Sasha_Banks272 wrote:

9.) Even if the ST swears “AI won’t be behind a paywall,” let’s be real. Services cost money. AI costs serious money. Membership suddenly appearing at the same time isn’t a coincidence. Eventually, features get split: “Basic users get slow AI. Members get advanced AI help, more AI tokens, better project analysis, and priority moderation.” Also, it creates a 2-class system on a platform designed for kids especially 8- to 16-year-olds learning to code.

I see where your head’s at, but:

1. The ST would definitely not do that—even as a nonprofit; and,
   
2. There’s kinda already a 2-class system (like members getting exclusive sprites/costumes/backdrops); and,
   
3. This is a website for children to learn, notand AI to help them; so,

you’re down to 8 reasons.

Can we all just agree that ai ln the platform is bad? Say aye if you think so and nay otherwise.

TheUndercoverGoose wrote:

Can we all just agree that ai ln the platform is bad? Say aye if you think so and nay otherwise.

ayny.

Scratch was created with a clear and powerful mission: to help young people learn how to think creatively, reason systematically, and work collaboratively. Developed by the MIT Media Lab, Scratch is not just a programming language but an educational environment designed to empower beginners—especially children—to explore ideas through hands-on creation. While artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly popular across many domains, its use on Scratch fundamentally conflicts with the platform’s purpose. Allowing or encouraging AI-generated content on Scratch risks undermining learning, creativity, community values, and the developmental goals that make Scratch unique.

At its core, Scratch is about learning by doing. Users drag blocks, experiment with logic, debug mistakes, and gradually develop computational thinking skills. These moments of struggle—figuring out why a sprite isn’t moving or why a loop isn’t working—are not obstacles but essential parts of the learning process. When AI is used to generate code, scripts, project ideas, or even entire Scratch projects, it removes this critical process. Instead of learning how something works, users are reduced to passive consumers of output they may not understand. This directly contradicts Scratch’s educational philosophy.

Another major reason AI does not belong on Scratch is that Scratch is designed for beginners, many of whom are children. Young learners are still developing foundational skills such as problem-solving, logical reasoning, and creative confidence. If AI is introduced into this space, it can create a false sense of competence. A user may upload an impressive project generated by AI without actually knowing how to recreate, modify, or explain it. This creates a gap between appearance and understanding, which is especially harmful in early education. Learning tools should build skills, not mask their absence.

Creativity is another pillar of Scratch, and AI threatens it in subtle but serious ways. Scratch encourages users to invent characters, tell stories, design games, and express themselves through code and art. When AI generates ideas, dialogue, animations, or logic, creativity shifts away from the user. Instead of asking “What do I want to make?”, users may begin asking “What should the AI make for me?” Over time, this can discourage original thinking and experimentation. Scratch thrives on imperfect, quirky, and personal projects—not polished, algorithmically generated ones.

There is also the issue of fairness within the Scratch community. Scratch is a social platform where users share projects, remix others’ work, and give feedback. Introducing AI-generated content disrupts this ecosystem. Users who rely on AI can produce more complex or visually impressive projects with far less effort, creating an uneven playing field. This can discourage learners who are genuinely working through problems and improving step by step. Scratch is meant to reward effort, curiosity, and learning—not access to external automation tools.

Additionally, AI use on Scratch raises concerns about authorship and honesty. When a project is generated by AI, who is the real creator? Scratch places a strong emphasis on crediting others, remix culture, and respecting creative ownership. AI-generated projects blur these boundaries. If users present AI-made work as their own, it undermines trust within the community and weakens the values Scratch tries to instill. Learning environments depend on honesty and transparency, especially when they involve children.

Another important consideration is understanding and safety. Many AI systems operate as “black boxes,” meaning users cannot easily see or understand how decisions are made. Scratch, in contrast, is intentionally transparent. Every block is visible, readable, and modifiable. This transparency helps learners understand cause and effect. Introducing AI-generated logic that users cannot fully explain goes against this design principle. In an educational setting, tools should be understandable, not mysterious.

There is also a broader developmental concern. Scratch is often a child’s first experience with programming. It shapes how they think about technology and problem-solving. If AI becomes a shortcut from the very beginning, learners may never develop perseverance, debugging skills, or confidence in their own abilities. Struggling through a bug and finally fixing it is a powerful moment—it teaches resilience and self-efficacy. AI shortcuts deprive learners of those experiences.

It is important to clarify that this argument is not against AI in general. AI can be a valuable tool in many contexts, especially for advanced learners, research, accessibility, or professional development. However, Scratch is not that context. Scratch is intentionally simple, human-centered, and exploratory. Adding AI to it is like adding a calculator to a lesson meant to teach basic arithmetic—it skips the learning in favor of the answer.

Some may argue that AI could be used responsibly on Scratch as a learning aid. While this may sound reasonable, in practice it is extremely difficult to ensure that AI use enhances learning rather than replaces it. Young users often lack the experience to critically evaluate AI output. Without strong guidance, AI becomes a crutch rather than a coach. Scratch works precisely because it removes such crutches and encourages direct engagement.

Finally, Scratch is more than a tool—it is a community built on shared learning, encouragement, and growth. Its value lies not in producing the most advanced projects, but in helping people learn together. AI-generated content risks turning Scratch into a showcase platform rather than a learning one. That shift would fundamentally change what Scratch is and why it exists.

In conclusion, AI should not be used on Scratch because it undermines learning, discourages creativity, creates unfairness, obscures understanding, and conflicts with the platform’s educational mission. Scratch succeeds because it empowers users to create, struggle, learn, and grow on their own terms. Preserving that experience is far more important than chasing technological trends. Scratch should remain a place where human curiosity—not artificial intelligence—is at the center of creation.

Ransom321Ransom wrote:

The amount of em-dashes and way of speaking is so similar to Chat-GPT, I just can't prove it

Ransom321Ransom wrote:

Scratch was created with a clear and powerful mission: to help young people learn how to think creatively, reason systematically, and work collaboratively. Developed by the MIT Media Lab, Scratch is not just a programming language but an educational environment designed to empower beginners—especially children—to explore ideas through hands-on creation. While artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly popular across many domains, its use on Scratch fundamentally conflicts with the platform’s purpose. Allowing or encouraging AI-generated content on Scratch risks undermining learning, creativity, community values, and the developmental goals that make Scratch unique.

At its core, Scratch is about learning by doing. Users drag blocks, experiment with logic, debug mistakes, and gradually develop computational thinking skills. These moments of struggle—figuring out why a sprite isn’t moving or why a loop isn’t working—are not obstacles but essential parts of the learning process. When AI is used to generate code, scripts, project ideas, or even entire Scratch projects, it removes this critical process. Instead of learning how something works, users are reduced to passive consumers of output they may not understand. This directly contradicts Scratch’s educational philosophy.

Another major reason AI does not belong on Scratch is that Scratch is designed for beginners, many of whom are children. Young learners are still developing foundational skills such as problem-solving, logical reasoning, and creative confidence. If AI is introduced into this space, it can create a false sense of competence. A user may upload an impressive project generated by AI without actually knowing how to recreate, modify, or explain it. This creates a gap between appearance and understanding, which is especially harmful in early education. Learning tools should build skills, not mask their absence.

Creativity is another pillar of Scratch, and AI threatens it in subtle but serious ways. Scratch encourages users to invent characters, tell stories, design games, and express themselves through code and art. When AI generates ideas, dialogue, animations, or logic, creativity shifts away from the user. Instead of asking “What do I want to make?”, users may begin asking “What should the AI make for me?” Over time, this can discourage original thinking and experimentation. Scratch thrives on imperfect, quirky, and personal projects—not polished, algorithmically generated ones.

There is also the issue of fairness within the Scratch community. Scratch is a social platform where users share projects, remix others’ work, and give feedback. Introducing AI-generated content disrupts this ecosystem. Users who rely on AI can produce more complex or visually impressive projects with far less effort, creating an uneven playing field. This can discourage learners who are genuinely working through problems and improving step by step. Scratch is meant to reward effort, curiosity, and learning—not access to external automation tools.

Additionally, AI use on Scratch raises concerns about authorship and honesty. When a project is generated by AI, who is the real creator? Scratch places a strong emphasis on crediting others, remix culture, and respecting creative ownership. AI-generated projects blur these boundaries. If users present AI-made work as their own, it undermines trust within the community and weakens the values Scratch tries to instill. Learning environments depend on honesty and transparency, especially when they involve children.

Another important consideration is understanding and safety. Many AI systems operate as “black boxes,” meaning users cannot easily see or understand how decisions are made. Scratch, in contrast, is intentionally transparent. Every block is visible, readable, and modifiable. This transparency helps learners understand cause and effect. Introducing AI-generated logic that users cannot fully explain goes against this design principle. In an educational setting, tools should be understandable, not mysterious.

There is also a broader developmental concern. Scratch is often a child’s first experience with programming. It shapes how they think about technology and problem-solving. If AI becomes a shortcut from the very beginning, learners may never develop perseverance, debugging skills, or confidence in their own abilities. Struggling through a bug and finally fixing it is a powerful moment—it teaches resilience and self-efficacy. AI shortcuts deprive learners of those experiences.

It is important to clarify that this argument is not against AI in general. AI can be a valuable tool in many contexts, especially for advanced learners, research, accessibility, or professional development. However, Scratch is not that context. Scratch is intentionally simple, human-centered, and exploratory. Adding AI to it is like adding a calculator to a lesson meant to teach basic arithmetic—it skips the learning in favor of the answer.

Some may argue that AI could be used responsibly on Scratch as a learning aid. While this may sound reasonable, in practice it is extremely difficult to ensure that AI use enhances learning rather than replaces it. Young users often lack the experience to critically evaluate AI output. Without strong guidance, AI becomes a crutch rather than a coach. Scratch works precisely because it removes such crutches and encourages direct engagement.

Finally, Scratch is more than a tool—it is a community built on shared learning, encouragement, and growth. Its value lies not in producing the most advanced projects, but in helping people learn together. AI-generated content risks turning Scratch into a showcase platform rather than a learning one. That shift would fundamentally change what Scratch is and why it exists.

In conclusion, AI should not be used on Scratch because it undermines learning, discourages creativity, creates unfairness, obscures understanding, and conflicts with the platform’s educational mission. Scratch succeeds because it empowers users to create, struggle, learn, and grow on their own terms. Preserving that experience is far more important than chasing technological trends. Scratch should remain a place where human curiosity—not artificial intelligence—is at the center of creation.

AI DETECTOR:
www.zerogpt.com says:
98.6% AI GPT

Please be aware that this test obviously can have mistakes.
Also, this is just a fact and not a reason to spread hatred.

Ransom321Ransom wrote:

-snip-

“Hey ChatGPT, generate an essay on why AI shouldn't be used in Scratch”

knowitall1237 wrote:

Ransom321Ransom wrote:

-snip-

“Hey ChatGPT, generate an essay on why AI shouldn't be used in Scratch”

You better do it right or I will unsubscribe and switch to Gemini.
Even the A.I. that can't tell the difference between a high school English essay and a dissection seems to agree.

knowitall1237 wrote:

Ransom321Ransom wrote:

-snip-

“Hey ChatGPT, generate an essay on why AI shouldn't be used in Scratch”

When discussing AI and its potential impact on platforms like Scratch, it’s important to clarify from the outset: I did not use AI to write this essay. Every word you are reading is the product of my own thoughts, my own creativity, and my own time spent reflecting on this topic. Why is this important? Because relying on AI for creative platforms like Scratch undermines the very skills these platforms are meant to nurture—critical thinking, problem-solving, and coding ingenuity.

Scratch is a space where imagination meets logic. Users, often young learners, are encouraged to experiment, make mistakes, and iterate on their projects. AI, as powerful as it may be, can short-circuit this learning process. If a user depends on AI to generate scripts, characters, or animations, they might miss out on the trial-and-error learning that makes Scratch so educational. By writing this essay myself, I am embodying the same principle: the process matters as much as the product.

Furthermore, Scratch is a platform that celebrates personal expression. Every sprite movement, every custom block, every animation tells a story about the coder behind it. If AI were used to generate projects automatically, the projects would lose their personal touch. They might work perfectly, but they wouldn’t reflect the coder’s unique problem-solving journey. In the same way, by not using AI to write this essay, I am preserving my voice and perspective, rather than relying on a machine to manufacture ideas.

Lastly, avoiding AI encourages accountability and ownership. When I struggle with an essay, I learn how to structure arguments, clarify my thoughts, and communicate effectively. If AI were allowed to do the work for me, I would miss out on these essential skills—just as a Scratch user relying on AI for coding would miss the chance to truly understand programming concepts. The essay, like a Scratch project, becomes meaningful only when the creator is actively engaged in the process.

In conclusion, I did not use AI to write this essay because the lesson of Scratch is that creativity, learning, and growth come from doing the work yourself. AI can be a helpful tool, but it should not replace the personal effort that leads to mastery. By committing to my own ideas, my own writing, and my own reflection, I am staying true to the spirit of platforms like Scratch, which value learning by making.

It's starting to seem like not a lot of people understand why, if, or how Scratch and AI relate to each other. I plan to give my personal thoughts at some point, but for now here's some frequently asked questions answered in a (mostly) unbiased manner.

Why is everyone worried about AI on Scratch?

On January 22nd, the Scratch Team updated with a new Terms of Service (TOS). There are several minor things that caught people's attention, but the biggest talking point is how the TOS very clearly outlines if and how the Scratch Team is allowed to integrate AI into the website. Notably, the TOS specifies that the Scratch Team reserves all rights to use any User Content on the platform to train AI models.

Article 8.2 wrote:

By Posting User Content to or via the Service, to the maximum extent of your rights to do so, including under applicable law, you hereby grant … us a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license (with the right to grant and authorize sublicenses) to publicly display, publicly perform (including by means of a digital audio transmission), reproduce, distribute, create derivative works of, and otherwise use and exploit the User Content to provide the Service, for internal business purposes, to advertise, market, and promote the service, and to otherwise improve our products and services and create new products and services, including through the training of AI models.

Are my projects currently being used for AI training?

No. The TOS gives the Scratch Team deliberate permission to, but it has been stated in forum posts that no AI training has occured using User Content yet.

What content will be used to train the AI?

There's a big misconception that the new TOS only allows the Scratch Team to use code to train AI. This, to my understanding, is not true. “User Content” is defined in the TOS as:

Article 8.1 wrote:

…projects, messages, comments, forum posts, links to third party websites, photos, video or audio (including sound or voice recordings and musical recordings embodied in the video or audio), images, folders, data, text, and any other works of authorship or other works…

The clause above granting the Scratch Team permission to use our content to train AI applies to any form of User Content. This means in the future, any of the above medias may be used in AI training.

Is this even legal?

Absolutely. By using the website, you've agreed to the TOS. Even if you found a way not to directly accept the TOS (say, used inspect element to delete the popup notifying about the new TOS), use of the website implies that you've agreed to the terms attached.

If AI comes to the website, what will it look like?

As of now, there is no concrete answer. Scratch has had multiple running experiments tinkering with AI usage, but nothing is guaranteed to be pushed to the full site. Below I've compiled a list of all running experiments directly mentioned by the Scratch Foundation, as well as sources of where you can learn more about them.

• Face Sensing - An extension using machine learning to track parts of the face, as well as facial gestures. This has recently been added to the official Scratch editor.
  
  
• Creative Learning Assistant (CLA) - A chatbot designed to break down programming problems and point towards sources to find solutions. (A video of this in action can also be found here).
  
  
• Professional Development Program - Full project/lesson generation for educational purposes in Vietnam.
  
  
• Machine Learning for Kids - An extension allowing Scratchers to train and use a very primitive version of an AI model (machine learning).
  
  
• Kalimani Integration - An AI model trained in sign language, integrated into Scratch to provide more accessible ways to learn to program.
  

It's also worth mentioning the AI image generation features experimented on Scratch Lab, however this experiment has ceased progress and the concept of an AI image generator has since been rejected by the Scratch Team:

The Official List of Rejected Suggestions wrote:

2.8 AI image generation in Scratch
The Scratch Team has experimented with AI image generation for Scratch in the past. There are benefits for enhancing creativity, including making it easier for Scratchers to make the costumes they want for their projects, as well as inspiring Scratchers to make new stories based on the images they generate. However, there are also many downsides, including ethical concerns arising from AI images using copyrighted material, biases present in AI which reinforce harmful stereotypes, the ease of creating inappropriate content, and the difficulty of accessing AI. For these reasons, the Scratch Team has stated that they will not be adding AI image generation to Scratch anytime soon. For more information, see this article.

What's the difference between AI, “generative AI,” and machine learning?

AI is defined as a machine or program designed to mimic cognitive function in a human way. Machine learning is a subset of AI that trains data based on trial and error, learning from experience and improving for future iterations. All machine learning is AI, but not all AI is machine learning. (Source)

“Generative AI” describes any AI meant to output a form of data, typically in the form of media such as text, art, video, or code. However, the definition of “generative AI” is very broad, and there's not a clear differentiation for when something stops being a standard AI and starts being a “generative” one. All computers are designed to return an output based on an input, so the definition varies from person to person, depending on what they consider to be generative media. Bare in mind that when discussing generative AI, other people will likely have a different perception of it than you do.

BitcoinFarmer wrote:

I think people should read my old post. I don't know about doing it like this but I'll just quote myself so this doesnt get buried.

Actually, there are counter agruments.
I updated this list from my previous quotes to integrate and value the progress we made whilst discussing them.

Let us get into some points from the original topic.

1.) I do use AI pretty much almost everyday, but AI on Scratch seems very out of place and takes away from the one key charm of Scratch, that being human made-projects, human moderation, human users, etc. An AI, even in the place of just “helping” users is highly out of place.

I feel like this is a fair point in the sense of Ai being implemented in places where it is not seen as wanted and often unfitting. My personal example here is YouTube which has a feature where it automatically created an other language version of some videos using AI voices that terribly suck.
However, Scratch is different in the sense of that it IS a learning platform. And for coding. The thing here is, that AI is bringing in a big change and that change shall also be represented in how coding is taught, because the methods are simply different now.
The AI is here to assist the people, not replace them (as in: guided help to make you reach more not as in dr. chatgpt did my math homework) and as I read it partially to find snippets of code from others and help you patch them into your work.
I do already practice similar with my own works of coding where I reuse old stuff I wrote like 3 years ago in a new project nowadays.
I see the critique here that people don't want this but I feel like the backpack is the same principle and remixing also. It should be delivered with an unremovable comment block that gives credit.

2.) Some users said that you can just use ChatGPT if you really need help, but I disagree. As I stated in my original post, we have human resources on Scratch to help you out such as the Help with Scripts forum and tutorials. There is no need for AI to spill over into places that were always predominantly human-made.

Some users said xxx… But let us have a look. Human resources are always the best way, I couldn't agree more. But they are not infinitely aviable. You can't ask a tutorial questions and help with scripts has neither guaranteed response nor guaranteed quality response. The AI at least has the first of those. Also, the Scratch Team did not enforce people to use the forums and the forums are kind of on retreat in the moment. This is probably due to them being hard to moderate and the size of the Scratch team. For this reason, a discuss button from the top bar of Scratch (next to explore ideas etc) was removed.

3.) AI is expensive, and notice how Scratch Membership conveniently rolled around when the Scratch Foundation announced that they were going to be making an AI for Scratch? Just sayin'

I agree that AI is expensive and a big step. But I wouldn't make too explicit connections here before anything. I do think that a bit of a shift is happening in Scratch, but a membership that helps support Scratch is, if implemented correctly a fair idea. Also, this topic is about the AI.

4.) This isn't a view on AI related but it's just something I need to address. Please refrain from using AI in this post because you're going to start a flame war and that's just unnecessary and defeats the purpose of this topic. And if someone does use AI, please do not ridicule them for it, you just look like a jerk.

I am a human and not using AI in my replies.

5.) Some AI training models have been under fire for being trained on either copyrighted material or material that it's creator didn't consent to using. How will we know if the people developing this AI for Scratch aren't using usermade projects without their consent? It's unethical regardless of whose the actual owner.

This is a bigger problem here and I don't personally favor big AI companies. However, Scratch doesnt have to follow these patterns. If the Scratch management decides for a way with consent here, this will be ethical. Don't blame the sole existence of AI for this though.

6.) AI can tend to be incorrect or hallucinate. And some AI's, like ChatGPT, really only tell you what you want to hear. And then some AI's like Gemini are really boring and have no personality and tend to just give up and redirect you to Google searches, which sucks.

Nobody can expect the AI to be perfect. It is trained off the works of humans and as we all know, those humans make mistakes, so where in the process should it get perfect?
The AI serves as a learning asistant that seriously takes itself the time to work thorugh your project, like a teacher, but you'd also have it aviable at home, it doesn't get tired or unmotivated of reading through a messy project and it always has time.
Also, as it is meant to be educational, the AI will not be implemented in a way that it does things for you and if it for example gives you an existent sprite from somewhere and advises you on how to implement it but you have to actually do that whilst it explains, then you learn something.
Also, I totally agree; you can trick AI with some weird things and this looks really like it is unreliable but remember humans are also easily misinformed, unlogical or chaotic and often also make mistakes. The fact, that ChatGPT tells you what you want to hear is because it is a commercial product that wants to keep its users active. Scratch does not need to follow this line. The Gemini is the same but it's good for google to redirect you to searching and show you ads.
And I do not think that the AI is supposed to be “fun” here in the sense of: hey chatty, tell me a joke or something. It is mainly a coding tool and not an entertainment robot and therefore supposed to rather be helpful and assisting in programming than your “friend”.

7.) Kids might not understand AI boundaries because they can’t always tell the difference between facts, bots making stuff up, real people giving help, and so on. They trust the computer because “it must be right.” The AI could accidentally teach bad coding habits, misinformation, or encourage dependency. None of that matches Scratch’s mission.

This counts for the entire internet. Also this counts for other people as well. Someone state something (“omg scratch gets an image generator trained off our art” and without fact checking 20 scratch users be panic.

8.) Scratch is supposed to be a safe sandbox, not a tech experiment. Kids come here to learn coding basics, not be beta testers for a foundation’s new AI project. Scratch Team using Scratch kids as guinea pigs for a trendy AI rollout feels morally shaky. If they wanna play with AI, cool — but don’t use children as the testing ground.

I see this point but I do think that this is not an experiment as AI has been round for some while. If the new coding basics include the usage of helping AI, that is how it is. This is not about trends. Also, the AI can be seen as pretty safe and easier to moderate than if we had for example ten times the forum population. This would be a big chaos where dangerous trolls and spammers could be active and unseen. Just pointing this out.

9.) Even if the Scratch Team swears “AI won’t be behind a paywall,” let’s be fr. Services cost money. AI costs SERIOUS money. Membership suddenly appearing at the SAME time isn’t a coincidence. Eventually, features get split: “Basic users get slow AI”, “Members get advanced AI help”, “Members get more AI tokens”, “Members get better project analysis”, “Members get priority moderation”… It creates a two-class system on a platform designed for kids learning to code.

I see the danger you are trying to point out here and I feel like if it went this way it were a serious break with the scratch we used to know alike. However, once again I am not into conspiracies. If the AI is implemented correctly though, then the AI is an equal tool for everyone and the membership keeps out of coding features and sticks with badges, tags and themes like cat blocks. I feel like a harmful and restrictive token system would be definitely a chance, but as I see it, Scratch it is the most likely that sticks to it's values combined with AI, and this will not happen. Remember, that the membership is your way to support this free platform at running by basically donating and they just give a little back, not like YouTube premium with no ads or an AI premium deal. This is a totally different concept.

Ransom321Ransom wrote:

knowitall1237 wrote:

Ransom321Ransom wrote:

-snip-

“Hey ChatGPT, generate an essay on why AI shouldn't be used in Scratch”

When discussing AI and its potential impact on platforms like Scratch, it’s important to clarify from the outset: I did not use AI to write this essay. Every word you are reading is the product of my own thoughts, my own creativity, and my own time spent reflecting on this topic. Why is this important? Because relying on AI for creative platforms like Scratch undermines the very skills these platforms are meant to nurture—critical thinking, problem-solving, and coding ingenuity.

Scratch is a space where imagination meets logic. Users, often young learners, are encouraged to experiment, make mistakes, and iterate on their projects. AI, as powerful as it may be, can short-circuit this learning process. If a user depends on AI to generate scripts, characters, or animations, they might miss out on the trial-and-error learning that makes Scratch so educational. By writing this essay myself, I am embodying the same principle: the process matters as much as the product.

Furthermore, Scratch is a platform that celebrates personal expression. Every sprite movement, every custom block, every animation tells a story about the coder behind it. If AI were used to generate projects automatically, the projects would lose their personal touch. They might work perfectly, but they wouldn’t reflect the coder’s unique problem-solving journey. In the same way, by not using AI to write this essay, I am preserving my voice and perspective, rather than relying on a machine to manufacture ideas.

Lastly, avoiding AI encourages accountability and ownership. When I struggle with an essay, I learn how to structure arguments, clarify my thoughts, and communicate effectively. If AI were allowed to do the work for me, I would miss out on these essential skills—just as a Scratch user relying on AI for coding would miss the chance to truly understand programming concepts. The essay, like a Scratch project, becomes meaningful only when the creator is actively engaged in the process.

In conclusion, I did not use AI to write this essay because the lesson of Scratch is that creativity, learning, and growth come from doing the work yourself. AI can be a helpful tool, but it should not replace the personal effort that leads to mastery. By committing to my own ideas, my own writing, and my own reflection, I am staying true to the spirit of platforms like Scratch, which value learning by making.

“Hey ChatGPT, generate a fake response to counter accusations of the AI generated essay about AI being written by AI”

kip22s wrote:

Ransom321Ransom wrote:

The amount of em-dashes and way of speaking is so similar to Chat-GPT, I just can't prove it

I know it is AI I just can't prove it

kip22s wrote:

Ransom321Ransom wrote:

The amount of em-dashes and way of speaking is so similar to Chat-GPT, I just can't prove it

The fact that people attribute proper grammar and punctuation as a sign of AI generation is sad.

NamelessCat wrote:

kip22s wrote:

Ransom321Ransom wrote:

The amount of em-dashes and way of speaking is so similar to Chat-GPT, I just can't prove it

The fact that people attribute proper grammar and punctuation as a sign of AI generation is sad.

It is not about proper grammar and punctuation.
ChatGPT has a specific way of preferring words and terms that I habe not heard normal humans use alike.
Also, the dashes are in fact a ChatGPT practice.

So ChatGPT stands out in word and term choice, dashes and tone.

NamelessCat wrote:

kip22s wrote:

Ransom321Ransom wrote:

The amount of em-dashes and way of speaking is so similar to Chat-GPT, I just can't prove it

The fact that people attribute proper grammar and punctuation as a sign of AI generation is sad.

The amount of em-dashes.

kip22s wrote:

NamelessCat wrote:

kip22s wrote:

Ransom321Ransom wrote:

The amount of em-dashes and way of speaking is so similar to Chat-GPT, I just can't prove it

The fact that people attribute proper grammar and punctuation as a sign of AI generation is sad.

The amount of em-dashes.

Plus the wording, it uses excessive big long flowery words that no sane human would use in the Scratch forums of all places. Heck, even in a “formal” essay, nobody writes like that. It's so easy to tell

I also want to mention here how face sensing is actually imo a very good implementation of AI onto scratch:

• The feature is cool and innovative. Tracking faces is something that many users wanted for a looooong time.
  
• The extension works well.
  
• Countless possibilities: This really opens up new ways for project creators and game and other types of project ideas
  
• Safe and private: It is entirely run in your browser. This means that your data stays private and local.
  
• It was not trained on data of unwilling users.
  

BitcoinFarmer wrote:

I also want to mention here how face sensing is actually imo a very good implementation of AI onto scratch:

• The feature is cool and innovative. Tracking faces is something that many users wanted for a looooong time.
  
• The extension works well.
  
• Countless possibilities: This really opens up new ways for project creators and game and other types of project ideas
  
• Safe and private: It is entirely run in your browser. This means that your data stays private and local.
  
• It was not trained on data of unwilling users.
  

Exactly! That's why I love face sensing! AI itself isn't the problem. The stupid ToS that forces us to spoon-feed the clankers our time and effort is the problem.

BitcoinFarmer wrote:

I also want to mention here how face sensing is actually imo a very good implementation of AI onto scratch:

• The feature is cool and innovative. Tracking faces is something that many users wanted for a looooong time.
  
• The extension works well.
  
• Countless possibilities: This really opens up new ways for project creators and game and other types of project ideas
  
• Safe and private: It is entirely run in your browser. This means that your data stays private and local.
  
• It was not trained on data of unwilling users.
  

For what it's worth, it probably was trained on data of unwilling users, just in this case we were not the unwilling users.

All AI needs a dataset to learn from, and it feels highly unrealistic for Google to just have a bunch of diverse, detailed, and labelled photos of peoples faces lying around that they have a royalty free license for.

I do agree with you that Face Sensing is a good implementation of the technology, but implying it was trained in a perfectly ethical manner feels like a shot in the dark.