I would genuinely advise against it. There’s been a study just recently on how using genAi can really mess up one’s sense of worth and self, on top of making people not trust their own knowledge anymore.
It’s outright frightening.
And your talk about hairstyles is a good example, actually. If you unlearned how to find this stuff on your own (as in with just a non-genai search), that opens the floodgates for all sorts of problems.
I appreciate your warning. I assure you I did all my research (saving hairstyles and scents) on my own and am pretty well-adjusted with an excellent sense of self-worth. I thought it was fun and new and interesting, but I’m not interested in having AI as a crutch or a virtual boyfriend. But thank you for being concerned, I appreciate it.
@Lan Maybe I should just leave the letter in English. It’s just the first paragraph that shows up in the narrative anyway. I was just trying to make it authentic, but just like the perfumes and hairstyles, it’s not really necessary.
I mean, I googled “regency hairstyles” and literally one of the first results was for example this: Regency Hairstyles - Donna Hatch
Were you looking for something even more specific?
@Kwartel I’m sorry if anything I said came off as pushy; I’m sure it wasn’t anyone’s intention to chase you out of this discussion. Hope you still have a good day 
I was looking for hairstyle names specifically. As in the Nero for men and the Brutus.
Edit: okay, I’m going to rather remove myself from this discussion and never ever mention the word AI again. Thanks everyone, I understand the boundaries now.
You googled it? But google is AI. Why wouldn’t it be, if google translate is AI? AI Overview answers your enquiries directly and automatically, and at the time I’m writing this, it can only be hidden with plugins (and hiding it won’t turn off all the AI features Google incorporated).
And before you think about changing your search engine, I tested three of them and all of them had AI features.
And what if the article you googled was also written with assistance of AI? Maybe not the one you have there but that’s also something to consider if you want to live AI free lifestyle.
But hey, researching in a library, with your own hands can be very rewarding and it develops your brain better then if you rely on having an instant answer at the tip of your fingers 
It still generated. I can’t verify if you skipped over it or if the article was generated as a source.
There is no such thing as ‘non-genai search’ right now. I don’t like it anymore then people vocal in this thread do, and that can be glimpsed on the Consolidated AI thread where I threw a tomato or two at genAI over the years - but it’s time to face reality. Spellcheck can be genAI now.
This hostile atmosphere helps nobody. I’ll give you few years to calm down and maybe in these years the bubble will finally pop.
I didn’t use AI overview, though. As in, I skipped right past it.
Maybe it is, maybe it’s not. Either way, cross-referencing from various sources can help weed out inaccuracies, if doing serious research. I said AI results need to be CHECKED, not dismissed outright. In some cases, the info it gave me was just wrong, down to the links it referenced just outright not working, so I would never consider it my main/only source of info.
Is this a ‘gotcha’? I did actually read a bunch of monographies and other books on the topics that interest me, and yes, it really is the most reliable way of researching stuff. It’s just a shame that the literature on the more arcane topics can be difficult to access, esp from a different country.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what’s hostile about suggesting people re-check what AI tells them?
I’ve also stated that I’m not sure if relying on AI for research warrants outright deleting the results of said research. I personally think they could’ve stayed, but it’s up to the author to decide this.
Also never claimed spellcheck to be AI?
I AM troubled by the increased reliance on AI, I’ve been pretty vocal about it. Reality is what it is, and will continue to be so regardless of my opinion. Doesn’t mean I cannot share it.
No worries, we’re fine! I was just a bit confused 
I felt the atmosphere was relatively hostile too, which is why I disengaged.
Asking an AI questions is different to getting it to write text for you. I’d caution that AI is sometimes misguided at best, completely incorrect at worst. People trust its accuracy way too much. Garbage in-Garbage out, and AIs like chat GPT are exposed to a lot of garbage on the internet so even without it misinterpreting articles, it can tell you things others have written that are just wrong. It’s a good idea to check reliable sources if you need information to definitely be correct.
You can’t have text in another language in published games anyway, so probably doesn’t matter if it’s AI generated or not. It needs to be in English.
Just as a clarity point though, can I ask what is the stance on using AI translators into English or AI powered grammar rewriters like Grammarly. I don’t use either myself in games, but if they need to be disclosed, does this mean they cannot be in published games?
Is there interest in letting users opt out of seeing any WIP threads that answer yes?
Like, have it be a tag on the thread you can then hide for yourself when browsing?
Personally, I want nothing to do with authors and projects that use AI in any capacity.
Are you saying that I SHOULDN’T eat a small rock a day? 
Personally, I’d love this. Seems like it’d be pretty simple for CoG to implement too, since you can already choose to mute whole tags.
Correct, you ought to be eating a large one
Another thing we could consider is having a space or area in WIP or beta testing threads for writers to state whether they are in favor of, or opposed to, any AI use. It would be optional, but many readers might want to know the author’s views on that.
Hmmm, I’m not entirely sure that’s something an author owes their audience? And this might create an expectation.
Yes, this; it’s not very clear (maybe I screwed up replying) but I was responding the comment directly above mine.
We are in agreement here as well.
Do you mean whether or not they’ve used AI or their views on it? Because if it’s the latter, I agree, authors shouldn’t be expected to share their views on AI. But if it’s the former, I think authors absolutely do owe it to their audience to let them know if their work was created (partially or fully) by AI.
Honestly, I know this policy is just now being tested out, but I do hope they make it mandatory in the future. I have no interest in supporting work that was created using AI and I expect a lot of people feel similarly.
Strongly discouraged, but allowed in published games. From the FAQ:
We permit but strongly discourage the use of AI translators (including Google Translate).
Automatic translation works OK for short articles, but it rarely works well for longer works. If you do use automatic translation, we strongly recommend that a native English speaker review all the material you submit for publication. We strongly recommend disclosing if your game was translated by an AI translator.
We permit but strongly discourage the use of AI grammar checkers (including Grammarly).
Using a grammar checker to detect grammar errors and fix them yourself is fine, but Grammarly and other AI grammar checkers will cheerfully “fix” grammar issues automatically, or, worse, just rewrite (or even write) large chunks of text for you. If you use a lot of AI to write your game, your work will sound like an AI, which is bad, and we might not be able to publish the game, because the AI wrote the game, not you.
Wait. Let me get this straight so I can dispel any misunderstandings I may have. The moment I would use Google Translate to translate a SINGLE word, would my entire WIP have to be marked as a WIP that uses AI? Or would I need to use the translator to do the whole WIP or even chunks of text at once? I feel a bit lost, so please be kind to me 
From the announcement:
The above has always been the case - the WIP disclosure template doesn’t affect it.
While it’s recommended that people say if they’re using AI for their WIPs, it’s not mandatory.
Using Google Translate is discouraged for publication but permitted.
So, you’re not required to mark your WIP with anything, but if you’re using Google Translate, it’s recommended to mention it.
For anyone who is considering using Grammarly: don’t blindly follow whatever suggestions they give you. Most of the suggestions are simple grammar and spelling mistakes, but they do make suggestions that rewrite your work and removes your creative style. The former is no worst than using Word’s spell check. The latter is definitely the kind of boring/bad AI stuff the company is trying to avoid
We shouldn’t use Grammarly at all. The spellchecker on Grammarly is an AI tool too. AI is bad for the environment, even if we only use it ‘a little.’
Honestly I think it should be a requirement to post whether you are using ai and what you are using the ai for this way it’s completely transparent to readers that ai has been used and if people (like myself) don’t want to buy/support stuff made by ai we know which one has it because ai is killing jobs for artists and to some extent writers