Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

Add a SEPARATE set of galleries for AI.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This really isn't a very complex request/suggestion, I just see no reason for AI gens to be posted in the same gallery sections as art that people had to actually work on. There's already a distinct

Every "high quality" image is still pretty rank don't kid yourself. and the fact every time one of these 'artist' post it's 40 fucking images in one batch and makes the gallery completely unusable for

I agree with this, though I don't spend much time in the gallery section I think it makes sense. its more than medium, AI art is not done by a human artist who put time, effort and talent into it. I t

Posted Images

Yeah, there's been talk about filters and whatnot to help with that, as well as a separate category. Lots of good features, for sure!

Like you, I think a short-term solution is needed though, for the gallery in particular. If there's a big batch of changes coming up that's great, but if those are still going to need a while in the oven I think a short-term patch for the gallery is really really needed until we get those.

Link to comment

I agree that there should be way to easily distinguish between AI and Non-AI art. This may not be as easy as adding one more category, unless you put every type of content that got its own category so far together. My favorite solution would be to add an AI tag and give users the option to filter it.

However, I would like to address what was said by CloudedArcTrpr and Wetlifter37.

On 12/29/2023 at 8:57 PM, CloudedArcTrpr said:

I just see no reason for AI gens to be posted in the same gallery sections as art that people had to actually work on.

 

On 12/31/2023 at 8:14 AM, Wetlifter37 said:

AI art is not done by a human artist who put time, effort and talent into it.

I have seen the galleries. Yes, there are lot of AI generated images and in my opinion many of them look very much alike. Also, it is entirely possible to take a model trained on omorashi images, prompt it for "1girl,jeans,outside,city,peeing self" and have it generate 20 variations of that scene.
But AI art can be different. I have spent the last 2 months learning about stable diffusion and I am still just seeing the tip of the iceberg. Of course I also use it to create omorashi images, I always wanted to be able to do that, but I cannot draw for my life and lack the resources to learn it. For me it is about getting that one image from my imagination, to capture the setting, the mood, the clothes and to get rid of all the unwanted artifacts and extra fingers. That means learning how to prompt that specific version of that specific model and what parameters work best for it, adding other models to a certain degree, adding the right amount of noise for the upscaling process, inpainting details that are not quite right yet and more.
The last image I generated took me about 6 hours of continuous work until I was satisfied with the result.
Seeing the flood of AI generated images out there makes it easy to generalize them as spam, I felt the same when it started becoming generally available to the public.
Let's not do that.

Link to comment
On 12/29/2023 at 8:57 PM, CloudedArcTrpr said:

This really isn't a very complex request/suggestion, I just see no reason for AI gens to be posted in the same gallery sections as art that people had to actually work on.
There's already a distinction for it on the discord, and there are already quite a few extra gallery sections for the furry equivalents of all the omo, omutsu, and manga stuff, so I see absolutely zero reason for why it should be any different for AI.

I can't agree more.
AI "art" is not real art in my opinion, so it should be differentiated.

Edited by Ambu (see edit history)
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Ambu said:

I can't agree more.
AI "art" is not real art in my opinion, so it should be differentiated.

Absolutely, spot on! I made a post on here a few months ago making the very same suggestion to put AI in a separate category, for the same reason, ie: it is not genuine artwork and doesn't belong alongside the work of genuine art creators. At that time, Kyuu stated that it was his intention to introduce such a category.

Link to comment
On 12/31/2023 at 8:14 AM, Wetlifter37 said:

I agree with this, though I don't spend much time in the gallery section I think it makes sense. its more than medium, AI art is not done by a human artist who put time, effort and talent into it. I think the distinction makes sense to be made

Have you ever actually tried making any AI art to see how much time and effort it needs?

Do you even know how, or do you perhaps lack the talent?

Behind every high quality image are hundreds of failed renders with unsatisfying content, mangled limbs and merged colourin, which have to be painstakingly checked, analysed and turned into an updated prompt.

I agree also to seperate between hand-drawn and AI generated artwork, but it's not an excuse to denigrate the process involved in AI artwork as nothing more than soulless point and click.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, 00065 said:

Have you ever actually tried making any AI art to see how much time and effort it needs?

Do you even know how, or do you perhaps lack the talent?

Behind every high quality image are hundreds of failed renders with unsatisfying content, mangled limbs and merged colourin, which have to be painstakingly checked, analysed and turned into an updated prompt.

I agree also to seperate between hand-drawn and AI generated artwork, but it's not an excuse to denigrate the process involved in AI artwork as nothing more than soulless point and click.

Have you ever tried making any real art to see how much time and effort it needs?

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
On 1/9/2024 at 9:05 AM, 00065 said:

Have you ever actually tried making any AI art to see how much time and effort it needs?

Do you even know how, or do you perhaps lack the talent?

Behind every high quality image are hundreds of failed renders with unsatisfying content, mangled limbs and merged colourin, which have to be painstakingly checked, analysed and turned into an updated prompt.

I agree also to seperate between hand-drawn and AI generated artwork, but it's not an excuse to denigrate the process involved in AI artwork as nothing more than soulless point and click.

oh no, oh my god, you mean you have to type in some keywords ONCE and then you might have to press the generate button more than once?? that's so hard and complicated and takes so much skill!

zewvb8bau4141.jpg.c2329e3d3bca6fe7a5ba105209e27ad3.jpg

lmao

Edited by CloudedArcTrpr (see edit history)
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Alex62 said:

TBH I don’t see why AI should be separate. While you do have a point, it’s still “art”.

It's art that an AI made, not a living being.
Also, AI Art is difficult regarding copyright, since AI is trained with several artwork pieces by real humans, which can let you generate art in these art styles that you've thrown into the AI.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Ambu said:

It's art that an AI made, not a living being.
Also, AI Art is difficult regarding copyright, since AI is trained with several artwork pieces by real humans, which can let you generate art in these art styles that you've thrown into the AI.

Exactly as you said, but it’s still art. May not be art by a real human and a computer instead. 
 

I agree it’s not the same at all. While I also agree it should be in the same thread, it should be marked as AI art. 
 

 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Alex62 said:

TBH I don’t see why AI should be separate. While you do have a point, it’s still “art”.

It's repetetive and spammable in a way "normal" art just isn't. I don't care if someone makes an AI create 40 near-identical images of animated girls peeing, but having the gallery flooded with them is undesirable.

Link to comment

Kinda tired of seeing people who read copyright-protected articles and watch copyright-protected drawings and listen to copyright-protected music complaining about theft lol.

We'd have the exact same discussion if people instead spammed hundreds of sketches they drew in 10 seconds each. Calling it art or passionate is debatable but calling it spam is not. Given that only a few users are spamming a lot of AI art, it's far easier to simply restrict those individuals. There's no point to creating a category specifically for spam.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, DerivativeWings said:

It's repetetive and spammable in a way "normal" art just isn't. I don't care if someone makes an AI create 40 near-identical images of animated girls peeing, but having the gallery flooded with them is undesirable.

Fair point. AI artists do tend to post a lot of the same or close to it. 

Link to comment
On 1/9/2024 at 7:29 PM, Alex62 said:

TBH I don’t see why AI should be separate. While you do have a point, it’s still “art”.

If ai gens are "art" then I'm George Washington's grandson. AI just does a shitty averaging of vectors it traces from REAL artwork in order to vomit up a sub-par, by-definition generic piece of shit that probably uses data scanned from dishonestly-sourced/copyrighted learning data.

18 hours ago, Ambu said:

It's art that an AI made, not a living being.
Also, AI Art is difficult regarding copyright, since AI is trained with several artwork pieces by real humans, which can let you generate art in these art styles that you've thrown into the AI.

case and point, what this person said.↑

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Alex62 said:

Exactly as you said, but it’s still art. May not be art by a real human and a computer instead. 
 

I agree it’s not the same at all. While I also agree it should be in the same thread, it should be marked as AI art. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Alex62 said:

Fair point. AI artists do tend to post a lot of the same or close to it. 

again, by the definition of art, ai gens are anything BUT art.
there is no human intent behind the specific code executions done to generate the image.

and if you try to argue that inputting the keywords counts as human intent, then I still must disagree, because, last I checked, commissioning an art piece from an artist and telling them what you'd like them to draw doesn't suddenly make you an artist too.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, CloudedArcTrpr said:

again, by the definition of art, ai gens are anything BUT art.
there is no human intent behind the specific code executions done to generate the image.

and if you try to argue that inputting the keywords counts as human intent, then I still must disagree, because, last I checked, commissioning an art piece from an artist and telling them what you'd like them to draw doesn't suddenly make you an artist too.

Disagree that it’s not art. Art isn’t only a human made drawing/painting but it’s also many other things. While I do agree it’s not the same kind of art as drawings/paintings it is still a kind of art. 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, CloudedArcTrpr said:

AI just does a shitty averaging of vectors it traces from REAL artwork in order to vomit up a sub-par, by-definition generic piece of shit that probably uses data scanned from dishonestly-sourced/copyrighted learning data.

I'm not a huge fan of people deliberately misexplaining how AI art generation works to discredit their outputs as art. There has been many algorithms developed in the past, and perhaps a super old one involved piecing together images from a database, but modern algorithms do not do that. Copyright-protected art is a huge source of quality, diversity, and creativity, whose artists post publicly online specifically to be a source of inspiration and analysis, so there's nothing wrong as long as the source itself isn't monetized. Given how new the technology is, it's actually pretty impressive how good it's getting at understanding shading, perspective and composition; the poor quality of AI art found in the gallery is the result of amateurs who don't have self-control and whose art isn't being reported as spam. I've already created a thread specific for AI art discussions a while back if you wanna continue, since this is not the place for it.

 

Link to comment
23 hours ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

Given that only a few users are spamming a lot of AI art, it's far easier to simply restrict those individuals. There's no point to creating a category specifically for spam.

While I'm at least strongly tempted to agree that the AI art dumps in the gallery are in fact spam, there are three factors that make me a bit skeptical of this course of action;
-AI art dumps are currently a vast majority, if not the only kind of AI art being posted in the gallery. Removing AI art dumps from the gallery is, at this point in time, not distinct from removing AI art from the gallery altogether. Keeping other forms of AI art legal in the gallery is speculating on some new pattern of posting that may or may not emerge in the future.
-There exists, I think partially demonstrated by these treads popping up with such regularity, a significant portion of people who simply wish to filter away any AI art.
-While I may personally not fully comprehend why, these art dumps have a small contingent of people who find value in them. Whether it's because the content really appeals to them, or because they're interested in learning the best ways to train their own AI, cordoning off AI art dumps rather than outright banning them would at least hold some value to some people. The costs of such a cordon versus a blanket ban is worth considering as well, however. Site owners would know better what the bandwidth costs of hosting art that not too many are interested in is.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...