Yeah, the legality is indeed not at all settled upon, and even if it’s settled in one country, laws could differ in others. It’s a massive gamble that all jurisdictions your software could be used in will allow it.
I tend to focus on the ethicality, as that is what I am concerned with, but legality is definitely not a done deal.
We can all make sure it will be the best, either way. We do not need GenAI for that. x)
I definitely understand your viewpoint, even if I disagree that GenAI is going to be the way forward on that. I want Krita to be the best it can be.
I am happy that you would never submit GenAI-generated code as your own, that’s very respectable. 
None of these rules would prevent you from generating code for your personal projects. And I don’t think it make sense to make rules for that. The rules here would only state that you cannot submit GenAI code (or other content) to the forum. Not what you do on your own machine.
Whether it outperforms alternatives or not has no bearing on whether GenAI is ethical or not. I feel ethics are more important than any practical issue.
Ethics is much broader than that, it goes from smaller things like whether you think white lies are okay or not all the way up to way more severe ones like our actions towards climate change.
It’s also not a 1-dimensional thing, there are many facets in which something may or may not be ethical.
Things really are not that simple.
Pretty much all AI models are trained on stolen labor. AI data centers need a disproportionate amount of power and a lot of water. It already affects the lives of people living near them negatively because of rising utility bills. AIs tell people to go and shoot kids in a school. Prices of any tech that uses memory or storage soared making it a luxury to repair computers, let alone buy a new one. It drives mass surveillance. I could go on. If you think there’s nothing unethical about any of this that’s… I don’t know what to say. Basically your point is that at a certain point it’s okay to ignore the negative effects as soon as it helps you produce code a bit faster.
And regarding your Unreal example: I don’t know if you follow gaming news and even know any game developers but if yes you should know that people do in fact care. We even have a word for this that is Asset Flip. It’s true that people probably won’t care about a chair model from the asset store but the point is that some person still made that model.
There is a reason why people still go to concerts and see people sing and play instruments. There’s a reasons why people follow sports and enjoy watching athletes of all kinds. Machines and software could probably all do this magnitudes better. The point of a shooting competition isn’t just to get the arrows to the target, it is seeing someone do it, or how good you can do it yourself. Testing your limits, improving your skill and enjoying that experience. The point is that the process matters not just the result. That’s what we admire. This is how people connect.
I actually wanted to wait how the Krita foundation will decide on the issue of vibe code in Krita and align the forum rules to that decision. However I decided to go ahead and extend the current ruling to include vibe code.
One of the reasons is that the community is already flagging plugins and scrips that are obviously vibed. So it’s pretty clear to me that’s what you want and it also aligns with the moderators view. This will also prevent inconsistent handling of flags which we currently had depending on which mod reviewed it.
If the Krita foundation will decide differently we will talk about this again but for now the ban will be extended to code (and of course other slop content) with the assumption that the foundation will decide in a similar way, since seems to be the direction where everything is heading anyway.
Remember that you can still do whatever you want on your own PC or other platforms (according to their rules). This decision is only about this forum’s content.
Great news! Thank you! <3
Just to make sure. The LLMs are standing on the shoulders of generating embedding for pieces of text. Let’s say I add to a plugin a feature to more easily search for text in the database with the help of Neural Networks that generate the embeddings.
Is it also being considered bad AI and the plugin will be banished from the forum?
Just want to understand where is the line here.
Should the calssifiers models such as Support Vector Machines or Linear regression be considered as a AI too?
How about Fast Line Art? Should it also be banned in the forum, since it uses complicated sequence of matrix multiplications?
The term “AI” has become so incredibly vague that I personally do not use the term anymore.
There is nothing wrong with machine learning more broadly. What’s problematic is when a model meets any of these criteria:
This is what I then refer to as GenAI, or generative “AI”. I don’t like that I am still using the term “AI” in there, but I still want the term to be recognizable.
So, the fine line art plugin is totally okay, not GenAI at all.
If you read the initial post you see an example of what is acceptable.
So if someone develops a plugin, the plugin solves an issue that Krita doesn’t, and it’s useful to the users. But it can’t be shared because AI was used? If AI was used to invent a cheap medicine that cures cancer, wouldn’t it be stupid to prohibit it for everyone because in your opinion “AI is unethical”?
My issue with gen AI lies in copyright, the tech itself is amazing when you give it a good use. That’s why AI is used in 100% of software development today, and whoever tells you they don’t use it is LYING to you. No one would write a method “func extract_names()” manually when they can just press tab and get to the same result.
Will you guys have an issue with AI if it was trained on your own drawings, for your own personal use, to help you feel your drawing or adjust the lines in your style in an instant? Having an issue with that is like having an issue with the paint-bucket, and if you do, then you don’t represent artists at all. We invented the selection to not have to carefully make changes. We invented layers to not have to carefully overlap our drawings. If you think art is about manually doing everything, you’re just being a hypocrite and you got it all wrong.
Now I’m worried that Krita devs are not using AI when Krita is already so BEHIND from other drawing/editing software. No wonder the support is minimal. I don’t know who is taking those decisions, but that person should wake up to 2026.
No issue if trained on drawings used with permission. It’s really all about using others’ work without permission.
You’re contradicting the posts above, that judge any AI usage as “unethical” and therefore none is permitted. And there is no way for you to realistically know what an AI was trained on. Specially when it comes to coding, because AI can be trained in so many well-documented open-source projects (Github will only start training on people’s repos now).
Did you actually read the initial post? It gives a clear example and guideline of acceptable use.
Did you actually read my comment? Because I clearly addressed your vague “examples” there.
Exceptions may be granted for such tools if they are ethically sourced, local, small scaled, community driven and open source.
As I said, you can’t know if an used AI was local or not. Even if it was local, you can’t know if a local AI was trained on open-source material or whatever your subjective opinion considers “ethical”. Pretending you can enforce those rules fairly is a joke.
Can you answer my questions? Let’s say the most “unethical” AI is used to invent the cure to cancer. Will you forbid the people from using it? Do you expect cancer patients to say “It was made with AI? Then I don’t want it!”. Of course not. This rule is so anti-users it’s almost unbelievable.
I’m sorry, but your comparison is kind of wild. Cancer is something that can kill a person. I won’t die because I don’t have a specific feature in Krita. I’m not sure what the outrage is for, honestly.
Besides, it’s been common knowledge for a while that you have to know how to dev… to use AI to dev. We don’t need even more completely broken features that will be horrid to fix down the line.
EDIT: This is like when people say that AI gen helps disabled people create art. It’s an insult to all disabled artists. You don’t actually want to help people; you’re just looking for an excuse to use something that is blatantly against everything that people have been creating for years without AI.
I do not use it at all in any software I develop and I refuse it as much as I can, because I care about the ethics in software development a lot. This is also why I will not develop proprietary software if I can help it. And I will not contribute to projects where the devs do not care about inclusivity. These are very important values to me.
Software development is not some linear thing where you can fall behind. That’s just not how things work. Writing code is also very rarely the bottleneck. Managing a software project has many, many aspects to it, including listening to users, planning, coordinating, prototyping, seeing whether things are in scope, establishing values, establishing governance, etc etc etc
I will also say that community is one of the most important, if not the most important thing in free software.
These rules don’t forbid people from using anything. Just to keep their stuff off this specific website that is krita-artists.org.
I think saying “I won’t die” is a weak attempt to avoid the question. AI has already been used to thousands of inventions that are improving our lives, and it was used to:
Are you actually committed to never use anything developed with the help of AI for the rest of your life? And do you think it’s fair to ask the rest of us to do the same? I don’t believe you. You’re just going to benefit from AI in your personal life and you will be a hypocrite for that.
We don’t need even more completely broken features that will be horrid to fix down the line.
This thread has nothing to do with Krita’s Repo, it’s about plugins. Plugins are by default external to the software and optional, so it’s literally impossible for them to add “more completely broken features that will be horrid to fix down the line”.
This is like when people say that AI gen helps disabled people create art.
We’re not talking about AI generated images here, and you bringing it already tells me you think there is only one kind of AI.
We are specifically talking about generative “AI” here, not machine learning more broadly.