AI disclosure in the web revival community?

[Melooon]

This seems to be a trendy topic in the wider tech world, but I thought maybe this community might have their own views on it.

Firstly; I wanna add that this is not an AI ethical debate topic, we have had those before and there are other threads you can go to debate the ethics of AI! This thread is primarily for practical actions and ideas.

Let's assume that AI is here to stay; we will see more AI art, both painterly AI art, but also AI blinkies, AI 88x31 badges, AI-written bios, AI-coded webpages, AI-written stories etc etc

People will be posting this stuff on neocities, on this forum, on statuscafe and on their own sites! (In fact some pages of the MelonLand Wiki are already AI generated) - however it's not always so clear cut; for example when I post pictures on my blog I often use an AI/Machine Learning image enhancement tool that corrects and improves the colours - if you use an iPhone, you might have played with the AI-based image cutting out tool which can be super useful for web design! Tools themselves are never something to shun, it's what those tools stand for and the effects they have that we need to be aware of.

A big part of me says that we should simply stop worrying about it and let go! However, I also think maybe there should be a loose agreed consensus on what should be disclosed as AI and what does not need to be.

Where do you think that line is; at what point does using a more advanced tool start to infringe on the handmade quality that the web revival often values? What do you do when you visit someone's art page and you cant tell if they made those pictures or an AI made them?

In many ways, the web revival has been a technical response - e.g. people started choosing to hand-code websites in order to counter the prevalence of pre-made template sites and social media sites. However now that pre-made sites and social media sites can essentially hand-code themselves (for example Facebook could re-write its own layout to look like Windows 95 when you login because it knows you like retro stuff) - how does that change this space?

I have my own ideas for that question, but Id like to see a few responses before I chime in too 

[wygolvillage]

I think using AI content is fine, it should just be common courtesy to leave a note on the homepage (or start page if applicable) that some content is generated by a neural network. I don't think tools like the image cutter need to be noted like that, though, since most people's reason for wanting to avoid AI is based on criticisms of image/text generation rather than alteration of an image you already own/have created.

I do love how "handmade" the web revival is, but at the same time I don't like the idea of ascribing morality or value to "amount of work/effort" (as a neurodivergent person I have been on the receiving end of this kind of thought and it's Not Fun), so I've never really had a problem with people taking shortcuts to get things done easier. I think there's a difference between using tools at your disposal, and not making anything at all. Sort of like sewing... Regardless if you use a sewing machine or sew by hand, it's still sewing. But buying a shirt someone else made isn't sewing. Does that even make sense lol

Also, that example of an AI generating a page layout is pretty cool ngl

[shevek]

Great points so far! I especially agree with “just let it go” and the approach that ease of use shouldn’t be negatively connotated (but sadly often is).

For me, the most important part of the web revival is wanting to be there in the first place and create something yourself outside of social media constraints. How you do it (AI, books, Youtube, a class..) and how much is done from scratch is not my business and less interesting to me. Choosing a template and filling it with your info, colors and pictures is already more than you can do and many are willing to do on the big social media sites. It already sends a message.

I think this is not at odds with the web revival for another reason: There have always been ready to use templates for people to use who don’t yet have the skills or ideas to make something from scratch. You’d grow with the edits you made within that template and still had the option to completely scrap it. Even the Yesterweb had template options through Sadness’ templates. I don’t mind. The same with blinkie makers, gif makers, font image generators, or the forum threads back then where you could ask people to make a signature image for you. I think just putting the focus on handmade with the web revival can leave many people out who wanna learn, but are still at the start of the journey where you rely a lot on other people's resources. Many of sites we see are already frankenstein’d out of the code of different websites and stackexchange, JSFiddle or codepen; if not directly copied, then heavily inspired. So even "handmade" does not always mean "handmade handmade"

I guess you could argue that when you credit the origin of the template for a human, you should also credit the AI, but I think since the AI won’t be hurt, doesn’t need the “advertisement” and doesn’t hold copyright, it doesn’t matter as much, and my understanding is that we credit mainly for these things.

I think a common, agreed upon stance on AI disclosure where it "crosses a line" only makes sense if we think AI diminishes the product or the creator, like we wanna judge and control how people create and if it is up to our standards - inviting elitism. Or maybe it is driven by insecurity, and we want to feel better about our skill levels and wanna see "x generated by AI" to breathe a sigh of relief because we were starting to become insecure that we didn't have this idea or skill level. I think both aren't really good reasons!

It is easy to think AI makes handcoding obsolete and that people will just go take the easiest path - and people wanna know if that was taken for possibly the above reasons I don't find good. But I think AI can enable even better handcoding, and easier options have never stopped people from appreciating and mastering the harder way. Letting it review your code and explaining corrections, mistakes and improvements; explaining code snippets you found (I think lots of us know the stackexchange threads that just have “try this” <code>” with no explanation and you wanna know how it works and what you need to change to make it fit your project, or understand why it solved OPs problem but not yours); you can even paste the link to entire websites or threads with solutions and get it explained to you in ways you understand (accessibility!). If you’re proficient in some parts already, it is a huge time save to let it write the stuff for you that you can already write by heart anyway that are just the annoying basics, so you can get that out of the way and focus on the parts that really matter and challenge you. Disclosing that, for example, would feel a little ridiculous.

For these reasons, I think declaration of AI use is not necessary or could even enable assumptions that aren’t even true, like assuming the entire page was made in seconds and there’s nothing else behind it, no effort, no thought, when there is. It reminds me of how frustrating it was/is to talk to people who don’t understand how digital art works, who think it isn’t real art because “Photoshop generates it all for you”. I think lots of digital artists know how annoying it is to dispute that.

If we were to dedicate an AI credit page/list on our website that separates and labels website parts and what the AI did (to help with the above problem of making clear it isn’t 100% AI), I think it would become a confusing an potentially long list to upkeep really quickly. Especially with every website update. It might not be that clear cut in some cases or that part gets taken out or modified in another iteration so much, you gotta remember to update the list or ask yourself about what degree of modification justifies removing it from the AI credits list. Meanwhile, in the same situation, I’d easily leave the human credit in there probably, as a thank you for helping to get me started, to send customers their way, and for people who come across it to get a valuable resource. That isn’t necessary for AI and people know that the person that’s credited has not done 100% of the website, so it doesn’t risk diminishing your efforts the same way as AI disclosure could because people do not rule out the AI generated 100% of it, especially if that makes them feel better.

I am saying this as someone who voluntarily puts AI disclosure on my digital art page, because the some of the reference images are created by NeuralBlender.

Maybe we need a Read More function in this forum :P

[Lyonid]

I really like all the takes so far and want to just throw in my opinion as well, for I have been thinking about this for quite a long time now as well. I personally feel unwell with the thought of DALLE graphics to be labeled as self-made and sold as such, and I never felt comfortable overthinking this. If you are using assets generated with tools that have scraped the web regardless of creators' consent, cite the tool. Since those systems are unable to cite their sources, we should at least make an attempt to, when we observe these technologies critically. Citing in general is excellent when we revive the web, as it invites everyone to partake in the tools you have explored. A revived web is one that is transparent, if you ask me. In my CS degree, I learned so much about scraping loads of data with no effort - copyright and privacy was not a part of the curriculum. We can do better here, I believe.

Now the argument of alleviating your journey towards a graphic, or website, or medium, all of you make some very valid points. These tools are NIFTY! It's amazing to see people bring their thoughts to life because systems were designed to support, for instance, people who are not able-bodied. Those systems, however, rarely sourced data from unknowing individuals. Most of their developers created the data themselves, and keep generating it through us using the system. That every AI service should have big fat opt-out boxes may be irrelevant to this topic. In addition, all media interactions are inherently creative, and I love throwing the Simple Net Art Diagram (https://anthology.rhizome.org/simple-net-art-diagram) out there because it helped me appreciate the little processes that lead to a finished piece of art.

Regarding our personal perception of AI generated assets, I might have to step back and think. The web revival certainly doesn't dictate our social perception of things. I believe we should reflect on our own belief system when we are confronted with movements as sociopolitical as AI services. The only thing we definitely should have is critical discourse on these topics - just like this thread!

Lastly, I urge everyone to create machine learning systems themselves. Let's make our own training data sets, let's solve issues that haven't been solved yet, or don't even need solving. This is certainly where neural networks are the most fascinating to me when it comes to the web revival. We should demystify AI systems as magical black boxes (which they are not) by understanding them and getting involved with the tool. Machine learning doesn't create tools for us to use, it is the tool. Understanding them is a first step towards not falling victim to predatory services and the Men in Grey.

[Swiftpaw]

My thoughts when it comes to AI coding is that it's completely fine. Coding to me is closer to solving math problems and AI just feels like a calculator; while you need to know how to assemble and think reasonably through a problem, there is still a tool available which can make the process easier. It's also comparable to using pre-made templates or Stack Overflow. I've used AI to assist with coding things in Python, JavaScript, PHP.

When it comes to creativity, to me it depends. Something to streamline a process like AI generated lists or tables to me is different from AI art or writing. The AI creating lists and tables are usually referencing free to use information, but AI art and writing often involves works from artists or writers which have had their works stolen and unfairly referenced. This has been considered by many artists as falling under theft and as a writer I would agree with that statement.

At the end of the day though, many of us are not participating this internet culture in this for monetary gain, and it's meant to be fun at the end of the day. For some people it's more fun to create everything from the ground up, and for others it's more fun to use tools to assist them.