Foxofpeace wrote:

(#3288)

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

Foxofpeace wrote:

(#3284)
ur joking, right?

not at all. i spent sweat, tears, and a truckload of caffeine in writing that

i meant about making an extremely long post and saying “i hope you read every word of that”

codubee wrote:

We aren't training AI anything.

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

'twas a joke how dare me attempt lightening the mood

IloveRoblox003 wrote:

codubee wrote:

We aren't training AI anything.

And how, how will this generative AI (text generation, I speak not of other types of generating in this post) respond?
How will the AI help if it does not know how to talk, or to interpret what the user wants? (specific emphasis on interpreting what the user wants)

KIKO_IS_P0G wrote:

I agree!

Sasha_Banks272 wrote:

Join the Studio: https://scratch.mit.edu/studios/51279727

I'm sure we've all heard the news of Scratch implementing a generative AI buddy for Scratch. This may seem useful and I agree that it's a cool concept. But this is a website for children to learn, not AI to help them. We have the Help with Scripts forum for a reason, and even backpacking scripts exists.

But not just that, If children rely too heavily on AI for generating ideas, they may not develop the skills to independently brainstorm and problem-solve. The immediate solutions offered by AI can short-circuit the essential learning process of trial and error, which is key to cultivating creativity and resilience, which is what Scratch's main goal is.. fueling imagination.

Furthermore, Creativity often stems from emotional experiences, imagination, and personal expression. AI-generated content will lack this emotional depth, potentially removing the personal connection that's integral to a child's creative growth. And we don't want that, do we?

But basically my point is that by adding AI, you're destroying the creative vision of Scratch that solely depends on a child's imagination and the trial and error factor that makes projects good.

Sasha's Updated Views

After reading some of what you guys said, I decided to add a few more things. This will be updated overtime.

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.

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.

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'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ajskateboarder wrote:

(#3292)

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

'twas a joke how dare me attempt lightening the mood

It is genuinely hard to tell with the length of the essays you are putting here

ajskateboarder wrote:

IloveRoblox003 wrote:

And how, how will this generative AI (text generation, I speak not of other types of generating in this post) respond?
How will the AI help if it does not know how to talk, or to interpret what the user wants? (specific emphasis on interpreting what the user wants)

Simply use an existing AI through a provider, without doing any further training/fine-tuning

if <It has Ai> then 
DO NOT USE!!!

else
IT is fine to use

end

KIKO_IS_P0G wrote:

snip
It also makes me sure that I am speaking to humans and every cool project is by a human and if they added an AI I couldn't do that

ajskateboarder wrote:

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

'twas a joke how dare me attempt lightening the mood

It is genuinely hard to tell with the length of the essays you are putting here

IloveRoblox003 wrote:

codubee wrote:

We aren't training AI anything.

And how, how will this generative AI (text generation, I speak not of other types of generating in this post) respond?
How will the AI help if it does not know how to talk, or to interpret what the user wants? (specific emphasis on interpreting what the user wants)

Simply use an existing AI through a provider, without doing any further training/fine-tuning

LD67123 wrote:

Do not use face sensing! I think it uses Ai!!!!!!

if <It has Ai> then 
DO NOT USE!!!

else
IT is fine to use

end

LD67123 wrote:

(#3298)
Do not use face sensing! I think it uses Ai!!!!!!

if <It has Ai> then 
DO NOT USE!!!

else
IT is fine to use

end

LD67123 wrote:

Do not use face sensing! I think it uses Ai!!!!!!

ChristianScratcher1 wrote:

(#3304)
So no AI? (Was going to ask that earlier but I thought it'd be a stupid question : P )
I'm terribly confused rn and there's 2 more pages I have to read through

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

okay. okay. what?

First of all, why are you speaking in markdown? We're in the forums, it uses DjangoBB, not markdown

codubee wrote:

Magudragon wrote:

Is Scratch trying to implement a Creative Learning assistant?
No, at least not yet

Wrong. Still don't know how you get there from what I said. We are absolutely iterating on the CLA and other AI related tooling. As I have stated, multiple times in this thread.

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

ChristianScratcher1 wrote:

(#3304)
So no AI? (Was going to ask that earlier but I thought it'd be a stupid question : P )
I'm terribly confused rn and there's 2 more pages I have to read through

yes no chatgpt-style clankers wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohooooooooooooohehehehehheahahaha

codubee wrote:

The ToS was changed to be aligned with current industry practices, regulations, and taking issues related to AI into account.

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

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.

Yes it is expensive. Who said we're doing that?

codubee wrote:

pippy2011eight wrote:

wait, I'm confused, how do you make an AI without training?

Because that's not what we're doing!