Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

[added] [General RC] AI-Generated Beatmaps

posted
Total Posts
127
Okoayu
Nomination Assessment Team
5,058 posts
Joined May 2012
Topic Starter
Okoayu
Judging by the team stance and recent "incident", I'd propose adding this sentence under General / Rules

Here's all versions, this thing went through so far

  1. The hit objects in a beatmap must not be AI-generated.
->
  1. AI-Generation, AI-Assistance or other related generation methods must not be used to create any hit objects in a beatmap.
->
  1. A beatmap's hit objects must be created exclusively by direct human input without the use of any generative tooling. Creating beatmaps is a fundamentally creative process, so using shortcuts like generative AI is unacceptable for ranking.
->
  1. A beatmap's hit objects, hitsounds and timing must be created exclusively by direct human input without the use of any generative tooling. Creating beatmaps is a fundamentally creative process, so using shortcuts like generative AI is unacceptable for ranking.

as second sentences, I was tossing around either
  1. You cannot claim ownership of work that is not yours.
  2. leaving it empty
If anyone has something to add as a second sentence, feel free to drop ideas.

I also am not 100% sure on "is AI generating placement and then changing it fine". My gut stance says probably not. Don't know if that's worth clarifying?
Last edited by Okoayu , edited 6 times in total.
Okoayu
Nomination Assessment Team
5,058 posts
Joined May 2012
Topic Starter
Okoayu
as a sidenote that i found incredibly amusing:

funnily, currently, if you ai-generate most of your beatmap it is unrankable by default because as the host you must have mapped the majority of the set so the AI-Model would need to be the host which is impossible

sure, there's ways to work around that, but yeah
chidodou
569 posts
Joined February 2019
chidodou
I agree with this for the most part, but I feel like it’s a pretty bland description as to what is considered an unrankable AI map. For example, is even placing 1 hit object with AI unrankable? Are AI assisted tools as such to help map directly disallowed (if they exist)? To prevent loopholing, I think it should be a little more clear on completely disallowing AI within beatmaps such as adding “AI-Generation, AI-Assisted, or other related generation must not be used to create any hit objects within a beatmap.”
Last edited by chidodou , edited 3 times in total.
Gaminator III
276 posts
Joined May 2020
Gaminator III
AI mappers, artists etc should be banned
Okoayu
Nomination Assessment Team
5,058 posts
Joined May 2012
Topic Starter
Okoayu

chidodou wrote:

I agree with this for the most part, but I feel like it’s a pretty bland description as to what is considered an unrankable AI map. For example, is even placing 1 hit object with AI unrankable? Are AI assisted tools such as the overlay tools to help map directly disallowed?
I yoinked the way the Ai-generated media disclosure in the RC is currently worded, that's why it probably is kinda vague. I think your suggestion is fine, updated
Last edited by Okoayu , edited 1 time in total.
SupaV
Beatmap Nominator
512 posts
Joined November 2020
SupaV
I think ```You cannot claim ownership of work that is not yours.``` being included is a no-brainer.

As for the other clause you can put it in, but my question is, how enforceable is it? cause regardless if we were to put it in and some blokes decide to evade it, well, won't that be useless?
Last edited by SupaV , edited 2 times in total.
Okoayu
Nomination Assessment Team
5,058 posts
Joined May 2012
Topic Starter
Okoayu

SupaV wrote:

I think ```You cannot claim ownership of work that is not yours.``` being included is a no-brainer.

As for the other clause you can put it in, but my question is, how enforceable is it? cause regardless if we were to put it in and some blokes decide to evade it, well, won't that be useless?
I think it's less about how enforcable it is, most of the RC is enforced on a report basis, something makes it to qualified, a concern is reported and action is taken, in this case we took action without strictly having RC against it and used other general rules to bridge the gap.
Last edited by Okoayu , edited 1 time in total.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
317 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL
Agree with the proposal and agree that adding the second sentence would be beneficial. That by itself could technically be a rule of its own if we consider ghost mapping is a thing. But having it under that rule would make both enforceable.
niat0004
296 posts
Joined September 2017
niat0004
For a second sentence, I would propose If you generate a beatmap with AI, it's done the creative work of deciding how to place the hit objects, and not you. This concisely explains the stance of the team on AI-generated maps, and why AI-generated maps are considered problematic. Remember, some people, especially those not in the osu! community, may consider AI equal to something they had created themselves.

re: chidodou's phrasing: It would be more grammatically correct to phrase that "AI generation, AI assistance, or other related generation methods[...]" since "AI" and "generation" are separate words.
Last edited by niat0004 , edited 3 times in total.
Aurele
Global Moderator
7,606 posts
Joined January 2011
Aurele
While I agree with this, and this could be another discussion, I'm just curious how one can identify whether something is AI-generated VS what is not. How easy is it to determine that something was generated without the mapper saying that it was?
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
317 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL

Aurele wrote:

I'm just curious how one can identify whether something is AI-generated VS what is not
Again the point of the proposal isn't how easy it'd be to enforce. As we have seen, it can be. We just need a concise rule against it as the game does not support this kind of thing. Just like cheaters and other hidden foul play is dealt with.
Drum-Hitnormal
1,778 posts
Joined March 2011
Drum-Hitnormal
whats the incident?

mapper just has to say its not AI, cuz u have no way to prove it... so useless

and suppose theres a AI tool which gives u modding like a normal modder, and u apply some of the mods cuz it improves ur map. now ur map is considered unrankable??? this makes no sense to me, cuz ultimately u are the one to decide to aplly mod or not

with same logic u should also not rank any map from newbie mapper who blindly apllies all BN mod without thinking

also just curious how do u treat the maps created by my program automap-chan? mapper will probably adjust the pattern, but if they dont for some notes, because theres no need to change it

what about AI generated HS?
Last edited by Drum-Hitnormal , edited 4 times in total.
chidodou
569 posts
Joined February 2019
chidodou

niat0004 wrote:

For a second sentence, I would propose If you generate a beatmap with AI, it's done the creative work of deciding how to place the hit objects, and not you. This concisely explains the stance of the team on AI-generated maps.
I think an update to the rule that already exists should be better so that it kinda serves as a reminder that a map isn’t yours if you generate it to prevent redundancy, such as adding to the rule “You cannot claim ownership of work that is not yours. This includes “ghost mapping”, or any type of artificial generation, such as AI generation or AI assistive tools used to create any objects within a beatmap.”
niat0004
296 posts
Joined September 2017
niat0004

Drum-Hitnormal wrote:

and suppose there's an AI tool which gives u modding like a normal modder, and u apply some of the mods cuz it improves ur map. now ur map is considered unrankable??? this makes no sense to me, cuz ultimately u are the one to decide to apply mod or not
I agree with you, but the AI didn't "create hit objects" in this case. It gave you a suggestion on how to place them, which doesn't count as creating objects directly.

chidodou wrote:

I think an update to the rule that already exists should be better so that it kinda serves as a reminder that a map isn’t yours if you generate it to prevent redundancy, such as adding to the rule “You cannot claim ownership of work that is not yours. This includes “ghost mapping”, or any type of artificial generation, such as AI generation or AI assistive tools used to create any objects within a beatmap.”
I agree with this proposal. I just think it should be made clear to people why AI generation isn't your own original work.
Last edited by niat0004 , edited 1 time in total.
Nyanaro
Beatmap Nominator
248 posts
Joined March 2014
Nyanaro
Can we extend this to hitsounds too? Mapperinatorinator has a hitsounds generator and the lack of mention implies that being acceptable
Stompy_
Beatmap Nominator
984 posts
Joined March 2020
Stompy_
1000000% agree on this proposal.

And agree with what Nyanaro said about it extending to HS.
Actually, let's forbid any kind of generative AI usage in ranked, period.

From what I know there are ways to know if a map has been AI generated, as I've asked OliBomby themselves.

+ We already know peppy himself does not support AI generated maps
Last edited by Stompy_ , edited 3 times in total.
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,086 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
To play devil's advocate, I think using generative AI for the initial drafts of a map is fine. In many cases, maps I make exist to provide *a* map of a song I want to play. While I could spend 5 hours making my own version, I could generate a map based on my style in 15 minutes, spend a further 30 minutes tweaking anything out of place, and have a completed set to play in under an hour. It just saves a lot of time in creating content.

I also think that this is a strange restriction to put in place given the inexorable tendency towards ranking anything nowadays. I would seriously argue that many modern maps that are 'genetically engineered' for pp and comfort purposes are similarly devoid of creative effort and are completely disconnected from the song to a much greater extent than AI maps.

Finally I would like to point out that it's not that plausible to enforce this rule, especially on low difficulties, which should be a factor in consideration. We all can see how well the "include BG in description" rule is followed for example.

Therefore, I think that, at minimum, AI lower difficulties should be allowed. And I think that if a map is AI generated and subsequently edited by the mapper to a rankable state, that should be allowed as well.
Last edited by Nao Tomori , edited 2 times in total.
Aspheria
380 posts
Joined July 2019
Aspheria
ai generated storyboards are bound to be made eventually as well, so should account for that too


Nao Tomori wrote:

To play devil's advocate, I think using generative AI for the initial drafts of a map is fine. In many cases, maps I make exist to provide *a* map of a song I want to play. While I could spend 5 hours making my own version, I could generate a map based on my style in 15 minutes, spend a further 30 minutes tweaking anything out of place, and have a completed set to play in under an hour. It just saves a lot of time in creating content.
ok but if your intent is having *a* map of the song that you want to play, then why are you ranking it? ranking it is clearly pushing it to others, so if it's just for you, there is no point in ranking it.
Last edited by Aspheria , edited 2 times in total.
Drum-Hitnormal
1,778 posts
Joined March 2011
Drum-Hitnormal

Nao Tomori wrote:

To play devil's advocate, I think using generative AI for the initial drafts of a map is fine. In many cases, maps I make exist to provide *a* map of a song I want to play. While I could spend 5 hours making my own version, I could generate a map based on my style in 15 minutes, spend a further 30 minutes tweaking anything out of place, and have a completed set to play in under an hour. It just saves a lot of time in creating content.

I also think that this is a strange restriction to put in place given the inexorable tendency towards ranking anything nowadays. I would seriously argue that many modern maps that are 'genetically engineered' for pp and comfort purposes are similarly devoid of creative effort and are completely disconnected from the song to a much greater extent than AI maps.

Finally I would like to point out that it's not that plausible to enforce this rule, especially on low difficulties, which should be a factor in consideration. We all can see how well the "include BG in description" rule is followed for example.

Therefore, I think that, at minimum, AI lower difficulties should be allowed. And I think that if a map is AI generated and subsequently edited by the mapper to a rankable state, that should be allowed as well.
agree with u, AI is the future in all industry... as long mapper owns the final product, and its decent quality then it is fine. the process doesnt matter
Last edited by Drum-Hitnormal , edited 1 time in total.
niat0004
296 posts
Joined September 2017
niat0004

Nao Tomori wrote:

To play devil's advocate, I think using generative AI for the initial drafts of a map is fine. In many cases, maps I make exist to provide *a* map of a song I want to play. While I could spend 5 hours making my own version, I could generate a map based on my style in 15 minutes, spend a further 30 minutes tweaking anything out of place, and have a completed set to play in under an hour. It just saves a lot of time in creating content.

I also think that this is a strange restriction to put in place given the inexorable tendency towards ranking anything nowadays. I would seriously argue that many modern maps that are 'genetically engineered' for pp and comfort purposes are similarly devoid of creative effort and are completely disconnected from the song to a much greater extent than AI maps.

Finally I would like to point out that it's not that plausible to enforce this rule, especially on low difficulties, which should be a factor in consideration. We all can see how well the "include BG in description" rule is followed for example.

Therefore, I think that, at minimum, AI lower difficulties should be allowed. And I think that if a map is AI generated and subsequently edited by the mapper to a rankable state, that should be allowed as well.
I'm neutral regarding AI map drafts, since those can help you get an idea of how you want to map, but they may stop you from considering as many clever options when mapping.

However, I'm very much against AI generation of low difficulties, since you can be creative in low difficulties, and it's a bit disrespectful to beginners to say “we don't think you deserve a map made by hand”, even if that's not the point you're trying to make.
Stompy_
Beatmap Nominator
984 posts
Joined March 2020
Stompy_
the process doesnt matter
Feel like this thought process undermines a lot of attention to detail and effort that many mappers put into their maps.
Mapping isn't about ranking a map by any means necessary, it's about people putting their own creativity, their own personality and ways of creating a rhythm game level around a song they like.

Same goes for any type of design, art, creation.
The human factor is important and shouldn't so easily be brushed aside.

Process does in fact matter a lot.

100% agree with what niat0004 wrote about AI generating low difficulties, first off they don't even take much time to create, only reason one would have for doing this is laziness I feel like.

Not to mention how much low difficulties matter in terms of getting new people into osu... really bad idea to make them effortless and uninspired...
Last edited by Stompy_ , edited 3 times in total.
Aspheria
380 posts
Joined July 2019
Aspheria
I think if you're ranking a map, you've already decided you're intending to push this to the players, as such you should put in the effort to make an actual map and not just serving them a slightly modified version of what ai generated. if it's for private play, then it's whatever, but if you intend for others to play, which is ranked, then you should actually map it yourself.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
317 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL

Drum-Hitnormal wrote:

the process doesnt matter
The whole point of mapping should be to have fun in the process and be proud of the final product. I do not think this is a stance many people would stand by. Especially on a creative medium...
Drum-Hitnormal
1,778 posts
Joined March 2011
Drum-Hitnormal

Stompy_ wrote:

the process doesnt matter
Feel like this thought process undermines a lot of attention to detail and effort that many mappers put into their maps.
Mapping isn't about ranking a map by any means necessary, it's about people putting their own creativity, their own personality and ways of creating a rhythm game level around a song they like.

Same goes for any type of design, art, creation.
The human factor is important and shouldn't so easily be brushed aside.

Process does in fact matter a lot.

100% agree with what niat0004 wrote about AI generating low difficulties, first off they don't even take much time to create, only reason one would have for doing this is laziness I feel like.
as player i just want more content, better content, idc how its made. (Deleted)

if u care so much about process go nom the 100h effort shit map by new mapper instead 1h quick draft which is better quality by experienced mapper
Last edited by RandomeLoL , edited 2 times in total.
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,963 posts
Joined April 2009
Ephemeral
i think we have to be perilously specific here and there's a few ways we can do it, but maybe we should start with something like:

  1. Beatmaps must be created exclusively by direct human input without the use of any generative tooling.
one thing we need to tread carefully around is not disqualifying or introducing excessive uncertainty around other kinds of non-AI related tooling that mappers make regular use of. the term 'AI' itself is especially vague and can potentially refer to heuristic stuff like MV, and we clearly don't want to nix the use of that
niat0004
296 posts
Joined September 2017
niat0004

Drum-Hitnormal wrote:

as player i just want more content, better content, idc how its made. [deleted]
That's not how the thought process of the osu! community has been historically and the now-deleted part reminds me of the “you participate in society therefore you cannot criticise society” fallacy. Also, players will be able to notice differences in maps relatively soon after they start playing, and AI maps will not be considered better content, even to them.

I don't believe it will result in significantly more content; it will result in the content that would have been made anyway being generated with AI and without human thought, limiting the cool things it can do.
Last edited by niat0004 , edited 5 times in total.
Aspheria
380 posts
Joined July 2019
Aspheria

Drum-Hitnormal wrote:

as player i just want more content, better content, idc how its made.
"better content" ai will not deliver that as all it will do is copy what already exists.
"more content" there are so many maps being made constantly already, we don't need ai to fill it up even more, you won't ever play all of it as it is anyway.

if you want more content, graveyard section has more than you can ever play in your entire life
Last edited by Aspheria , edited 2 times in total.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
317 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL
@Drum-Hitnormal Please tone it down... The last two sentences were completely avoidable and are straight up inappropriate.
Stompy_
Beatmap Nominator
984 posts
Joined March 2020
Stompy_

Aspheria wrote:

Drum-Hitnormal wrote:

as player i just want more content, better content, idc how its made.
"better content" ai will not deliver that as all it will do is copy what already exists.
"more content" there are so many maps being made constantly already, we don't need ai to fill it up even more, you won't ever play all of it as it is anyway.

if you want more content, graveyard section has more than you can ever play in your entire life
+1000000000000000000000000000000000

Agree Aspheria
niat0004
296 posts
Joined September 2017
niat0004

Aspheria wrote:

Drum-Hitnormal wrote:

as player i just want more content, better content, idc how its made.
"better content" ai will not deliver that as all it will do is copy what already exists.
"more content" there are so many maps being made constantly already, we don't need ai to fill it up even more, you won't ever play all of it as it is anyway.

if you want more content, graveyard section has more than you can ever play in your entire life
+2 - graved AI maps aren't being stopped at all by this, but Ranked is meant to be about quality and especially creativity, which AI cannot provide sufficient levels of for the foreseeable future
Last edited by niat0004 , edited 2 times in total.
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,963 posts
Joined April 2009
Ephemeral
RC wording notwithstanding, the major existential threat AI/generative mapping poses is the "scooping" of entry and mid-level creators. posit that you're a new mapper dude looking to get started: how likely are you to continue learning a new (and rather difficult) craft when content close to your technical capabilities for the next few months/years can be generated in seconds?

the answer for most people is "not very", which in essence turns the acceptance of generative beatmapping into a Faustian bargain that gets us more mediocre beatmaps now for a significantly contracted and disengaged mapper scene later. in internal discussions it has been described as analogous to cheating software in terms of the disruption and damage it causes to osu! as a community, and while some might consider that classification extreme at a surface level, it really isn't that far off the mark if you think about it
Aspheria
380 posts
Joined July 2019
Aspheria
a major problem with allowing ai generated maps is that you're enabling it, which will lead to normalization, and once it's normalized, why even map anymore? why would you spend loads of time and effort to make a map yourself when the system basically encourages you to just use an ai to generate it in a couple minutes?

ai in general is toxic to any creative field as if it's accepted then why even bother doing it anymore? it leads to stagnation, worse products, worse user experience, and the field is just ruined.
I don't think we want this to happen
Last edited by Aspheria , edited 1 time in total.
anatharax
186 posts
Joined May 2019
anatharax
+1, i agree with what stompy, randome, etc. said for this proposal
niat0004
296 posts
Joined September 2017
niat0004

Aspheria wrote:

a major problem with allowing ai generated maps is that you're enabling it, which will lead to normalization, and once it's normalized, why even map anymore? why would you spend loads of time and effort to make a map yourself when the system basically encourages you to just use an ai to generate it in a couple minutes?

ai in general is toxic to any creative field as if it's accepted then why even bother doing it anymore? it leads to stagnation, worse products, worse user experience, and the field is just ruined.
I don't think we want this to happen
this implies a different discussion of "is AI fine in Graveyard", in fact, but that's a tangent
+1 eph

on the other hand, I think modding by AI isn't taking creativity away from the mapper, so it should generally be fine IMO - but maybe not, since new modders might be rejected (or have nothing to do more generally) in favour of AI
Last edited by niat0004 , edited 2 times in total.
Stompy_
Beatmap Nominator
984 posts
Joined March 2020
Stompy_

Ephemeral wrote:

RC wording notwithstanding, the major existential threat AI/generative mapping poses is the "scooping" of entry and mid-level creators. posit that you're a new mapper dude looking to get started: how likely are you to continue learning a new (and rather difficult) craft when content close to your technical capabilities for the next few months/years can be generated in seconds?

the answer for most people is "not very", which in essence turns the acceptance of generative beatmapping into a Faustian bargain that gets us more mediocre beatmaps now for a significantly contracted and disengaged mapper scene later. in internal discussions it has been described as analogous to cheating software in terms of the disruption and damage it causes to osu! as a community, and while some might consider that classification extreme at a surface level, it really isn't that far off the mark if you think about it

Not to purposely write a slippery slope fallacy, however..

Generative AI undermines a lot of the creative process and would only present issues down the line and eventually would lead to osu's decrease in popularity and community engagement over the years.

Would people find some human player achieving some result in osu! or an AI more entertaining and impressive?

To compare it to other media, the human factor is why the overwhelming majority of people watch sports between humans, would you have the same enjoyment of watching 2 chess players play or 2 AIs.

AI will never be able to create something original, the whole process of it is taking what other people have already done and mixing and mashing it into a soup that more often than not, does not make sense.

AI has no place in ranked, and I believe a tool should be made to detect AI involvement.

The human factor does matter.
Last edited by Stompy_ , edited 1 time in total.
Aspheria
380 posts
Joined July 2019
Aspheria

niat0004 wrote:

this implies a different discussion of "is AI fine in Graveyard", in fact, but that's a tangent
considering how graveyard is, personally I still view any kind of ai mapping as 100% bad, but I also see you can't do anything about it, so if we have to deal with ai maps, I'd rather they go to graveyard than to ranked


Stompy_ wrote:

would you have the same enjoyment of watching 2 chess players play or 2 AIs.
I see the example, but I just wanna mention that chess might not be the best medium for it as 2 AIs, like Stockfish vs Leela can be genuinely fascinating to watch. and then having like chatgpt vs some other chat ai is just funny. but for actual competitive chess, then yes, I watch for Magnus, I wouldn't watch the chess world championship without him
Last edited by Aspheria , edited 1 time in total.
Ryuusei Aika
Elite Mapper
1,130 posts
Joined January 2016
Ryuusei Aika
Agree with the proposal and I would like to provide an additional argument that seemingly no one has mentioned yet:

Allowing AI-generated maps, no matter to which extent, will make the relationship built through mapping more fragile. You'll no longer know if this promising mapper that you really like has been actually secretly using AI, you'll no longer know if your favorite mapper's latest update was completely AI-generated, and you'll no longer know if this efficient, prolific cool low-diff mapping folk has in fact been benefiting from AI since who knows when. This would especially be true for players, who, as far as I've seen, can't really tell the difference between AI-generated maps and human-making maps. I am an AI believer and I believe AI mapping can be used in a lot of positive ways (such as low diff mapping as Nao said, or providing users a quick draft on songs they love but no one has mapped), but judging from the recent incident, it is clear that not everyone will be honestly crediting the AI usage, and I personally would hate to see this happen especially on long-time relationships, which largely outweighs my belief in the potential of AI in mapping per se.

E: These being said, I think AI-assisted timing should be allowed, as it is indeed painful and doesn't include any creative processes. That is the only place where I think AI can actually help in mapping without doing any kinds of harm.
Last edited by Ryuusei Aika , edited 4 times in total.
niat0004
296 posts
Joined September 2017
niat0004

Ryuusei Aika wrote:

Agree with the proposal and I would like to provide an additional argument that seemingly no one has mentioned yet:

Allowing AI-generated maps, no matter to which extent, will make the relationship built through mapping more fragile. You'll no longer know if this promising mapper that you really like has been actually secretly using AI, you'll no longer know if your favorite mapper's latest update has been completely AI-generated, and you'll no longer know if this efficient, prolific cool low-diff mapping folk has in fact been benefiting from AI since who knows when.
+1. It's not fun to find out something you were looking at was secretly AI, whether that be a beatmap, an image, a website, etc.

Detecting AI is a separate - and important - issue, but it is doable.

also +1 to eph below me
Last edited by niat0004 , edited 1 time in total.
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,963 posts
Joined April 2009
Ephemeral
i don't think the whole "we can use generative AI to make rote but accessible content for the majority of the people who interact with the game (lowdiffs)" is as compelling an argument for use of the technology as some seem to think it is
wiwit
192 posts
Joined August 2017
wiwit
If you make a song cover, arrangement or remix. Is the song yours or are you stealing the original piece? If I based a song on a classical piece would you consider me a thief?

You could have the ai generate just the base rhythm for your map and you would replace/rearrange everything else or most objects, is that your map or not?
For hitsounds you could have the baseline (normal-hitnormals, claps, finishes) covered by ai and then just adjust the rest to your song/map.
You could use some ai generated slider shapes, would be that any different from taking sliders from random ranked maps and copying into your map?

I think the ai has a great potential for just being a tool, but I also wouldn't want to see fully ai generated maps in ranked section so I'm kind of in the middle here
I hope disclosed use of ai in cases same or similar cases to what I listed could be fine

Also people saying "it's taking out artists, creativity etc". Not true at all. If it discourages you to map, then you didn't do it for the art in the first place. If in theory ai maps got ranked, the creative mappers wouldn't suddenly stop mapping and if anything it would only discourage newer future mappers. Aspheria's statement "why even map anymore?" is just an insult for me and any other actual artist
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,086 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
@Eph: I don't see why. Mapping low diffs is widely regarded as boring drudgery and mappers are constantly chafing against the requirements to include low diffs in their sets. I think that for most songs, the bar for making a rankable low difficulty is very low, and newer players aren't able to evaluate/appreciate the abstract map qualities that AI maps lack (which is why they're just worse than normal maps from a mapping perspective imo).

Notwithstanding that, another argument I have is simpler: people are going to use AI to make maps. If it's banned, they're going to lie about it. If it is required to be reported, but allowed, those people may state that their maps used AI.

It doesn't have to be antagonistic.
Last edited by Nao Tomori , edited 5 times in total.
SaltyLucario
1,332 posts
Joined June 2015
SaltyLucario
im inclined to agree that ai should be banned from ranked
however
1. i dont see a reason why ai hitsounds should be banned? most of the time, hitsounds are not a creative creation by a person, they're just 1:1 representing the song at the bare minimum level because maps needs to have hitsounds
ai hitsounds literally do not take anything from this as they work the same - and anyone looking to create something more will definitely not use ai for that reason

2. low diffs have been brought up and its still interesting point to look at because let's be honest, low diffs are in lot of ways similar to hitsounds - bare minimum made in short amount of time just because ranking criteria forces you to have them. yes, you can make creative low diffs and they exist out there. no, majority of people doesn't bother. like with hitsounds, ai generated low diffs would typically be of same quality - if not higher to be honest
not saying here low diffs should be an exception from this, because it still feels iffy to me as its well, the map, but i can definitely see it both ways

EDIT: nao's 2nd paragraph above is also very much true
Last edited by SaltyLucario , edited 1 time in total.
Aspheria
380 posts
Joined July 2019
Aspheria

Nao Tomori wrote:

@Eph: I don't see why. Mapping low diffs is widely regarded as boring drudgery and mappers are constantly chafing against the requirements to include low in their sets. I think that for most songs, the bar for making a rankable low difficulty is very low, and newer players aren't able to evaluate/appreciate the abstract map qualities that AI maps lack (which is why they're just worse than normal maps from a mapping perspective imo).
there are plenty of people who enjoy mapping low diffs. additionally, if you're mapping a new song then later a new player wants to play that song but yours the only set of it and you don't have any diffs they can play, that's not accessible. the current spread requirements, while I don't personally agree with them, do ensure that new players aren't mostly stuck to only what already exists and can actually play the new songs they'd want to play as well.


Nao Tomori wrote:

Notwithstanding that, another argument I have is simpler: people are going to use AI to make maps. If it's banned, they're going to lie about it. If it is required to be reported, but allowed, those people may state that their maps used AI.

It doesn't have to be antagonistic.
I've already asked peppy about this through email, but I don't think he's that willing to accept it based on his reply

Last edited by Aspheria , edited 1 time in total.
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,086 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori

Aspheria wrote:

there are plenty of people who enjoy mapping low diffs. additionally, if you're mapping a new song then later a new player wants to play that song but yours the only set of it and you don't have any diffs they can play, that's not accessible. the current spread requirements, while I don't personally agree with them, do ensure that new players aren't mostly stuck to only what already exists and can actually play the new songs they'd want to play as well.
This is in my opinion an argument in favor of allowing AI low difficulties, as it makes it must more feasible to require more maps to include low difficulties, increasing accessibility.

People who do enjoy making low diffs are able to make low diffs by themselves. They aren't affected.
Last edited by Nao Tomori , edited 2 times in total.
Aspheria
380 posts
Joined July 2019
Aspheria

Nao Tomori wrote:

This is in my opinion an argument in favor of allowing AI low difficulties, as it makes it must more feasible to require more maps to include low difficulties, increasing accessibility.

People who do enjoy making low diffs are about to make low diffs by themselves. They aren't affected.
it's more of a "if you don't want to map low diffs, there are others you can easily ask to do it for you"
niat0004
296 posts
Joined September 2017
niat0004

wiwit wrote:

Also people saying "it's taking out artists, creativity etc". Not true at all. If it discourages you to map, then you didn't do it for the art in the first place. If in theory ai maps got ranked, the creative mappers wouldn't suddenly stop mapping and if anything it would only discourage newer future mappers. Aspheria's statement "why even map anymore?" is just an insult for me and any other actual artist
I think it would discourage new mappers from getting started - many of them map to be able to make a map, any map, of a song they like, which is always a legitimate motivation to map at any skill level. The shortcut provided by AI is, as Ephemeral said, a Faustian bargain.
It could also cause otherwise creative mappers to just use AI instead of mapping a set or e.g. an Insane diff within that set.
Last edited by niat0004 , edited 2 times in total.
peppy
19,374 posts
Here since the beginning
peppy
I've already conveyed my thoughts internally on this but here's an official statement from me.

From *day one*, osu! has always been about the creative process of mapping—it's the reason I made the game and, to me at least, a core gameplay loop. Allowing use of AI to generate (or assist in generation) of maps undermines the spirit of what makes osu! unique, turning a creative and skill-based activity into something automated and impersonal.

I'd go as far as saying that I see use of AI for mapping as form of cheating, bypassing the discovery process, challenge, and final satisfaction that come from crafting a beatmap by hand.

Arguing that AI should be allowed for the "menial" or "boring" portions will not only lead to a slippery slope and mappers and modders becoming complacent, but I'd argue that it's simply *not required* with the number of competent mappers we have in the community in 2025 – more than ever.

I do not see *any* form of AI assisted mapping as having a place within the osu! community's core values and hope that the majority would agree with this.

I understand AI is a hot topic and everyone has their own opinions on it (just look at how active this thread and how quick everyone is to jump in) but this is mine when it comes to osu! and I do not foresee my opinion on this changing.

(for clarification, when referring to AI, i mean anything that is more than an algorithm. helper tools which template or generate hitobjects, timing, or anything else, which are based on user inputs creating a given deterministic output, where the source code is available and has no black-box logic, are fine).
Last edited by peppy , edited 2 times in total.
Kurisu Makise
Beatmap Nominator
438 posts
Joined June 2013
Kurisu Makise
Agree that a map (a diff) entirely generated by AI should be unrankable.

Disagree that any AI assistance should be disallowed, this is just a witch hunt. AI could greatly help reducing the boring part of mapping like placing most of the notes to the rhythm and leave a mapper with more creative tasks like arranging the notes in a more sensible way, emphasizing something in the song, etc.

If AI is used as a tool rather than being a map's sole author, why (and how) would you disallow that?
Stompy_
Beatmap Nominator
984 posts
Joined March 2020
Stompy_

peppy wrote:

I've already conveyed my thoughts internally on this but here's an official statement from me.

From *day one*, osu! has always been about the creative process of mapping—it's the reason I made the game and, to me at least, a core gameplay loop. Allowing use of AI to generate (or assist in generation) of maps undermines the spirit of what makes osu! unique, turning a creative and skill-based activity into something automated and impersonal.

I'd go as far as saying that I see use of AI for mapping as form of cheating, bypassing the discovery process, challenge, and final satisfaction that come from crafting a beatmap by hand.

Arguing that AI should be allowed for the "menial" or "boring" portions will not only lead to a slippery slope and mappers and modders becoming complacent, but I'd argue that it's simply *not required* with the number of competent mappers we have in the community in 2025 – more than ever.

I do not see *any* form of AI assisted mapping as having a place within the osu! community's core values and hope that the majority would agree with this.

I understand AI is a hot topic and everyone has their own opinions on it (just look at how active this thread and how quick everyone is to jump in) but this is mine when it comes to osu! and I do not foresee my opinion on this changing.

(for clarification, when referring to AI, i mean anything that is more than an algorithm. helper tools which template or generate hitobjects, timing, or anything else, which are based on user inputs creating a given deterministic output, where the source code is available and has no black-box logic, are fine).
Agree fully with peppy
realy0_
1,742 posts
Joined August 2016
realy0_
generally neutral about this, even if i feel it could be prone to abuse in some extreme cases with mass-reporting and the fact that it's hardly verifiable to determine the work's authenticity (currently).

the only thing that should be removed from the rule is the timing part (exclusively the timing part, not about the hitsounds or volumes). i don't really agree that you shouldn't be not able to rank a beatmap if an ai let you time from it, timing is almost objective and you cannot deny it.

funny edge-case i found is treating the ai beatmap like a gd'er lmao : beatmapsets/1782195#taiko/3661464 (futsuu)
guess these should be handled too
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 127