CosmicStarV1 wrote:

bBeryllium wrote:

CosmicStarV1 wrote:

bBeryllium wrote:

codubee wrote:

These tools are moving incredibly fast, and we don't want to jump unthinkingly into using them, but it would be ridiculous for us to ignore it and not explore how we might be able to present these tools in a Scratchy way. We anticipated this happening and we've been planning and developing as our resources allow.

if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you too?

what?

its a metaphor for following what everyone else does.

yea but what does this have to do with AI?

jumping off the bridge represents adding ai for no good reason

* we have good info

bBeryllium wrote:

jumping off the bridge represents adding ai for no good reason

Can you explain how AI the way scratch is adding is “no good reason”

sup3r_r0ck wrote:

sup3r_r0ck wrote:

I need clarification so here are a few questions

Is image generation still rejected?

Is the cla demo video still accurate?

Is the cla even getting added in 4.0?

Will it actually have the ability to take sprites from other projects?

bump so codubee sees my questions

When someone says “rejected” that has two meanings to me:

1. Our team believes that an idea isn't ready yet
2. Is fundamentally at odds with our values and mission

If number 1, that does not mean it's rejected, it means we are still iterating on various ideas on it when exploring the problem space, and there may be additions to Scratch based on that work.
If number 2, a good example would be unmoderated chat, which no amount of iteration will change our decision making, and could be considered being actually rejected.

So, for each of these:

Is image generation still rejected? - No. In fact, we've tried different design ideas here going back to 2022, and still iterate on that, I have no idea where this idea comes from that it is “rejected”.

Is the cla demo video still accurate? - No, we've been iterating since then and there are actually some really amazing tools that we've come up with that enable direct analysis of a full project, including how it will run, all without actually running the project and it can surface things like, static costumes that have inappropriate words on them, sounds with inappropriate content, and so on. Meanwhile, there has been iteration on the “what it is”.

Is the cla even getting added in 4.0? - I can't answer this, we're still working this out ourselves.

Will it actually have the ability to take sprites from other projects? - I'm confused, because that's something that folks can do now (drop a sprite into a backpack and bring it into their own project). This is _by definition_ one of the things we most value about what we've created. It's written into the underlying licensing of shared scratch projects. What we will never do, is facilitate anyone pulling sprites from unshared projects.

bBeryllium wrote:

CosmicStarV1 wrote:

bBeryllium wrote:

CosmicStarV1 wrote:

bBeryllium wrote:

codubee wrote:

These tools are moving incredibly fast, and we don't want to jump unthinkingly into using them, but it would be ridiculous for us to ignore it and not explore how we might be able to present these tools in a Scratchy way. We anticipated this happening and we've been planning and developing as our resources allow.

if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you too?

what?

its a metaphor for following what everyone else does.

yea but what does this have to do with AI?

jumping off the bridge represents adding ai for no good reason

Dude. You deliberately ignored the part where I wrote, “…we don't want to jump unthinkingly into using them…” Who are you even talking to now?

I'm sorry, it's very difficult not being rude in my responses given the _multi-decade_ track record we have of not doing exactly what many people in this thread seem to believe we'd do.

CosmicStarV1 wrote:

bBeryllium wrote:

jumping off the bridge represents adding ai for no good reason

Can you explain how AI the way scratch is adding is “no good reason”

because basically no one is gonna use it

codubee wrote:

Dude. You deliberately ignored the part where I wrote, “…we don't want to jump unthinkingly into using them…” Who are you even talking to now?

so you confirmed your thought process was “how can we use ai” instead of “how can we improve things”. (which is bad) if the whole reason its a thing is because you guys feel you need to use ai like everyone else, its probably not good, right?

codubee wrote:

When someone says “rejected” that has two meanings to me:

1. Our team believes that an idea isn't ready yet
2. Is fundamentally at odds with our values and mission

I feel like adding membership and ai is also at odds with your values and mission, unless you changed it recently.

the about scratch page wrote:

Scratch promotes computational thinking and problem solving skills;

codubee wrote:

Is image generation still rejected? - No. In fact, we've tried different design ideas here going back to 2022, and still iterate on that, I have no idea where this idea comes from that it is “rejected”.

This idea comes from TOLORS 2.8

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.

I’m not sure that some of these downsides could be removed, just from how AI and training AI works

codubee wrote:

Yeah, and (the sources post is) false. Go read your actual sources. Pay close attention to what a single moderator said and you will not find anywhere where they said, “I didn't know about the ToS” but a question and answer back and forth to make sure they were talking about the same thing.
src

@cheddargirl was very clearly talking about the TOS changes, their response was to a response about the TOS (although I had snipped this in my sources post, my mistake.) I couldn’t find a “back and forth” about the TOS in the pages surrounding that response, however I did find a back and forth of someone asking for the topic to be closed again, which you may be misinterpreting.

C_h_a_r_l_o_tt_e wrote:

EDawg2011 wrote:

sup3r_r0ck wrote:

#3052
This forum is just causing arguing at this point someone should close it for a little bit

We need Scratch to listen to us. Maybe the Scratch Team can take down the flame wars instead of shutting down the whole topic.

SCRATCH TEAM IS LISTENING!!! AS IVE TOLD YALL 5MILLION TIMES ITS THE SCRATCH FOUNDATION THATS IMPORTANT

If the scarcht team is listening…..
Ello scarcht team pweas get rid of AI pweeeeaaaasss :c

bBeryllium wrote:

CosmicStarV1 wrote:

bBeryllium wrote:

jumping off the bridge represents adding ai for no good reason

Can you explain how AI the way scratch is adding is “no good reason”

because basically no one is gonna use it

Yes, and that's why no one is using any of the AI tools out there. Uh huh. sure. I'm starting to think you aren't responding in good faith.

bBeryllium wrote:

codubee wrote:

Dude. You deliberately ignored the part where I wrote, “…we don't want to jump unthinkingly into using them…” Who are you even talking to now?

so you confirmed your thought process was “how can we use ai” instead of “how can we improve things”. (which is bad) if the whole reason its a thing is because you guys feel you need to use ai like everyone else, its probably not good, right?

Oh, so you are obviously now not arguing in good faith because there's no world where it's reasonable to interpret what I wrote the way you did here. Also, the world is not static. Improvements come from multiple directions and in different ways. Based on your “thinking” this would have meant Scratch never existed because, “Why is it important for me to use a computer to learn problem solving skills?”

bBeryllium wrote:

codubee wrote:

When someone says “rejected” that has two meanings to me:

1. Our team believes that an idea isn't ready yet
2. Is fundamentally at odds with our values and mission

I feel like adding membership and ai is also at odds with your values and mission, unless you changed it recently.

the about scratch page wrote:

Scratch promotes computational thinking and problem solving skills;

Yes, you can feel that way all you like. Doesn't make it true though, does it?

RE: computational thinking and problem solving skills. That's not going away in the world of AI.

The TOLORS is not official from the Scratch Team… Even if there are ex-team members posting there. But also, you conveniently chopped off the the second to last sentence of 2.8…

Exascerbescence wrote:

This idea comes from TOLORS 2.8

The Official List Of Rejected Suggestions wrote:

2.8 AI image generation in Scratch
*snip*

2.8 continued:
…In general, AI in Scratch is not entirely rejected; it depends on the specific use of the AI.

Also, the source that 2.8 is drawing from for the “…anytime soon…” was made 2.5 years ago. Did we add it in the last 2.5 years since that article has been written? Does “anytime soon” now mean 3 years? 5 years? 10 years?

Exascerbescence wrote:

I’m not sure that some of these downsides could be removed, just from how AI and training AI works

codubee wrote:

Yeah, and (the sources post is) false. Go read your actual sources. Pay close attention to what a single moderator said and you will not find anywhere where they said, “I didn't know about the ToS” but a question and answer back and forth to make sure they were talking about the same thing.
src

@cheddargirl was very clearly talking about the TOS changes, their response was to a response about the TOS (although I had snipped this in my sources post, my mistake.) I couldn’t find a “back and forth” about the TOS in the pages surrounding that response, however I did find a back and forth of someone asking for the topic to be closed again, which you may be misinterpreting.

Yes, and the world evolves, and we should always be ready to rethink our assumptions and what does or does not make a feature/what have you, doable in a sustainable way. And now you're saying that the proof of the team not knowing about the ToS is… missing? Lets just go with agreeing with you, that a member of the team wasn't up to date on the ToS.

Based on that logic, I should be able to find at least one Scratcher who really really wants AI in Scratch and then I can say, “Look, all of Scratch wants this!” compare and contrast the misinformation about “The Scratch Team didn't know about the ToS” because one team member said things that were interpreted that way.

codubee wrote:

The TOLORS is not official from the Scratch Team…

I still cannot find the post but in another topic someone said that the Official list of rejected topics was more like a PSA letting us know what things the Scratch Team didn’t want to see mentioned or discussed in their suggestions forum. This goes along with the forums having a great deal of structure in order to be manageable and useful.

Unfortunately the TOLORS is a list of authority when it comes to closing topics by the Scratch Team even if a topic was opened with the intent of doing productive brainstorming. So, if someone had an idea for generating images that mitigated the issues then they would not be able to discuss it because their topic would be closed.

So this list does have some extra weight in our minds of what will be censored even if it has no weight in what the Scratch Team actually implements.

It been stated that Scratch is not self-sustaining, if this is true, then why add AI? AI is expensive, whether your training it yourself or using a third-party tool. I don't see why Scratch needs AI, especially with so many people saying that they don't want it.

On the other hand, people are definitely overreacting when it comes to the whole AI situation. Some people want to boycott Scratch, but what would that actually do? If you don't like AI, then don't use it. If you fear that Scratch will be filled with AI slop, realize that the ST hopefully won't let that happen.

10goto10 wrote:

codubee wrote:

The TOLORS is not official from the Scratch Team…

I still cannot find the post but in another topic someone said that the Official list of rejected topics was more like a PSA letting us know what things the Scratch Team didn’t want to see mentioned or discussed in their suggestions forum. This goes along with the forums having a great deal of structure in order to be manageable and useful.

Unfortunately the TOLORS is a list of authority when it comes to closing topics by the Scratch Team even if a topic was opened with the intent of doing productive brainstorming. So, if someone had an idea for generating images that mitigated the issues then they would not be able to discuss it because their topic would be closed.

So this list does have some extra weight in our minds of what will be censored even if it has no weight in what the Scratch Team actually implements.

Would you object to it being renamed to the (Un)Official list? Also, the policies and practices of the moderators isn't bound by that topic. There's certainly utility in the topic being available to explain why a newly opened topic might be pointless, but that's also more about the community and not an official list by the Scratch Team.

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

It been stated that Scratch is not self-sustaining, if this is true, then why add AI? AI is expensive, whether your training it yourself or using a third-party tool. I don't see why Scratch needs AI, especially with so many people saying that they don't want it.

Do you know that the Scratch Lab object detection features are all run in browser by downloading a local model? Did you know that face sensing is also based on running a local model, precisely to avoid having anyone's face uploaded outside of your computer? The primary expense in that is how long it takes to download them. Is that AI expensive?

Rosics wrote:

Can we close this topic? We are at the point where no good discussion can happen.

Not until codubee gives us a proper answer to

Magudragon wrote:

So you're saying the TOS was only changed because external A.I. from other corporations can train off projects from the Scratch website?

Just ignore what I said afterwards in the original posts.

edit: I think we should stop hating on codubee, he's part of ST and could probably have us blocked…

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

It been stated that Scratch is not self-sustaining, if this is true, then why add AI? AI is expensive, whether your training it yourself or using a third-party tool. I don't see why Scratch needs AI, especially with so many people saying that they don't want it.

Do you know that the Scratch Lab object detection features are all run in browser by downloading a local model? Did you know that face sensing is also based on running a local model, precisely to avoid having anyone's face uploaded outside of your computer? The primary expense in that is how long it takes to download them. Is that AI expensive?

I did not know that it's run locally. That being said, will the new AI be ran locally? Even if it is, training is expensive.

codubee wrote:

source
Yes, and the world evolves, and we should always be ready to rethink our assumptions and what does or does not make a feature/what have you, doable in a sustainable way. And now you're saying that the proof of the team not knowing about the ToS is… missing? Lets just go with agreeing with you, that a member of the team wasn't up to date on the ToS.

Based on that logic, I should be able to find at least one Scratcher who really really wants AI in Scratch and then I can say, “Look, all of Scratch wants this!” compare and contrast the misinformation about “The Scratch Team didn't know about the ToS” because one team member said things that were interpreted that way.

Please explain how this logic leads you to be able to say all of Scratch wants AI.

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

It been stated that Scratch is not self-sustaining, if this is true, then why add AI? AI is expensive, whether your training it yourself or using a third-party tool. I don't see why Scratch needs AI, especially with so many people saying that they don't want it.

Do you know that the Scratch Lab object detection features are all run in browser by downloading a local model? Did you know that face sensing is also based on running a local model, precisely to avoid having anyone's face uploaded outside of your computer? The primary expense in that is how long it takes to download them. Is that AI expensive?

I did not know that it's run locally. That being said, will the new AI be ran locally? Even if it is, training is expensive.

And if it isn't local, because some companies like OpenAI (if i'm right) bill per API key usage

[unsaid]