AI??

[2KFSK]

Every once in a while I visit this site in search of stories featuring shrunken women and while there are a few gems here and there, I'm consistently taken aback by how much AI writing I need to sift through in the story forums to get to the good stuff. Is this really something to be upheld? I'm not even against AI on principle but to have so much of it flood the forums that would otherwise be filled by human writers is deeply annoying and really kills the experience for me.

If it were up to me, AI writing wouldn't be allowed here at all. I doubt that would happen though, so I instead propose just making a dedicated forum topic specifically for stories generated by AI or with AI assistance.

[DocRick]

If you are going to ban AI writing, I guess AI imaging will have to be banned too. There's really no difference, is there?

[HHunter1]

Technically no, there is no difference between AI art and AI writing. Their both theft.

HH1

[2KFSK]

If you are going to ban AI writing, I guess AI imaging will have to be banned too. There's really no difference, is there?

I would have zero problem with this. But at minimum, it would be great to sequester ALL AI content into their own category so I can avoid it and browse in peace.

[DocRick]

If you are going to ban AI writing, I guess AI imaging will have to be banned too. There's really no difference, is there?

I would have zero problem with this. But at minimum, it would be great to sequester ALL AI content into their own category so I can avoid it and browse in peace.

Personally, not a big fan of it either, especially the writing. But the AI art does have its place, particularly the videos. Most of the posters using AI specify it in the thread title. Blue Villian makes some videos that confuse your mind as it whether it's real or not.

[Little Sally]

If you are going to ban AI writing, I guess AI imaging will have to be banned too. There's really no difference, is there?

I would have zero problem with this. But at minimum, it would be great to sequester ALL AI content into their own category so I can avoid it and browse in peace.

Agreed. There is so much AI content being posted on the SW Art section, that it's swamping everything else.

Like you, I don't view it anymore on principal (with it basically being art theft), but it would make things a whole lot easier if it was posted elsewhere. Especially when some of the AI users make individual posts of everything they produce, instead of creating a thread for it. Which just dilutes the section and buries everything else on there.

[DocRick]

Cher used to have a commercial for a gym where she ended each one with "Face it. If it came in a bottle, everyone would have a beautiful body."

AI is art in a bottle.

[Prof Sai]

So you just want less art and SW content to exist?

[DocRick]

So you just want less art and SW content to exist?

That's not what she said.

"some of the AI users make individual posts of everything they produce, instead of creating a thread for it. Which just dilutes the section and buries everything else on there."

I suggested this to Blue Villian when he started his AI videos and he did. It's just like your "Prof. Sai stuff sorted out" thread.

[Prof Sai]

That is true. But it is the same for art with out without AI.

Edit: The whole "theft" thing is nonsense spread by getty images. I can see this myself by experience and knowledge of the technical aspects. But the claim has taken on a religious aspect, so I know there is nothing I can do to convince anyone. It just pisses me off.

[Firewall]

I feel I'm of two worlds of this. I get that AI could be looked at as bad in the eyes of some but as we seem to be a diminishing fetish(no pun intended), I would say new content is welcomed, even if it isn't from someone's own two hands.

[HHunter1]

It is theft. Reports leaked from the companies themselves have confirmed they skimmed from sights. Using people's art without permission to train their AI programs. Its not just Getty Images. Its the same as the reports that leaked a few months ago that showed one of the chat bots were trained by feeding it videos from smaller Youtube channels to have it speak more naturally.

HH1

[Prof Sai]

AI does not work the way you think it does. It is certainly LESS theft than downloading an existing photo and using it in a collage. Or making fan art or fan fics with characters someone else owns. Or learning to draw by studying the works of other artists. If AI as theft, then all thought is theft.

[Prof Sai]

It just seems like every time I find something that brings me joy, someone needs to attack it.

[HHunter1]

Ahh, the "all art is theft" AI defense.
Working to change elements, combine elements. To create new from other should be a human endeavor not taken from them.

Go ahead, use AI. But don't fool yourself into thinking that the companies that created it didn't steal from artists to program it how to create.

HH1

[Prof Sai]

The Flux model contains 14 BITS per image used to create its database. Do you understand the significance of that? Can you own 14 bits?

[Little Sally]

It just seems like every time I find something that brings me joy, someone needs to attack it.

Well why should you give a damn about that? If it brings you pleasure then get on with it regardless, because I'm sure no one else is bothered. If you consider it serves your own particular fetish interests (ie, your mini ladies with the big eyes and large breasts), then good luck to you. At least you're attempting to be original with the assistance of AI.

I don't choose to look at AI created imagery for my own reasons, and you won't alter my own opinion about it. In much the same way I avoid the work of some render artists and collage creators, but I would never call for the banning or removal of what's being posted.

The main point I was making about the proliferation of AI posts, is that there are far too many individual posts being made to the detriment of everything else. So I think we'd be better served having another section for it (or at least persuade the posters to create a thread for their stuff).

And yes (before you say), it isn't only AI posters that need to be mindful of swamping the section with individual posts. And they know who they are.

[HHunter1]

The Flux model contains 14 BITS per image used to create its database. Do you understand the significance of that? Can you own 14 bits?

According to the very companies your defending, yes. Yes you can.

HH1

[Prof Sai]

Well why should you give a damn about that?

Because when people claim something is stolen, it implies they want government to come in and ban it.

it isn't only AI posters that need to be mindful of swamping the section with individual posts.

So I think it is better not to confuse the issue, and just focus on the single-image threads instead. This was an issue before AI came out. Encourage artists to make user threads with most/all of their work.

According to the very companies your defending, yes. Yes you can.

I don't understand what you mean here. (Flux is open source and free to use.)

[HHunter1]

Well why should you give a damn about that?

Because when people claim something is stolen, it implies they want government to come in and ban it.

According to the very companies your defending, yes. Yes you can.

I don't understand what you mean here. (Flux is open source and free to use.)

For the record, I don't want AI band. I want the companies that created it to compensate and acknowledge the artists whose are they used in training their programs. I confess, I don't like AI, but I also don't like feet focused art. But I can't say I think either should be banned.

Flux wasn't one of the AI companies threatening people with legal action for modding their program. Good for them.

HH1

[Elana]

While the AI themselves are not guilty of theft and generate new content, the companies that trained them are still guilty of billions of copyright violations when they compiled their training data.

So I guess both sides are absolutely correct

[Elana]

But for reorganization purposes.

What category has a higher weight, violent or artificial?
(As of time of writing I left vsw ai content in the vsw category as not to shock innocent ai enjoyers )

[Little Sally]

But for reorganization purposes.

What category has a higher weight, violent or artificial?
(As of time of writing I left vsw ai content in the vsw category as not to shock innocent ai enjoyers )

How about naming it "AI SW imagery"

Which avoids categorising it as being art (in the true sense).

In any event, having it's own section will be a step in the right direction.

[Prof Sai]

Flux wasn't one of the AI companies threatening people with legal action for modding their program. Good for them.

I have never heard of this. Can you provide a link?

I don't want AI banned. I want the companies that created it to compensate and acknowledge the artists whose are they used in training their programs.

This is a very bad idea for two reasons:
First, copyright has never been used like this this before. Copyright is about copies, not works so profoundly transformed that identifying the original is impossible. There is a concept called "fair use" where a work can be reproduced and discussed without compensation. If a movie review including clips falls under this, than surely 14 bits in a database does too.

More seriously, "compensating the artists" would mean paying the entire internet. How? Do you give a penny to everyone who has ever uploaded a pic? Do you assign ten thousand creator names to every render? These suggestions ARE de facto bans, because they are so burdensome.

But only free and open source models that I can use would be banned. Disney owns enough content that they could make a model purely off of images they own. They would have no need to compensate or credit anyone. The resulting tool would be great for firing artists, but priced out of reach for anyone but powerful corporations. Then what? You can't ban AI, the best you can do is to democratize it.

But for reorganization purposes.

What category has a higher weight, violent or artificial?
(As of time of writing I left vsw ai content in the vsw category as not to shock innocent ai enjoyers )

Certainly violent, as the objection to it is inherent to what the image actually is. Plenty of artists have been falsely accused of using AI, and the reverse is quite common. Sooner or later you'll find yourself stuck in that argument. And there are grey areas. Do Pixelmator's "remove background" tool and healing brush count as AI? They were marketed as such. What if someone drew in pencil, used AI for colors, and then extensively modified the result in Pixelmator? (I've tried this.) One drop rule?

In the past, many other artistic techniques and styles were loathed as much as AI. (Airbrush and Abstract art come to mind.) What if tastes change again?

[Prof Sai]

How about naming it "AI SW imagery"

In any event, having it's own section will be a step in the right direction.

If the problem is that most art is AI, wouldn't it make sense to have the less common works in their own category? Where would you put my current folder that mixes AI and non-ai works, and will continue to do so?

Which avoids categorising it as being art (in the true sense).

Art (in the true sense) is an oil soaked rag, hanging in a museum, fawned over by sycophants. The main role of art is money laundering. AI works are better than art, because they are the products of honest desire. AI works succeed, because they move and influence the viewers, and may be influenced by them. "Art" would claim to be more important than the person viewing it. Art breeds arrogance and divisiveness from those who revel in its useless minutia.