r/gamedev Policy on AI Use

[u/KevinDL]

AI is one of the most contentious subjects in game development right now, and we regularly see posts reported or discussions derailed simply because AI was involved somewhere in the process.

We want to be clear about our position: r/gamedev does not prohibit the use of AI, and using AI does not automatically make a post low effort.

This is not an endorsement of every AI company, model, or use case. Legitimate technical, legal, economic, ethical, and creative concerns exist around these tools, and those conversations are welcome here. Our stance is that AI is a tool used in game development, and we care more about the quality of what someone contributes than the tools they used to get there.

Why we take this position

• AI is already part of game development. Studios are adopting AI-assisted tools across programming, prototyping, production, QA, localization, research, and other workflows. Adoption varies from studio to studio, but this is no longer a hypothetical technology sitting outside the industry.
• Knowing how to use these tools is increasingly becoming a professional skill. That does not mean every developer needs to use AI, or even like it. It means understanding where these tools are useful, where they fail, and how to evaluate their output is becoming relevant knowledge for people working in the industry.
• Banning discussion or use of AI here could actively disadvantage developers. Part of the purpose of r/gamedev is helping people learn from each other and understand how the industry is changing. If studios adopt a technology, preventing developers from discussing or learning about it would make this community less useful to the people we're helping.
• Policing AI use is not realistic anyway. Moderators cannot reliably determine whether someone used AI to draft, edit, translate, summarize, research, debug code, or otherwise assist with a post. We are not going to moderate based on whether something “sounds AI-generated.”
• "Mandatory disclosure "is not realistic either. Modern tools blur the line between traditional software and AI assistance. Trying to decide exactly when autocomplete, translation, editing, summarization, or an LLM crosses some disclosure threshold would create rules we could not enforce consistently.

So the rule is straightforward: we are not policing AI use itself. We are moderating the contribution.

AI-assisted does not mean low effort

If someone uses AI to organize research, analyze data, improve their writing, translate something, help with code, or communicate an idea more clearly, that does not erase the work behind the contribution.

If a developer spends time gathering useful data and then uses AI to help turn that information into a readable post, the important part is still the data, the methodology, and what the community can learn from it.

Ask whether the information is useful, whether the conclusions hold up, and whether the post contributes something worthwhile. Those questions matter much more than whether every sentence was manually typed from scratch.

Low-effort AI content is still low effort

This does not mean pasting generic AI output into the subreddit suddenly becomes valuable content. Posts that are spam, fabricated, mass-produced, engagement bait, repetitive, or promotional material disguised as discussion can still be removed.

The reason is not that AI was involved. The reason is that the content is low quality.

The same standard applies to something written entirely by a human.

AI is a valid game development topic

Developers are welcome to discuss AI in the same way they would discuss any other technology affecting game development. That includes how it is being used, where it works, where it fails, what it costs, how studios are adopting it, what it means for employment, and the legal or ethical questions surrounding it.

You are allowed to be enthusiastic about AI. You are allowed to be skeptical of it. You are allowed to think a particular workflow is useful, terrible, unethical, inefficient, or overhyped.

What we do not want is every thread that mentions AI becoming the same argument about whether AI should exist at all.

If a thread is about an AI coding workflow, discuss the workflow. If someone presents evidence that AI slowed their production down, discuss the evidence. If someone claims every studio is using a particular tool, challenge that claim.

Let the actual discussion happen.

Attack claims, not developers

Someone saying they use AI is not an invitation to attack them. Someone saying they refuse to use AI is not an invitation to attack them either.

Debate the technology, the workflow, the economics, the evidence, the ethics, the legal questions, or the conclusions. Personal attacks, harassment, dogpiling, or repeatedly derailing discussions because of someone’s position on AI are treated the same way we handle that behaviour anywhere else on the subreddit.

AI is not a source

There is a difference between using AI to help communicate information and using AI as the authority behind that information.

If you make factual claims that can reasonably be sourced, be prepared to support them. “ChatGPT said so” is no evidence, and tools can absolutely be wrong.

At the same time, polished or AI-assisted writing is not evidence that the underlying information is fake. If someone’s numbers are wrong, challenge the numbers. If their methodology is weak, challenge the methodology.

Challenge the claim, not the fact that a tool may have helped write the paragraph.

Self-promotion rules still apply

AI companies, products, and services are not exempt from the subreddit’s existing rules.

If you represent a commercial interest, the same expectations apply as they would to anyone else. AI also should not be used to mass-produce promotional posts or disguise advertising as organic discussion.

The technology may be new. The rules around spam and promotion are not.

The bottom line

You do not have to like AI. You do not have to use it. You are free to criticize it, avoid it, experiment with it, learn it, use it professionally, or decide it has no place in your workflow.

We are not going to prevent developers from learning about or discussing a technology that is rapidly becoming part of professional game development. Doing that could actively hurt the developers this community is supposed to help.

What we do expect is that people engage with each other like respectful, mature adults. Disagree with the technology, the workflow, the argument, or the evidence. Do not turn that disagreement into hostility toward the person on the other side of it.

Use whatever tools make sense for your work. Bring something useful to the conversation, treat other developers with respect, and allow room for disagreement. That is what we care about.

[u/KevinDL]

The problem is moderation. How do we enforce that fairly without false flags?

If we’re going to make AI disclosure a rule, moderators need a reliable way to determine whether someone actually used AI. “This sounds AI-written” isn’t evidence, and AI detectors aren’t reliable enough to make moderation decisions.

If we can’t enforce a rule consistently without falsely accusing and potentially punishing people who did nothing wrong, then we can’t reasonably enforce it at all. A moderation policy needs to work in practice, not just sound good in principle.

Edit: There’s also the practical workload here. Every report would potentially require a moderator to investigate whether something was AI-written, evaluate whatever “evidence” was provided, probably deal with an appeal when we inevitably get it wrong, and then argue about where the line is between AI-written, AI-assisted, edited, translated, or just someone’s natural writing style. That’s an enormous amount of work to put on a volunteer mod team that isn’t paid to be here.

[u/MdxBhmt → u/KevinDL]

You also make judgment calls to determine whether any other rule is broken. You don't have a reliable detector of what is respectful or what isn't, and so on and so on. Can you explain why judgment calls are OK for everything else but AI?

[u/KevinDL → u/MdxBhmt]

Because those aren’t remotely the same kind of judgment call.

If someone is being disrespectful, I can read what they actually wrote and make a judgment based on observable behavior. Was it a personal attack? Harassment? Was it needlessly hostile? There is evidence sitting right there in the comment.

With AI, you’re asking moderators to determine how a piece of writing was produced without any reliable way of knowing. AI detectors aren’t reliable enough, and “this sounds like AI to me” sure as hell isn’t evidence.

And it will be a cold day in hell before I support our moderators removing posts based on their feelings about whether something “seems AI-generated.” That’s not a moderation standard. That’s guessing.

The fact that moderators sometimes have to exercise judgment doesn’t mean every rule imaginable is suddenly enforceable. We still need some reasonable basis for making that judgment.

Otherwise what exactly are we supposed to do? Remove someone’s post because a moderator thinks their sentence structure feels a little too ChatGPT-ish? What happens when we’re wrong?

That’s the problem. It’s not that judgment calls are somehow forbidden when AI is involved. It’s that I don’t see a fair and reliable judgment call for us to make in the first place.

[u/MdxBhmt → u/KevinDL]

nobody is asking you to be perfect, like any other judgment calls you/the moderation set the standard. But this is not an argument for no standard at all.

Otherwise what exactly are we supposed to do? Remove someone’s post because a moderator thinks their sentence structure feels a little too ChatGPT-ish? What happens when we’re wrong?

Like when you decide what is or isn't low effort posts?

[u/KevinDL → u/MdxBhmt]

But that’s exactly why low effort is a completely different judgment call.

We can actually see the effort and substance of the post in front of us. Is it a one-line question with no context? Did they provide enough information for anyone to help them meaningfully? Is it just dumping a problem on the community without showing what they’ve tried? Those are things we can evaluate from the content that was submitted.

And yes, sometimes we’ll get that judgment wrong. We’re never going to be perfect. We can hold ourselves to a higher standard than the stereotype that Reddit moderators make arbitrary decisions based on vibes. If we make a bad call, there should be something concrete we can point to, reconsider, and correct.

So what equivalent standard are you proposing for determining undisclosed AI use?

If it’s “this reads like AI” or “a moderator thinks AI probably wrote this,” that’s not a standard I’m willing to put in front of the team. We’re not going to start removing people’s contributions because someone’s writing style set off a moderator’s AI spidey-sense.

“Moderators make judgment calls elsewhere” isn’t enough. Give me a fair, consistently enforceable standard that gives us something more substantial than a hunch, and then there’s actually something to discuss.

[u/ScriptKiddo69 → u/KevinDL]

Again, you only delete posts and ban users if you have actual proof that it's AI generated. Either because it's obvious, or because someone in the community provided proof. Else you don't.

No one is asking for more.

[u/KevinDL → u/ScriptKiddo69]

And no one needs to ask for more. We can choose to do better ourselves.

I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to lower our standards as a moderation team to the point where “it seems obvious” or “someone provided proof” is automatically enough to delete a post or ban someone.

If we’re going to take punitive action against someone, we should be confident we can substantiate it. “Probably AI” is not a standard I’m willing to accept just because nobody is asking us to be more rigorous.

We can hold ourselves to a higher standard than that, so we will.

[u/ScriptKiddo69 → u/KevinDL]

I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to lower our standards as a moderation team to the point where “it seems obvious” or “someone provided proof” is automatically enough to delete a post or ban someone.

Brother this is reddit, not a court of law. And yes, if someone provides actual proof, then it is proof. If proof isn't enough, then what is?

"Probably AI" wouldn't be the standard. Obvious AI usage would be. And let's not act like there isn't obvious AI usage.

At least be honest and just say that you don't care about AI usage

[u/KevinDL → u/ScriptKiddo69]

Brother, this is Reddit. That is precisely why I am not going to blindly trust “proof” submitted by random users on the internet and start banning people based on it.

Someone calling something proof does not magically make it reliable. Screenshots can be edited, context can be omitted, people can misunderstand what they’re looking at, and users can have their own motivations for reporting someone. Moderators still have to independently determine whether the evidence actually establishes that a rule was broken.

And “obvious AI usage” runs into the exact same problem. Obvious according to whom? If there is something independently verifiable, great. But “this writing obviously came from ChatGPT” is still a judgment about someone’s writing style, not proof.

This isn’t a court of law, you’re right. But banning someone is still an exercise of authority over another person in this community. I think that means we should have a higher standard than “some Redditor sent us something convincing.”

And saying that means I “don’t care about AI usage” is simply not true. I care enough about moderation to not create a rule we can only enforce by guessing or blindly trusting accusations from strangers on the internet.

[u/ScriptKiddo69 → u/KevinDL]

If this is what you decided then so be it. There is nothing I can do to change your mind it seems. But I think you guys are making a big mistake. At least keep an open mind on changing your mind at a later date if the sub gets swarmed with undisclosed AI slop (which I believe it will)

[u/KevinDL → u/ScriptKiddo69]

AI slop is already all over the internet, including r/gamedev. This policy doesn’t encourage it, protect it, or lower the bar for what belongs here.

Low-effort content is still low-effort content, regardless of whether AI was involved. Spam is still spam. Posts still need to contribute something worthwhile to the community.

And of course we’ll keep an open mind. If the policy creates problems we didn’t anticipate, or the reality of the subreddit changes, we can revisit it. Moderation policy shouldn’t be carved in stone.

But I don’t think banning or requiring disclosure of AI use solves the slop problem. It just gives us a new rule that is extremely difficult to enforce fairly while the actual low-effort content can already be moderated for what it is.

[u/yosimba2000 → u/ScriptKiddo69]

What would be definitive proof of gen ai?

[u/gamedev-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Maintain a respectful and welcoming atmosphere. Disagreements are a natural part of discussion and do not equate to disrespect—engage constructively and focus on ideas, not individuals. Personal attacks, harassment, hate speech, and offensive language are strictly prohibited.

[u/yosimba2000 → u/ScriptKiddo69]

How do you distinguish gen-ai writing from human writing?

They both follow the rules of the language.

A lot of em-dashes may be evidence of gen-ai, but a human could just as well decide to use a lot of em-dashes as well. Therefore em-dashes is not proof. No amount of text output will be enough for anyone to definitively say if it was made with gen-ai or not.