As someone who is neutral on AI, I agree with this.

for the sake of records; none of my previous attempts have been LLM-informed or LLM-generated; and none of my future attempts would be.

I didn’t use it but I tried on a lark with ai and it was an utter mess so wasn’t worth my trouble at the least

Out of curiosity I tried it on generating backronyms (of unrelated strings), and for a technology that couldn’t accurately count the letters in a word last year, it did surprisingly well.

Should probably also disallow using it to generate Buzzword candidates.

I was unaware of this guideline, but still didn’t use generative AI. I did try to do a regular expression job title search on indeed.com only to find out it no longer allows them; but that’s not generative, it would have given a list of job titles people were actually using.

I thought we formally banned LLMs a few months ago? Did that proposal just not pass?

It wasn’t a formal ban, just the additional text that Kevan mentioned.

It is generally preferred, except where explicitly permitted by the dynastic ruleset, that players avoid the use of generative AI or LLMs when producing content for the game.

“Preferred” is definitely not an outright ban.

I would personally be interested in firming up the preexisting anti-ai text as well, despite the manner of unenforceability

[Clucky] Yeah, this could have been a blog or Discord post, but a proposal and a dynastic rule seemed more likely to be seen by everyone - and it would also cover any players who joined later and caught up on the dynastic rules.

Actually, withdrawing this to get a slot back, I need to flag a loophole that could affect this round, and don’t want to risk waiting four hours on it.