Editing Eurovision Wiki:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard (section)

== [[Hammer retarder]] and use of AI generated image ==

This page is using an AI generated image by [[User:Викидим]]. The image seems more or less unproblematic but is an AI generated image in an article about a non-AI subject. I just wanted to bring this to people’s attention as a break from standard practice in this area. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 17:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

:If the image is unproblematic, then what's the issue? If you think a better image exists then feel free to replace it (and follow BRD if anyone disagrees) as you would any other image. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

:I agree with Thryduulf that if you personally don't think the image is a problem, the [[WP:ONEQUESTION]] solution is to just not worry about it. There's plenty of actual bad AI content out there to focus on cleaning up. If someone genuinely objects to the image, then per [[WP:AIIMAGES]] the onus would be on Викидим to make a strong case for inclusion. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[User:LWG/VOPOV|<sup>(VOPOV)</sup>]] 19:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:I see no problem here. First of all, if there are any photos or other professional-grade images available, any amateurish work (I am very unaccomplished as an artist) should be thrown away, naturally (I have explicitly requested such replacement on the [[Talk:Hammer retarder]] from the get-go). 
:If I draw a sketch on my phone, I would assume that there should be no issue with an illustration created by me, for the time being (which can be years, just look at the [[Panty line]]). It really should not be different if instead of an electronic pen I use AI which is clearly a more gifted graphic designer than yours truly, [[User:Викидим|Викидим]] ([[User talk:Викидим|talk]]) 19:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::Look if you must, but don't stare. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 20:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::Regardless of your personal opinion, it is Wikipedia policy that AI-generated images should almost never be used in mainspace, and specifically that {{tq|community members have largely rejected making exceptions merely because an image lacks obvious errors, or because no free non-AI-generated images are available.}} Following policy is not optional. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 23:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Note phrases like "Almost never" and "Generally" and that one should ''never'' follow policy blindly. If you think an image (any image) is problematic for some reason (whatever that reason is) you should either replace it or remove it (in that preference order), explaining ''why'' you think the image is problematic. If someone objects or reverts you, discuss it. If you can't come to an agreement then follow the usual dispute resolution process.
:::If you ''don't'' think an image is problematic, or not problematic enough to take any action over, then just move on, there almost certainly isn't a problem that needs solving. If someone else thinks the image is problematic enough to take action over then they will take action over it. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::The "almost" refers to things like {{tq|articles about AI and articles about notable AI-generated images}}. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 00:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::If you're going to try and wikilawyer about the exact text of a policy it helps if you do that based on what the policy actually says: {{tpq|''Most'' images wholly generated by AI should not be used in mainspace, especially for named people and in technical or scientific subjects such as anatomy and chemistry.  ''This rule should be applied "subject to common sense and with a number of exceptions"''.  Obvious exceptions ''include'' articles about AI and articles about notable AI-generated images; other categories of exceptions may arise through further community discussion. Community members have ''largely'' rejected making exceptions merely because an image lacks obvious errors, or because no free non-AI-generated images are available. }} (emphasis mine) 
:::::It's explicitly giving examples of categories of exceptions, not prohibiting individual exceptions, which it implicitly allows.
:::::I also invite you to respond to the part of my comment that you conspicuously ignored. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Stating what a policy says is not wikilawyering. Wikilawyering is trying to mangle the words beyond the spirit of the policy to argue that someone using an AI-generated picture of a gun component because they don't feel like creating a non-AI illustration is such an unusual scenario as to justify an exception. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 16:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Once again I'm going to have to ask you to read what I actually wrote rather than what you think I wrote. I have not expressed an opinion on whether this specific picture should or should not be exempt, just that there is no policy prohibiting an exemption. The spirit of the policy not only matches my words, but it makes that absolutely explicit by the plain and simple wording of the policy itself: {{tpq|This rule should be applied "subject to common sense and with a number of exceptions"}}. 
:::::::It is also worth nothing that this section was opened by an editor who explicitly thought the image was unproblematic. That other editors have subsequently disagreed with that changes nothing about what the correct course of action is for those who find any image problematic and those who find any image unproblematic (note the AIIMAGES section does not contain any special provision for enforcement, so the course of action or inaction is identical to that for any other image on the project). 
:::::::Finally I also note that I have not commented on any editor's motivations for creating, using or not using an image and I do not endorse your characterisations. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Such literal interpretation was obviously never intended, as it will preclude taking pretty using any new photos. 
:::# Whenever I press the camera button on my Samsung phone, a pretty complicated combination of software and hardware kicks in. It is called ProVisual Engine and ... drum roll ... <u>it is AI</u>. Any other high-end phone maker has similar technology, and bypassing it for photos is nigh-impossible. We should assume that drafters of [[WP:AIIMAGES]] were familiar with the current state of technology, and yet they did not mention it on the list of exceptions, so the list is indeed not closed.
:::# If AI, per #1, can be used to enhance the photos that I take, what is the problem with it enhancing my free-hand drawing doodles? For an already-cited example, see [[:File:Panty line on a croquis of a torso.jpg]]. There are two versions there. I drew the original by hand (no, not on paper, but on a screen of my phone). I hope that no-one would disagree with me avoiding paper. Triggered by today's discussions, I have asked AI to improve the sketch, the result was the new version of the same image. It looks much nicer, but definitely does not show any creativity - it is still my drawing, simply drawn with a hand that does not shake. This IMHO must be OK, too, it is clearly a derivative of a free "work of art" (I am no Leonardo). 
:::If one agrees with #1 and #2 being OK, the retarder picture appears (to me) to be the same, just a bit more realistic (with the panty line I tried to steer as far away from naturalism as possible), and thus should be OK, too. [[User:Викидим|Викидим]] ([[User talk:Викидим|talk]]) 04:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Great news! The [[WP:AIIMAGE]] policy already covers image modifications as well. I suggest that you read it. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 16:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:AIIMAGE]] begins by defining the scope as {{tpq|images wholly generated by AI}}, the only mention of modifications is: {{tpq|Marginal cases (such as major AI enhancement [...]) are subject to case-by-case consensus.}} I'm not sure how that relates to the context here? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Good. I found my notes on the image creation for the Glock [[trigger bar]] and am going to recreate them with depositing intermediate results to Commons as well for everyone to see. [[User:Викидим|Викидим]] ([[User talk:Викидим|talk]]) 18:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Recreating the image in the old way would have been tedious (doodling on the whiteboard is not my area of strength). Instead, I took a shortcut by looking at FOARP's work below and using the image from the 1998 [[Glock switch]] patent that has no copyright notices (should have done it before, but was not thinking quick enough). I also decided not to do the pencil sketch and instead used default ("lifelike") coloring scheme. The results, with all the prompts shown, can be found at [[:File:Glock-like trigger bar 3.jpg]]. Now, in order to move on:
:::::::# If anyone wants to see how my original method works, let me know, and I will recreate my doodling (not today, I need some sleep). Result will be better that what I produced in "bar 3", as, to the best of my recollection, the shape of linkage in the actual Glock is closer to the challenged picture than to the one from the patent (there should be no pronounced bend on the long side). I think that the ability of the AI to color a 2D line sketch are now clearly illustrated.
:::::::# If someone thinks that AI used some copyrighted material while producing the "bar 3" result, let's discuss it. 
:::::::# I would like to place the "bar 3" result into the [[Trigger bar#Glock]] section to illustrate the "cruciform" part of the design now outlawed in the US (this is why I have created the article in the first place: it does not happen often for a particular shape of a stamped part to be declared illegal).
:::::::[[User:Викидим|Викидим]] ([[User talk:Викидим|talk]]) 20:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::You should probably update the file description on Commons to specify it is AI-generated. 
::::::::Also, if you zoom in on the left of the image, you will notice abnormalities (e.g. a break in the edge of the metal) that show the image is not real. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 21:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Gemini also appears to have flattened the indentation that runs through the center of the horizontal bar, replacing it with two parallel grooves that have no basis in the actual design. Do these differences matter? Hard to say without deep subject-matter expertise. This is why [[WP:AIIMAGES]] includes {{tq|Community members have largely rejected making exceptions merely because an image lacks obvious errors}}. If this discussion hadn't blown up this big, I personally would never have noticed those defects and would have allowed the image to stand. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[User:LWG/VOPOV|<sup>(VOPOV)</sup>]] 21:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Updated the image. [[User:Викидим|Викидим]] ([[User talk:Викидим|talk]]) 23:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::There's still a break in the edge on the left side at the same exact spot. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 02:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|Updated the image.}} At the risk of being a little blunt, the issue here isn't that there were errors in the image, the issue here is that '''you didn't notice the errors''' until we pointed them out to you, which means that if we hadn't spent a lot of time scrutinizing your AI images, those errors would now be live on Wikipedia. We don't have time to scrutinize every AI image that people want to include, so unless you can find a workflow where you are consistently catching these errors yourself, we'd rather you didn't insert images like this into articles. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[User:LWG/VOPOV|<sup>(VOPOV)</sup>]] 04:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::[[File:Ballute.svg|thumb]]
:::::::::::{{tq|We don't have time to scrutinize every AI image that people want to include}} This is where I have stopped to understand you, as exactly the same logic IMHO applies to <u>any</u> graphic images generated by editors. Let's suppose that, instead of using AI, I would have generated the same image using some 3D graphic package. Will this hypothetical image be OK despite having imperfections worse than this AI-generated one? This makes little sense to me, as Wikipedia is full of images that have discontinuities on a much larger scale (random example is on the right). For the avoidance of doubt, I think that this particular example image is extremely useful and way better in that sense than the photo in the same article ([[Ballute]]). [[User:Викидим|Викидим]] ([[User talk:Викидим|talk]]) 09:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::If you can get an image of the switch that is not AI-gen (and you can) then just don't use the AI gen image. Doing otherwise just looks [[WP:POINT]]y. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tq|Will this hypothetical image be OK?}} I feel like you are applying this principle backwards: in my view, the factual errors in the trigger bar image made it unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, regardless of the means by which the image was made. AI enters into the discussion only because it appears to me that '''AI images are the class of images people have the hardest time assessing for factual errors'''. To be clear, if I saw that you had a consistent pattern of producing and inserting hand-drawn images with similar errors, I would also request that you stop. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[User:LWG/VOPOV|<sup>(VOPOV)</sup>]] 16:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:The AI seems to have created a [[commons:Commons:Derivative works]] of [https://www.arsenalinc.com/usa/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/0003814_arsenal-hammer-retarder-with-spring-1400x1000.jpeg this copyrighted image] down to the angle of the 'photograph', while adjusting the design of the hinged element. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:There is a similar situation at [[Trigger bar]]. While we're discussing possible concerns with those images, I'd like to also commend [[User:Викидим|Викидим]] for inviting scrutiny and clearly labeling his AI-generated images in the captions, which is super helpful and reduces the harm if it the images do turn out to have problems. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[User:LWG/VOPOV|<sup>(VOPOV)</sup>]] 03:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::The two images of the same object would naturally have similar appearance. It does not mean that one of them is a derivative of the other. You can easily see where my hand went off and the shape was mangled (thus the "AKM-like") and AI did not copy the details absent in my sketch ("19" stamp). You can also see where AI got creative and added a screw head (the retarder does not use a screw there). I am quite willing to recreate the process from the free-hand sketch yet again and show the process. It will not be a wasted effort, as I can draw the "fire assembly" with the trigger that will be more educational (I always wanted to do it, but never had an excuse). The other thing I wanted to try was to try building 3D model instead of a doodle. BTW, I fail to understand at what point an elaboration of my own work depicting a physical object can become a derivative of some other image. [[User:Викидим|Викидим]] ([[User talk:Викидим|talk]]) 04:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Викидим|Викидим]], have you read [[c:Template:AI derivative works|this disclaimer]] on AI-generated images on Commons? {{tq2|Most image-generating AI models were trained using works that are protected by copyright. In some cases, such models can output content with major copyrightable image elements which are identical to or derivative of the original training data, making these outputs [[c:Commons:Derivative works|derivative works]].}} [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 16:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, I have. I don't see any such elements in a particular picture, that's why I have by now re-done it from scratch without ever telling AI what is it working with. See details elsewhere on this thread. [[User:Викидим|Викидим]] ([[User talk:Викидим|talk]]) 19:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::Then, again, there are dots on the surface that I did not make in my sketch, so AI could have been  inspired by other images, as my final prompts were not tight at all. Will try again with tighter prompt "using only the image provided, ..." [[User:Викидим|Викидим]] ([[User talk:Викидим|talk]]) 06:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
*Just to note here that free-to-use images of hammer-retarders exist. For example, the images of [https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/024796612/publication/US2459158A?q=US2459158A expired US patent no. 2,459,158] are public domain (they are images in an expired US patent to which no copyright notice is attached). There is no need to use AI-generated images of something that may or may not actually be a hammer-retarder.
:More generally, a hammer-retarder is just a kind of rate-reducer, a common feature of all weapons capable of fully-automatic fire. This article should be renamed to [[Rate reducer]] (the more inclusive title) and example other than the AK platform included. For example the M-16's rate reducer was called the "buffer" and can be seen on [https://ia601306.us.archive.org/35/items/OperatorsManualForM16M16a1/OperatorsManualForM16M16a1%20text.pdf p. 3-23 of this US Department of Defence-published (and thus public domain) manual]. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:UPDATE: I believe the same is true for [[Trigger bar]] - [https://ia801703.us.archive.org/23/items/TM9-1005-211-12_201310/TM9-1005-211-12_201310_text.pdf this US DoD-produced manual shows the disassembly of a M1911 .45 pistol], I believe page 3-13 shows the trigger bar. I don't think there's ever a good reason to use AI-gen images in this field, since these are all known and technically-described/drawn items, so there is no need to use AI to generate something that may ( or may not be) the article actually being discussed. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

:Note: both images have now been replaced by free, non-AI-generated images that were discovered as a result of this discussion. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[User:LWG/VOPOV|<sup>(VOPOV)</sup>]] 18:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)