[Poll] Policy on AI Generated resources (plugins, etc)

[_zmey]

I completely agree with the points raised about support and the flaws of the current system. Here are my thoughts on this:

1. AI is just a tool, but lack of understanding is the real issue. AI itself is fine — it's like a calculator. Look at it this way: if I have a shovel, why would I dig the ground with my fingernails? I know how to dig, so I use the tool. The tool isn't the problem; the problem is when people who have absolutely no clue how the code works use it to vomit out plugins. Quality and the developer's understanding of what they are actually doing is what matters. If a "developer" just wants to make a quick buck here and now and then disappear, why do we even need them here?
2. The "2 free plugins" rule is exactly what causes this slop. Why are we judging by quantity instead of quality? This rule literally forces people to generate two garbage, low-effort scripts just to unlock paid posting. It clogs the moderation queue and ruins the experience for server owners. This metric needs to be changed to quality/rating-based instead.
3. We need a mandatory support period. In a game like ARK, where updates drop constantly, a plugin can easily break and trash the server performance. I believe the API team should implement a rule requiring developers to guarantee support and compatibility updates for at least one year after release. If a dev isn't ready for that kind of commitment and disappears after the first game update, they shouldn't be allowed to distribute software here.

P.S. And by the way, yes, this translation from Russian was also made by AI But at least it works perfectly!

 

[little_brain]

just do nothing , you cannot fight AI , developers have to accept that its coming.
as for the tag , you cannot require devs to expose the sourse so some control freak with a self-esteem issue can check if its AI generated.

who cares development goes faster than ever before.
unsupported stuff should just be deleted done.

if youre doing anything its probably best to have a page with all "known" opensource plugins
that way they are simply availible to everyone without searching and you motivate people to develop instead of lecturing
lets face the music , everyone looked at ownprox work at some point , heck some people are now asking money for his work expossing those source files allows owners to just rebuild their own plugin

 

[Morphs]

Here are my 1 & 1/2 cents, for what they are worth.

I was the first person to use plugins for ARK. Michidu was the mastermind behind the system, while I spent countless hours testing, providing ideas, and helping identify what server owners needed. His original goal was to create an open platform where plugins could be developed and shared freely.

Unfortunately, that model became difficult to sustain. There were only a limited number of developers capable of creating and maintaining plugins, while demand continued to grow. As a result, paid plugins naturally became part of the ecosystem. I have always supported developers charging for their work. Developing and maintaining quality plugins requires time, skill, and effort, and that work deserves to be compensated.

Nearly ten years later, I have spent thousands of dollars on plugins. Some were exceptional. In fact, there were plugins that were created once, survived nearly a decade of ARK updates and changes, and continued working without major issues. Others were far less successful. Some were purchased, abandoned, or ultimately became a complete waste of money. Even in those situations, I never requested a refund.

What has been far more frustrating is the number of times I have had to repeatedly ask developers, through direct messages or support Discords, for updates to address crashes, broken features, or other serious problems. In many cases, months would pass without an update, and sometimes the issues were never addressed at all.

That brings me back to Pela's question. I fully support allowing AI generated plugins and plugins created by new developers. I also strongly disagree with the argument that an AI assisted plugin should not be allowed to replace or compete with an existing paid plugin.

Competition should not be restricted simply because someone created a paid plugin first. If a developer maintains a stable, reliable, well supported, and feature-rich product, they should have little to worry about. The developers who may feel threatened are those who released a paid plugin, stopped improving it, failed to provide proper support, or have not added meaningful features in years.

The fact that a plugin is paid should not protect it from competition. Any developer should be allowed to create an alternative and challenge the existing product. That is how markets improve.

In my opinion, allowing AI-assisted and newly developed plugins will create healthy competition. It will encourage existing developers to improve their products, provide better support, release updates more consistently, and continue adding value for the people who paid for their work.

And at the end of the day, server owners like myself know what is slop and not slop. What is quality work and what is shit work. But that should be up to server owners to decide.

I really like this stance on paid vs. free plugins. I'm more than happy to support plugin developers—I do it regularly. I'm a huge fan of the plugins I buy, and I purchase them because I genuinely value the work that goes into them.

That said, I'm also completely in favour of free plugins that replace specific paid features. Not because I want everything for free, but because many paid plugins are packed with features I simply don't need.

For example, Lethals-Items+ is an incredibly extensive plugin with a huge range of functionality. However, there are only one or two features from the entire plugin that I actually want. Thanks to some free plugins, I can now get those specific features in a lightweight package that does exactly one job and does it well, without all the extra functionality I'll never use.

Regarding the AI aspect, if a plugin is AI-assisted or AI-generated, I don't see a problem with that. Honestly, if I knew enough about development myself, I'd probably use AI to write a few basic plugins that I personally want. Relying on fewer than a handful of active, well-known developers to meet the needs of hundreds of server owners—each with their own ideas for plugins and features—simply means there aren't enough developers to satisfy the demand.

At the end of the day, one way to look at it is this: if an AI-generated "slop" plugin is released that replaces a paid plugin, what's the likelihood it'll actually be maintained long-term compared to the paid version? If it isn't maintained, users will naturally gravitate back to the well-supported paid alternative once bugs start appearing or frustrations build up. On the other hand, if the AI-generated plugin is maintained and continues to improve, then it's simply another option in the ecosystem. As others have already mentioned, being paid doesn't automatically guarantee long-term support either—there are plenty of paid plugins that have been abandoned or are no longer maintained.

on a side note, if you're looking for a way to distinguish between AI-generated, paid, and free plugins, another approach would be to add an additional category for unverified plugins or developers.

Keep the existing Free category for established, well-known, or verified developers, and the Paid category for trusted developers. Then introduce a third category for unverified or community-submitted free plugins. That gives new developers a place to share their work without immediately mixing it in with plugins from developers who have already built a reputation, while still giving server owners the choice of what they're comfortable using.

 

[KADev]

I'm generally against the influx of slop plugins on the official marketplace, free or paid. It can be painfully obvious (though not always) who runs a slop shop, kudos to the ones owning up to it at least. People vibe coding stuff for their own servers is fine, that's their server and their problem. What bothers me is how it affects the official API space, the marketplace, and the precedent it sets for the future.

A few slop plugins today is whatever. Give it T amount of time though and the site is hundreds of slop shop plugins deep, real work is buried in the noise, and good luck pulling back at that point lol. Steam had the same thing with Greenlight, they never managed to clean it up, they ended up scrapping the whole system instead.

The other thing is developer incentive. This market is already razor thin. Mostly Windows servers, no Nitrado, a handful of people actually contributing to the API, and ridiculous paywalled forks fragmenting what little there is on top of that. Most of the ARK modding scene already hates the API and plugins almost as much as they hate AI, go mention plugins in the official modding Discord and see what happens lol. A space this small can't also afford to bury its actual contributors under a slop waterfall. What happens when the majority of uploads are slop bowls and/or 1:1 clones? (1:1 clones should be deleted and banned immediately. Free market competition is fine, but literally AI cloning paid plugins harms the entire community, not just the developer behind it). What happens when the actual developers leave? Open the gates to the horde and the API will become synonymous with AI slop.

Server owners also can't judge a plugin up front from a description and a config.json. You find out what you actually bought weeks later, sometimes when the save is already corrupted. Sure, that can happen with hand written plugins too, but AI dropped the bar for shipping one to basically zero. Instaed of AI assistance, it's suddenly AI as the product. And I don't care what workflow people run, their instructions, prompts, and what not. If you don't understand the code, you don't understand it. There's nothing more to it. Having AI explain it to you and going "sounds right" is not understanding it. Parroting what it just told you isn't understanding it either. Again, this isn't about anything external to this marketplace and space - do whatever you want with your websites. It's not even about product descriptions or translations. Go ahead and use AI as a tool just like you'd use a calculator for math. It's not about any of that. A flooded marketplace means buyers get burned and trust drops for every plugin, including the good ones. The capable devs eventually ask themselves why they bother and move on. We lose those people and the space is done, there's nobody coming up behind them besides more slop.

What I'd suggest:

1. Rework the 2 free plugins rule. Right now it directly contributes to the slop. People upload two throwaways just to unlock paid listings.
2. Rate limit new listings. Nobody legitimately ships 10 plugins/day.

Most importantly, something I should is worth considering, is:

3. Split the marketplace into two pages - verified and unverified - completely separated from each other. New resources start unverified and move up through real user feedback/reviews, standing in the community, or greenlighted by the API team. Contributing to the main repo should also count towards verification, as it gives people a reason to push improvements upstream. The verified listings stay clean and new devs, vibe coded or not, still have somewhere to publish and prove themselves. Server owners know what section they're browsing and what they're getting. An optional AI tag could live in there too, at that point it's just information. Anyone who games the system or turns out to be running a slop shop gets demoted and/or removed. Not for using AI, but for being dishonest and trying to circumvent standard procedure.

Whichever way the poll goes, I'd aim any policy at effort and accountability. Whether someone used AI isn't enforceable anyway, and the people who'd get caught by an AI rule are mostly the honest ones who tag themselves (as already mentioned by others).

The poll gives an indication of the current sentiment, though worth keeping in mind that everyone voting has a stake in the outcome, including the people this whole discussion is about. A fourth "I don't know" option would also help filter those who vote just to see the results.

At the end of the day I'll support whatever the API team decides - they're the ones keeping the lights on right now and have been for years.