ApparentlyRohan

Right now, the only way to post an update to a mod is by uploading a new version. Then, that version immediately gets released if it passes security checks. The only way to not have it immediately release is hide the entire mod to the public then unhide it when you want it released. Is it possible to add a way to schedule new releases or some way to not immediately release the mod once the update passed security checks? Possibly an ability to hide certain versions instead of the entire mod?

Thank you for your response. I was unaware you can develop vehicle models with AI 😂😂 Yes, objectivity is what is needed. It seems more difficult to have 1 general AI disclosure that is able to fit so many different styles of mods. Making a charges xml modification is super different from making a plugin which is super different from making a car model. Each has its own level of nuance. I do not know if that can be captured in 1 general disclosure. That is my only concern with the current approach. I remember reading the page you linked. However, when uploading my mod, I forgot it existed. Maybe add a tooltip or link to that post next to the AI disclosure section when uploading the mod?

Preface: I have seen there has been a lot of discourse in different LSPDFR discords about vibe coding and the AI disclosure. I recently updated an older mod and had to fill out the AI disclosure. To be honest, I was a little confused. The wording was vague. There is no clear distinction between the 3 different tiers(minor, moderate, substantial). The suggestions below aim to improve that. Also some additional thoughts. There are 4 main ways a developer can use AI to aid in their development of a mod: Ideation/Design work, Implementation(the actual methods/code), Debugging, Marketing(Description and Images). Currently, the first 3 ways are represented with 1 option and the last option (Marketing) is represented with 2 options. This feels lobsided and where I think the disconnect is happening. As an example: If the AI did a substantial amount of debugging which in turn changes a lot of code, I would think one would have to choose "substantial" for mod and mod content. Therefore, my mod would be slapped with the "Made with AI" tag. This gives users the impression in this scenario that I vibe coded this out with Claude Code and posted it on the forums with no thought behind it. How I would improve the system? My theoretical new disclosure system would look like this: This gives each aspect of script development its own disclosure giving the user a clear picture of how the developer uses AI and whether the AI is an aid or the developer. If this new system feels too invasive, I would understand that. However, I think the hesitation in telling the truth comes from what the consequence is if you did use a lot of AI; the dreaded black tag, "Made with AI". Many devs nowadays use AI as an aid within development. This system hurts those devs just as much as the devs who are using Claude Code to build plugins ("AI Slop"). If this system does not get implemented, I would maybe suggest changed how the tag is phrased.

The o in oldest is not capital but the n in newest is. This is for comments on files