AI is kinda cool

[hogsmaws]

anyone cranking out mods with AI?

 

I just created 

• No fishing in notebook
• No restriction on breastfeeding (i.e. doesn't have to be the birth mother to breastfeed infant/toddler)

 

that's just since this morning 

Edited yesterday at 03:12 PM by hogsmaws
reword

[Z0mBieP00Nani]

35 minutes ago, hogsmaws said:

anyone cranking out mods with AI?

 

I just created 

• No fishing in notebook
• No restriction on breastfeeding (i.e. doesn't have to be the birth mother to breastfeed infant/toddler)

 

that's just since this morning 

I'm not even sure how to use AI to create mods

[hogsmaws]

you tell it what you want to do and it will tell you what it needs to make it happen. its an iterative process that can produce many versions until it works. like for the no fishing in notebook... that was kind of hard bc i had to DL install python 7, extract some tuning files using S4S, and just run a .bat and give the AI the product and it went up to version 7 back and forth but finally got it. 

 

and then there is the simple ones like fixing a mod that the mod author has not fixed for the glossy bug. u just give it the .package and it gives you the fixed mod. 

[lesbrarians]

Ew. Why not actually teach yourself how to mod instead of outsourcing it to the planet-destroying, creativity-killing machine?

[flybox]

Not going to lie, this idea got me a little excited, because there is a particular mod I've wanted for a while, and I have plenty of coding experience, but none of it is in Python, so every time I read a tutorial, I sort of zone out. After working with Gemini for almost two hours, I can't even get a simple "Hello, World!" command script to work. I think I'm going to shelve this idea again, for a while.

[Z0mBieP00Nani]

26 minutes ago, lesbrarians said:

Ew. Why not actually teach yourself how to mod instead of outsourcing it to the planet-destroying, creativity-killing machine?

 

Because AI cuts out the boring and tedious parts? Or the parts that may require some actual tallent, which requires hours of your personal time and a process of trial and error to generate (MAYBE), and because, sometimes, asking for help on forums when hitting a road block only nets you indefinite silence, several months of silence?...

 

Who wants to deal with all of that noise? Not me.

 

I mean, it's fine if you already have the skills, the intelligence, and the patience required to make a mod, but some people just don't have those things readily avaliable, and by the time they have developed those things to any degree, they may have lost interest in their idea.

[lesbrarians]

I mean, if you want results without the satisfaction of learning and creating, don't mind churning out slop that will break easily and leave you withe no clue how to fix it because you have no clue how the generated slop works, and don't particularly care that you're actively dulling your brain by outsourcing critical thinking to AI, then you do you. Just don't be surprised when people judge you for it. 

[hogsmaws]

some of us don't have the aptitude.

 

what's wrong with using the progression of technology which is opening the doors to a wider audience? progress is why most of us don't have CD-ROMs in our PCs anymore.

 

i know that these words are going to fall on deaf ears for the coding purists so i dunno what to say.

 

mod idea/want  >>> modding community doesn't provide >>> years pass >>> AI provides solution 

 

some ppl get mad.... ok

[AvoidTheCrown]

part that bothers me is the "I created". No the hell you didn't. The (not so) little mathematical model did using the knowledge of someone else. I think when it comes to AI phrasing and self awareness are important. There's no such think as AI creativity.

[hogsmaws]

7 hours ago, AvoidTheCrown said:

part that bothers me is the "I created". No the hell you didn't. The (not so) little mathematical model did using the knowledge of someone else. I think when it comes to AI phrasing and self awareness are important. There's no such think as AI creativity.

 

alright

[Z0mBieP00Nani]

On 9/18/2026 at 4:32 AM, AvoidTheCrown said:

part that bothers me is the "I created". No the hell you didn't. The (not so) little mathematical model did using the knowledge of someone else. I think when it comes to AI phrasing and self awareness are important. There's no such think as AI creativity.

 

I agree on that front. I mean, if I ever used AI to create a mod I would state that was the case, if I ever uploaded it, and not take credit for making it. Though I would take credit for the idea, since it was my prompts that allowed the mod to exist in the first place. I'm still allowed to lay claim to my own ideas.

[flybox]

6 hours ago, Z0mBieP00Nani said:

 

I agree on that front. I mean, if I ever used AI to create a mod I would state that was the case, if I ever uploaded it, and not take credit for making it. Though I would take credit for the idea, since it was my prompts that allowed the mod to exist in the first place. I'm still allowed to lay claim to my own ideas.

Film producers still get to go up and get that Best Picture award, even though they don't actually do any of the creation.

[SilentAegis]

On 9/17/2026 at 5:01 PM, lesbrarians said:

I mean, if you want results without the satisfaction of learning and creating, don't mind churning out slop that will break easily and leave you withe no clue how to fix it because you have no clue how the generated slop works, and don't particularly care that you're actively dulling your brain by outsourcing critical thinking to AI, then you do you. Just don't be surprised when people judge you for it. 

Why exactly does using AI mean you're not learning? Why are you assuming they're mutually exclusive? 

Someone can ask for code, then have the AI explain every function, inspect documentation, change pieces themselves, come up with ideas, test, diagnose, compare alternatives, all leading to more gradual understanding of the system. At this point, AI would function much more like an interactive tutor and assistant than a magic "make mod" button.

The barrier of entry for Sims 4 modding (and coding in general) is lower now. Before, you'd have to learn enough programming syntax, understand the game's mod structure, and sift through scattered documentation and Mod The Sims posts to even get started. You could argue that people could still make mods using AI, not understanding a lick of anything it made, and that is true.

But it's also not new. People have been blindly copying and pasting Stack Overflow snippets and tutorial code for decades. Almost every programmer works using knowledge developed by somebody else (languages, APIs, libraries, documentation, stack overflow, tutorials, existing code, etc) because programming itself is immensely broad, so the argument throughout this thread of "the machine did it using the knowledge of somebody else" doesn't really work. The foundation of learning itself is using knowledge from others.

There's a difference between outsourcing work and outsourcing judgement and AI did not invent either. 

Edited Sunday at 06:18 AM by SilentAegis

[SilentAegis]

To answer OP's question: 

I did have ChatGPT help me figure out how to fix an outdated mod that hadn't received support in over a year. Fixed it back in July, but I haven't done anything since. Helped me realize that coding is pretty neat, though.

Edited Sunday at 05:20 AM by SilentAegis

[PECO]

On 9/17/2026 at 10:18 PM, hogsmaws said:

I just created 

• No fishing in notebook
• No restriction on breastfeeding (i.e. doesn't have to be the birth mother to breastfeed infant/toddler)

Would you mind sharing the uncompiled .py files that the AI came up with? I'm just curious to see how it approached the problem, and how "overengineered" - if any - the solution it came up with it is.

[veegee96]

12 hours ago, PECO said:

Would you mind sharing the uncompiled .py files that the AI came up with? I'm just curious to see how it approached the problem, and how "overengineered" - if any - the solution it came up with it is.

I don't even need the source code, just give me the unrestricted breastfeeding mod

[hogsmaws]

oh and i just wanna say that i'm an idiot so if i can do it you definitely can

[Z0mBieP00Nani]

On 9/20/2026 at 4:54 AM, PECO said:

Would you mind sharing the uncompiled .py files that the AI came up with? I'm just curious to see how it approached the problem, and how "overengineered" - if any - the solution it came up with it is.

 

It would be interesting to see how it approached the age old issue of aligning Sims of varying heights during sex animations, since WW just makes both Sims the same height as a solution, but that breaks immersion, and some people have a size fetish type thing that it interferes with.

 

My thoughts were that it could be done by jacking in to WW's positioning tool and aligning Sims automatically using a script and nodes on a skeleton. But maybe that's not possible.

 

That would certainly be a welcomed mod, I think.

 

But I digress...

[Z0mBieP00Nani]

On 9/20/2026 at 12:48 AM, SilentAegis said:

Why exactly does using AI mean you're not learning? Why are you assuming they're mutually exclusive? 

Someone can ask for code, then have the AI explain every function, inspect documentation, change pieces themselves, come up with ideas, test, diagnose, compare alternatives, all leading to more gradual understanding of the system. At this point, AI would function much more like an interactive tutor and assistant than a magic "make mod" button.

The barrier of entry for Sims 4 modding (and coding in general) is lower now. Before, you'd have to learn enough programming syntax, understand the game's mod structure, and sift through scattered documentation and Mod The Sims posts to even get started. You could argue that people could still make mods using AI, not understanding a lick of anything it made, and that is true.

But it's also not new. People have been blindly copying and pasting Stack Overflow snippets and tutorial code for decades. Almost every programmer works using knowledge developed by somebody else (languages, APIs, libraries, documentation, stack overflow, tutorials, existing code, etc) because programming itself is immensely broad, so the argument throughout this thread of "the machine did it using the knowledge of somebody else" doesn't really work. The foundation of learning itself is using knowledge from others.

There's a difference between outsourcing work and outsourcing judgement and AI did not invent either. 

 

Good point. I never considered that AI could also be used as an interactive tutor.

 

When I made my comments, it was from the perspective of not finding coding to be particularly interesting and having a low attention span when it comes to learning something new that is not a specific interest of mine.

 

ADHD kind of sucks like that...

[SilentAegis]

2 hours ago, Z0mBieP00Nani said:

 

It would be interesting to see how it approached the age old issue of aligning Sims of varying heights during sex animations, since WW just makes both Sims the same height as a solution, but that breaks immersion, and some people have a size fetish type thing that it interferes with.

 

My thoughts were that it could be done by jacking in to WW's positioning tool and aligning Sims automatically using a script and nodes on a skeleton. But maybe that's not possible.

 

That would certainly be a welcomed mod, I think.

 

But I digress...

I've seen something like this from a modder called MercuryFoam (who unfortunately has been inactive for years now). It wasn't height-related, it was auto-adjusting a Sim's arms to better match the body proportions of another Sim during an animation. So on that basis alone, I think your idea is possible (from a complete layman perspective) as their mod demonstrates that some form of runtime skeletal correction is possible in the Sims 4. I don't believe the mod ever came out, though. 

But even with AI assistance, it'd be a serious modding project, something that only a decent programmer and AI would have to tackle together. At the most, I think a layman with AI could build a rough prototype of your idea, but it'd still take many hours to actually do, and said layman would still have a lot to learn during the process. 

Just for fun, I fed your idea into my thread with ChatGPT that I use to help me figure out how to fix mods and such. It's still an LLM, so obviously take with a grain of salt, but its reply is below: 
 

 

 

The idea could be feasible because WickedWhims already has a positioning system capable of moving and rotating actors during animations. Instead of replacing that system, a separate script could potentially automate it. (Correction by SilentAegis, it's referring to the system WW uses to apply actor transforms/offsets)
 

The basic concept would be to read the positions of selected bones or nodes on each Sim’s skeleton, compare where important body points actually are, calculate the difference, and then apply X/Y/Z or rotational offsets through WickedWhims’ existing positioning tools. That could allow Sims with different heights to remain visibly different while automatically correcting some of the misalignment caused by animations being authored around similar-sized actors.
 

A simple version would not need to dynamically rewrite the animations themselves. It could treat one or more skeleton nodes as anchors and reposition the actors when the scene begins. For example, rather than forcing both Sims to the same height, the system could preserve their original scale and move one actor just enough for the animation’s primary contact point to line up.
 

The main limitation is that animations are largely pre-authored poses. Correcting one contact point can cause another to become misaligned, and the software would need some way of knowing which bones are actually supposed to meet in each animation. A more advanced version could therefore use animation-specific metadata identifying primary and secondary anchor points.

The rough progression would be:

 

1. Automatically compensate for height differences using simple actor offsets.
2. Add animation-specific skeleton anchors for more accurate positioning.
3. Potentially add IK or procedural limb adjustment later, if The Sims 4 and WickedWhims expose enough of the necessary animation systems.

So a completely universal system that perfectly retargets every animation to every possible body size would be extremely difficult. But a system that automatically uses skeleton measurements to adjust WickedWhims positioning while preserving visible height differences is technically plausible and could still solve a substantial portion of the problem.

Nothing about the concept itself obviously conflicts with how WW works, and WW itself already contains much of the needed positioning machinery. But "technically plausible" is apt here since we don't know if another mod (script) could access that machinery in the exact way your idea requires. And preferably, it's designed with update resilience in mind from the beginning, depending on what this hypothetical mod has to hook into. TURBODRIVER himself could shed some much needed light, if you (or even better, someone with serious programming experience) are inclined to ask. 

The only other wall I could think of is making it look smooth. A lot of animations here are quite fluid. This dynamic skeletal system would first have to get the bones into the correct place, then you'd to design a way to get them there quickly, continuously throughout the animation, and without snapping, jittering, or misalignment. ChatGPT mentioned "IK" (Inverse Kinematics), which is what games use for having characters have their feet planted on uneven ground, characters touching objects at different heights, climbing, aiming, and adjusting contact between differently proportioned characters... but that still goes far over my own head. (The documentation for the Unity engine goes into more detail)

Could the game still utilize it? I think so, this technique seems to be pretty common, and using IK has been taught in the Sims community before. But could a third-party Sims 4 script dynamically drive IK targets every frame during live WW animations? No idea. 

And yes, I'd personally would welcome such a mod. It'd be quite the feat, arguably up there with Sims getting animated genitals. 

Edited 5 hours ago by SilentAegis

[Zasz]

On 9/18/2026 at 1:32 PM, AvoidTheCrown said:

part that bothers me is the "I created". No the hell you didn't. The (not so) little mathematical model did using the knowledge of someone else. I think when it comes to AI phrasing and self awareness are important. There's no such think as AI creativity.

 

I asked an AI about this and it disagrees. 😛

 

For transparency, my own experience with AI-assisted modding is pretty limited. I've only worked on three tiny mods so far. Making campfires burn longer, overriding fairy XP and hiding a bunch of thought bubbles. So I can't really comment from personal experience on what using AI for much more advanced modding looks like. But the basic principle of using AI as a guiding tool remains the same whether you're making a tiny tuning override or working on a complicated script mod. It can explain what needs to be changed, suggest approaches, generate code, help diagnose failures and revise its suggestions based on the results you give it. The amount of work delegated to the AI can be very different, but having it generate code doesn't suddenly turn the human directing, testing and assembling the project into a spectator.

 

Using a tool doesn't make authorship disappear. If someone decides what a mod should do, uses AI to implement parts of it, directs and iterates on the results, integrates everything into the game, tests it, diagnoses problems and eventually produces a working mod, then they created the mod. The AI is part of the process they used to create it. We already accept this everywhere in software development. Developers use IDEs, compilers, libraries, frameworks, documentation, existing APIs and countless layers of software made by other people. None of that means they didn't create the resulting program. AI changes what the tool can contribute, sometimes substantially, but that alone doesn't erase the human contribution.

 

"The model did it using the knowledge of someone else" isn't much of an argument either. Humans constantly create things using knowledge they got from someone else. We follow guides and tutorials, ask experienced people for help, copy techniques we've been taught, or have someone standing next to us telling us what to do and how to do it. And where did that person get their knowledge? Usually from other people before them. Knowledge gets passed along and applied to new problems all the time. If using knowledge acquired from others invalidates creation when AI does it, you need to explain why the same principle doesn't invalidate an enormous amount of human creation. Either humans have been doing something wrong all along, or AI is doing something perfectly ordinary here.

 

There are legitimate discussions to be had about AI training, including copyright, consent, licensing and attribution, but AI training is not one single process and not all training data is obtained or used illegitimately. Models can be trained on licensed material, public-domain material, data provided with permission, synthetic data and other legitimately available sources. Whatever objections apply to particular datasets or training practices have to be argued on their own merits. They don't establish that AI training in general is illegitimate, much less that someone using an AI tool created nothing.

 

And "there's no such thing as AI creativity" is a philosophical claim, not an established fact that settles the issue. You can argue that current AI has no subjective creative intent, but that doesn't tell us whether its output can be novel, whether a human can use AI creatively, or whether a human-directed process involving AI can produce a creative work.

 

And when it comes to reliability, the relevant question isn't whether AI touched the mod. It's whether the finished mod actually works. Humans write broken code. AI generates broken code. Humans misunderstand documentation, overlook edge cases and introduce conflicts, and AI can do exactly the same. Conversely, both can produce code that works perfectly well. You establish reliability through testing, debugging and continued maintenance, not by asking whether every line originated in a human brain. A human-written mod isn't automatically reliable because a human wrote it, and an AI-assisted mod isn't automatically unreliable because AI helped create it.

 

Reducing all of that to "the AI did it, you didn't" treats using AI as if the human simply vanished from the creative process the moment the tool was involved.

[AvoidTheCrown]

2 minutes ago, Zasz said:

then they created the mod

 

No

[SilentAegis]

1 hour ago, Zasz said:

 

I asked an AI about this and it disagrees. 😛

 

For transparency, my own experience with AI-assisted modding is pretty limited. I've only worked on three tiny mods so far. Making campfires burn longer, overriding fairy XP and hiding a bunch of thought bubbles. So I can't really comment from personal experience on what using AI for much more advanced modding looks like. But the basic principle of using AI as a guiding tool remains the same whether you're making a tiny tuning override or working on a complicated script mod. It can explain what needs to be changed, suggest approaches, generate code, help diagnose failures and revise its suggestions based on the results you give it. The amount of work delegated to the AI can be very different, but having it generate code doesn't suddenly turn the human directing, testing and assembling the project into a spectator.

 

Using a tool doesn't make authorship disappear. If someone decides what a mod should do, uses AI to implement parts of it, directs and iterates on the results, integrates everything into the game, tests it, diagnoses problems and eventually produces a working mod, then they created the mod. The AI is part of the process they used to create it. We already accept this everywhere in software development. Developers use IDEs, compilers, libraries, frameworks, documentation, existing APIs and countless layers of software made by other people. None of that means they didn't create the resulting program. AI changes what the tool can contribute, sometimes substantially, but that alone doesn't erase the human contribution.

 

"The model did it using the knowledge of someone else" isn't much of an argument either. Humans constantly create things using knowledge they got from someone else. We follow guides and tutorials, ask experienced people for help, copy techniques we've been taught, or have someone standing next to us telling us what to do and how to do it. And where did that person get their knowledge? Usually from other people before them. Knowledge gets passed along and applied to new problems all the time. If using knowledge acquired from others invalidates creation when AI does it, you need to explain why the same principle doesn't invalidate an enormous amount of human creation. Either humans have been doing something wrong all along, or AI is doing something perfectly ordinary here.

 

There are legitimate discussions to be had about AI training, including copyright, consent, licensing and attribution, but AI training is not one single process and not all training data is obtained or used illegitimately. Models can be trained on licensed material, public-domain material, data provided with permission, synthetic data and other legitimately available sources. Whatever objections apply to particular datasets or training practices have to be argued on their own merits. They don't establish that AI training in general is illegitimate, much less that someone using an AI tool created nothing.

 

And "there's no such thing as AI creativity" is a philosophical claim, not an established fact that settles the issue. You can argue that current AI has no subjective creative intent, but that doesn't tell us whether its output can be novel, whether a human can use AI creatively, or whether a human-directed process involving AI can produce a creative work.

 

And when it comes to reliability, the relevant question isn't whether AI touched the mod. It's whether the finished mod actually works. Humans write broken code. AI generates broken code. Humans misunderstand documentation, overlook edge cases and introduce conflicts, and AI can do exactly the same. Conversely, both can produce code that works perfectly well. You establish reliability through testing, debugging and continued maintenance, not by asking whether every line originated in a human brain. A human-written mod isn't automatically reliable because a human wrote it, and an AI-assisted mod isn't automatically unreliable because AI helped create it.

 

Reducing all of that to "the AI did it, you didn't" treats using AI as if the human simply vanished from the creative process the moment the tool was involved.

I think their narrow point of transparency in utilizing AI in the creation of a mod is fair. Though I'd add the qualifiers of when the mod is intended for public release combined with if it was vibe-coded. Vibe-coding for strictly personal use, I see no issues with, which is what OP has done. Vibe-coding and you wish to release the mod, I'd prefer the author say so, unless the mod is extremely simple. Utilizing AI to assist, but you also know what you're doing, I'd appreciate just as much in saying so and respect more, since you still have skill yourself.

But yes, "no, you didn't create it" is a big overreach as creation isn't the same thing as personally performing and coming up with every technical operation. By that same logic, if you're watching a tutorial online for a song, and you copied their fingers well enough to play it yourself, you didn't actually learn it, you just copied somebody else, so you're not a real musician. Or you follow a recipe and you still said "I made dinner", someone then argues "no, you didn't, you just followed a bunch of instructions someone (or something) else made". 

What happens all the time is someone has a creative idea, but they don't have the technical know-how to implement it. Say it's an app idea they have, but they don't know how to code. So this person hires someone to help them build the app. The creative person has ideas for how the app could work throughout the course of development and they discuss with the technical person and said person builds it out. Are they suddenly not creative because they hired someone to help them instead of building the app themselves?

"I created/made this" does not necessarily mean "every idea and every technical step originated entirely inside my own head". If it did, that standard would disqualify an absurd amount of normal human creation, and would mean almost nobody actually creates anything. Which is kinda funny to argue, given most people here, including myself, would be all for human creation. 

Edited 5 hours ago by SilentAegis

[AvoidTheCrown]

7 minutes ago, SilentAegis said:

But yes, "no, you didn't create it" is a big overreach as creation isn't the same thing as personally performing and coming up with every technical operation. By that same logic, if you're watching a tutorial online for a song, and you copied their fingers well enough to play it yourself, you didn't actually learn it, you just copied somebody else, so you're not a real musician. Or you follow a recipe and you still said "I made dinner", someone then argues "no, you didn't, you just followed a bunch of instructions someone (or something) else made". 

 

This is as much of a desperate attempt to try to be right as the other dude's bible you are quoting and it's simply a failed attempt to cope with mediocrity. None of that describes what is happening. It's not "following a recipe". When I go to the neighborhoods kebab place and I tell them to make it without olives and extra spicy I don't go around claiming that I did the dish myself. That is an accurate and objective analogy, not the twisted version of reality you've made up to try to be right.

[SilentAegis]

33 minutes ago, AvoidTheCrown said:

 

This is as much of a desperate attempt to try to be right as the other dude's bible you are quoting and it's simply a failed attempt to cope with mediocrity. None of that describes what is happening. It's not "following a recipe". When I go to the neighborhoods kebab place and I tell them to make it without olives and extra spicy I don't go around claiming that I did the dish myself. That is an accurate and objective analogy, not the twisted version of reality you've made up to try to be right.

If we're going to devolve into puerile insults, then nothing productive is going to be accomplished here. As I said in my first paragraph, you still have a point. A narrow one, but it's there. The problem is you are reaching heavily.

There's no such thing as an "objective analogy", analogies aren't objective measurements. Your analogy conveniently maps the OP to a customer who contributes almost nothing except a request, because this assumption already contains your conclusion. What you're doing is taking the lowest-agency possible AI workflow and declaring it the "accurate and objective analogy" for the entire category, which is fundamentally flawed. My analogy was only describing one kind of workflow, it's not all of them. It's not a perfect analogy and it wasn't trying to be. Neither is yours, but you're claiming it is (or at least, that it's "objective"), when again, that's not how analogies work. You're just smuggling in your conclusion as the premise.

Yes, it's true that if you tell an AI "make me a Sims mod that removes breastfeeding restrictions", then it produces something and you change nothing and it works, then you're right, that is close to simply ordering food without customization. In that case, claiming technical substantial authorship would be weak. Emphasis on the word "substantial". But it's still not ultimately wrong to simply say "I made this mod" (especially when admitting to using AI to do it) as there needed to be a human to actually have the idea. 

The problem here is you're treating your scenario as though it entirely exhausts AI-assisted creation, which doesn't really work. If your position is that you essentially commission a complete mod from AI and contribute little beyond the request, you shouldn't exaggerate your technical authorship, then we agree. 

But that's not what OP has done. Your position, so far, is "AI did all the work, so you didn't create the mod". Then this doesn't follow unless you establish that creation directly requires personally performing the implementation. If you agree with that, then this undermines a lot of human creation. 

Edited 4 hours ago by SilentAegis