI training could give the Fandom wiki an edge. — BabylonAS 11:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This is actually a really great point! It should be something that does not happen, the fandom wiki having an edge over us. 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 12:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not really a concern. Search engine AIs are not using the wiki as training data. Instead, they use content retrieval to feed the model the content of the page. Because with this method the AI can refer to the exact page, I think the use is rather acceptable. Also, note that there is currently no realistic way for us to prevent search engine AIs from using the wiki as a source except litigation. GIM Dianliang233 T C 12:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Usage of Minecraft Wiki as source by the search engine AI should actually be promoted because if not, they AI would prefer fandom over minecraft.wiki. 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 12:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

We do not have control over that except keep producing good content. GIM Dianliang233 T C 12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing you are right. 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 12:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

How do you think an search engine AI is trying to find the best sources out of a few dozen search results so it could output its answer? Are you really sure that it isn’t trying to learn on the sources it finds? — BabylonAS 14:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment We could add it as a sub-rule of 6 instead, like we have multiple sub-rules for 10. Adding it as 11 works as well, but 6.1 would probably be a bit cleaner and keep the rules a bit more concise imo. | violine1101 ^(talk) 14:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support the draft as it goes in depth of what should not be done as well as what can be done using generative AI which clears most of the uses out. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 08:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you really have to copy my comment word-to-word? — BabylonAS 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just quoted what you said and mentioned you. For word by word coping, I'm sure that is what you said why would I change something that you said, if the changed comment is not what you said? - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 09:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, I’ve given my reasons already, this second proposal is just outlining things more clearly. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
11:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. This draft policy stipulates how I'd see it implemented as well. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support -BrianGLHF (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. This draft will prevent many AI-bros from thinking they can use AI on the wiki. Also, this helps clarify exceptions for users with good intentions. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support.Drour1234 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support –⁠Sonicwave ^talk 21:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support with some minor suggestions for clarification:

• "Post-edited machine translation" is a bit unclear and should probably be something like "checked and edited machine translation".
• "Grammar and spell checking, except for unsupervised bot edits" should be changed to "[...] unsupervised automated edits" because someone can also do automated edits without using a designated "bot" account.
• I'm not sure if we should refer to Weird Gloop when it comes to the second section after "This does not constitute legal advice". Perhaps something like "[...] but the Minecraft Wiki's current position is that using wiki content for training data does not constitute fair use, [...]" would be better (potentially substituting the name of our legal entity in place of "the Minecraft Wiki" once it exists). This also outlines that this position can change, given that the current legal situation when it comes to AI is a bit unclear.

But apart from that I do think this is good! | violine1101 ^(talk) 11:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record "post-edited machine translation" is actually jargon for "checked and edited", but point taken. I've applied the suggestions. Thanks! GIM Dianliang233 T C 12:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, wasn't aware, thanks for pointing that out. Yeah I think for clarity's sake it's still better to not use jargon here. | violine1101 ^(talk) 14:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Thanks for reviving this, we really needed a consensus. I think this policy is purely beneficial and preemptively avoids problematic situations on the wiki. - BD (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)