With the recent website update, I'd like to suggest adding a "Made with AI" tag for file uploads or something along those lines. We're seeing an influx of plugins generated entirely by AI rather than being built by developers (with the possibility of using AI as a TOOL). Quite often these generated plugins are quite buggy, and a clear label would help users manage their expectations and possibly avoid some frustration.

I’ve raised this internally before, but there are a few issues that make this tricky.

• Judging what counts as AI-generated work.

  We can probably assume that not all creators will be transparent and tag their work as AI-assisted. Detection tools aren’t very reliable, and the line itself can be subjective. If an author actively tries to hide AI usage, do moderators just make a final call? And would the community actually be comfortable with that level of judgment?

• Where is the threshold for tagging?

  In practice, this is especially blurry. In code, we already have everything from basic autocompletion to much more involved tools like Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, etc. Images are a bit more clear-cut, but even there, AI can be used for minor edits or touch-ups.

  So what triggers the tag?

  • AI used to help write the description?

  • AI used to generate images?

  • Only if the majority of the work is AI-generated?

  Previously, my suggestion was “all or a significant part of” the work, but I’m open to other interpretations.

AI used well can absolutely be a productivity boost, but we’ve also seen plenty of low-quality “AI slop” uploaded here. The hard part is finding the right balance — and then clearly defining that balance in a way that’s fair, enforceable, and easy to understand.

On 12/20/2025 at 12:00 PM, Cyan said:

I’ve raised this internally before, but there are a few issues that make this tricky.

• Judging what counts as AI-generated work.

  We can probably assume that not all creators will be transparent and tag their work as AI-assisted. Detection tools aren’t very reliable, and the line itself can be subjective. If an author actively tries to hide AI usage, do moderators just make a final call? And would the community actually be comfortable with that level of judgment?

• Where is the threshold for tagging?

  In practice, this is especially blurry. In code, we already have everything from basic autocompletion to much more involved tools like Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, etc. Images are a bit more clear-cut, but even there, AI can be used for minor edits or touch-ups.

  So what triggers the tag?

  • AI used to help write the description?

  • AI used to generate images?

  • Only if the majority of the work is AI-generated?

  Previously, my suggestion was “all or a significant part of” the work, but I’m open to other interpretations.

AI used well can absolutely be a productivity boost, but we’ve also seen plenty of low-quality “AI slop” uploaded here. The hard part is finding the right balance — and then clearly defining that balance in a way that’s fair, enforceable, and easy to understand.

I think a good ground would be focusing on projects where the majority of work is AI generated, like your suggestion. I totally agree w/ "uploaders" using AI to their advantage to write more in-depth descriptions to their mods, or documentation.

I think a good start could be leaning more on the "honor system" if you will. "Uploaders" can add a tag along the lines of "Made with AI". I don't think it has to be something the Staff team has to be on the look out for. But in my opinion it's a great start to something that could become an issue in the future.

I have seen a few people upload mods and disclose in the description that it is made with AI. Which kudos to them. Which makes me think if some people are willing to put it in the actual mod description, a simple file tag could be useful.