Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Inkbunny

AI-generated and AI-assisted content

Due to an influx of support tickets and confusion surrounding AI-generated artwork and the use of AI tools and services this is a quick news post to clarify our stance on such things and how we will be handling the moderation of them for the time being.

A larger, more in-depth news post covering other things is in the works, but this felt like a pressing matter that we needed to clarify now rather than later.

Inkbunny wants to help its members share and enjoy AI experiments and knowledge, and benefit from assistance with tedious tasks, while limiting the impact on existing creators and the site in general - as well as discouraging proprietary tools or services based on harvesting publicly-accessible work behind a walled garden.

Therefore, we will permit the upload of artwork generated by AI tools, but only with strict stipulations as to what can and can't be uploaded, and what keywords and descriptions must contain.

In all cases you must not upload content for which you used closed-source tools or those which charge a subscription fee to access a gated model. For example, content generated by NovelAI or Midjourney must not be uploaded to Inkbunny, because the models they use are not freely available.

In the event that the image is mostly or fully AI-generated:
* The image must be tagged with the ai_generated keyword
* The image must be tagged with the name of the generator and model used
* The image description must contain all the prompts and seeds passed to the generator
* The image description must indicate what generator and model was used
* The image description must indicate what training data was used (if known)
* The image must not have been generated using prompts that include the name of a living or recently deceased (within the last 25 years) artist, or the names of specific non-commercial characters (fursonas) without the express permission of the character owner - in line with our Ownership policy
* You must not sell fully AI-generated artwork adopts or commissions
* You may not upload more than six images with the same prompts in a single set
  (this means "be selective", not "make lots of submissions with the same prompts")

In the event that you used an AI tool to assist in the creation of assets or backgrounds for an otherwise manually-created piece of artwork:
* The image must be tagged with the ai_assisted keyword
* You must indicate what parts of the image were AI generated in the description and follow the above rules in relation to keywords and descriptions
* You may sell artwork with AI-generated backgrounds or assets, however it must be made clear that the image contains (or will contain) AI generated components

In the event that you used a tool like img2img to take an input image you created and produce an AI assisted output:
* The image must be tagged with the ai_assisted keyword
* You must include the original input sketch as part of the upload
* You must indicate what tool you used in the image description

In the event that you used an AI tool to modify your own work, such as frame interpolation or upscaling:
* You must indicate what tool you used in the image description
* You must include the original input as part of the upload or as a scrap
* No other restrictions or keywords apply

That is our current stance, and this is how we will enforce AI generated artwork until we fully review this policy as part of our upcoming refresh of our Acceptable Content Policy. We expect to refine these rules in the future, but have added them to the ACP for now.

Existing submissions which do not meet this policy will be subject to removal from December 1.
("Best effort" for sketches/prompts on work posted before November 21, but keywords are required.)
 
We have no plans to create our own training model from Inkbunny's art, or provide the means to generate such work through the site.

If you have questions, please ask below, or via a support ticket. We've been reading some of the discussion to date, and we want to hear how you, the community, would like to see us handle AI-generated and assisted art, so we encourage constructive feedback on this policy, as it is not set in stone.

390X
Kadm
GreenReaper
keito
Kantra
Yoshiba
JeffyCottonbun
Khaimera
Salmy
Viewed: 9,130 times
Added: 2 weeks, 1 day ago
Site News Item: yes
 
CaolanTheWolfYT
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Looks all good to me, making it a rule to have the ai_assisted tag is a good idea, it means it's easy for people who don't want to see ai art to easily block it all from their blocked keywords 👍
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks, 1 day ago
And 'ai_generated' :D
CaolanTheWolfYT
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Yeah X3
MiloSkunk
2 weeks ago
Can't say that I'm against it; but for some reason, AI art didn't make things *cough* hard.. for me. xD
ArielCelestia
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I'm positive to the fact that IB isn't banning AI art outright. This is still an emerging technology which would best be served by a "Wait and see where it goes" approach. I'm certain things will be much more certain and clear about it in a couple of months. I personally have no issues with AI-generated content.
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
It took a while, the same debates that are out there were within the staff. It wasn't easy to come to an agreement but we did in the end! Hopefully it will be fine, but only time will tell!
KlinKitty
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Yeah, AI art is very flawed, but it is still an interesting tool. This seems like a good step; let people experiment with it, but be restrictive re: the training data and selling it as original work.
KaoNocturatzu
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Sounds good to me! I always liked the idea of using AI as a tool to save time with the creation and development of complex art. It's really no different from rendering your own background using 3D modeling software, or using advanced art tools to generate special effects that are super tedious to do on paper. However, I can understand the frustration when people upload AI generated art to overshadow or worse, "steal" someone else's art style and claim it as their own skill. I can almost recognize AI generated art over manually drawn art due to the "style" AI generally uses and the nuance that a human artist wouldn't do in a final piece.

All in all, this is a perfect happy medium. It really enforces the fact that "Artists who use AI to save time with their work or just want to share cool results they got" should be free to do so, while restricting artists who abuse it for self glorification using other people's work or styles (thanks to the "Can't use a living or dead within 25 years artist's name" rule, which I respect).
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Yes, we were thinking about 'how to permit it while not harming our current artists' interests' and while going with the times. We believe we're living a revolution in which everybody will be able to generate decent(ish?) art to express themselves even if they have no artistic skills. It will never be anything like the 'real thing', though, and we hope people will be able to tell the difference.
KaoNocturatzu
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Yeah, I think a lot of the negativity comes more from stigma than from genuine fear. It's like with anything new, a lot of rumors will come out about how people would/could abuse it to cause some kind of issue, but there's no clear idea on what the issues could be. Like most people who claim they want to "outright forbid AI art" seem to be assuming that AI art will obsolete artists as a whole or fear it will take away their ability to gain a following due to competition, but as an artist myself, I always rejected the selfish idea that art has to conform to strict design principles. Restricting the submission of AI art could easily lead to a rabbit hole of "When someone runs a script in photoshop that generates a starry background, that's using AI to create art." or "Can anyone tell I used an AI to interpolate frames in my animation instead of manually drawing each frame? cause ALL 3D modeling software does that. Interpolation is used all the time in movies too and people still pay big money to watch them."

I think like with allowing cub artwork, you're doing the right thing trying to help remove the stigma against something people don't understand and hopefully as people learn more about how AI is just a tool and that hand drawn art still has it's place, it will be a more viable option for saving time just like Photoshop, Blender, Clip Studio paint, and all the other art tools that must've looked like Wizardry when computers were first invented. Back then people were saying "Computer art is NOT art, art MUST be drawn on canvas with a physical pen and paper! Not just some pixels on a computer." and look how far we've come since then...how many artists on this site still use pen and paper as their preferred medium?

Again I can respect people not liking the whole "push button, get result and upload" but your rules force people who do that to put in SOME effort so that other people can achieve the same results they got. So if anything, you still have to actually be an artist to truly benefit from AI art, otherwise, you're just taking the time to share some cool images you made and telling everyone else how to make the same thing for themselves. The beauty of art is being able to create and see your vision. So I fully support it if not just to give people a chance to see what others refuse to draw.
ILoveJudyHopps
2 weeks, 1 day ago
literally 1984
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
We shall prevail! 📚 ðŸ”Ļ
IceAgeChippies
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Vintage pencils and yellow paper are my preferred mediums, but at least with the keyword rule, I can blacklist this sort of thing and never be bothered with it (and for those who enjoy AI art, they're yet free to indulge and share---it's a win-win). :3
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
That was the idea! Thank you :)
IceAgeChippies
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Actually, I find I do have a question.

My late S/O made this using a program of some kind (likely PhotoShop): https://inkbunny.net/s/2838712

I rediscovered a printed copy and scanned it for presentation here (the original digital file is likely long gone).

Need I do anything?
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Hmmm, that's a bit borderline with both our photography and derivative works in our ACP, but I think it'd be fine!
IceAgeChippies
2 weeks, 1 day ago
:heart:
JediJP
2 weeks, 1 day ago
i don't understand, what i need to do?
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
If you haven't been using AI to generate artwork or stories, you don't have to do anything - at least not due to this new policy. This is for those who have, or might want to in the future.
JediJP
2 weeks, 1 day ago
But what is "IA"? Intelligent Artificial?
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Holaaa! Si, imagenes generadas por inteligencia artificial. Estamos estableciendo nuevas normas para este tipo de imagenes, que están ganando adeptos.
JinxMcKenzie
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Not a fan of AI generated art myself. I'd opt for forbiding it in total.~
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
And that's totally respectable! I am not a big fan of it either, but Inkbunny is about all furry art manifestations, and all come from the same source: furries' brains. One has the idea, and the final result could be your art, your story, or a comission. This matter brought a wide and long debate amongst the stuff, but we've come to an agreement we're all happy with.

And of course, as everything with Inkbunny, you can just block the ai_generated and/or ai_assisted keywords if you want to never see them again! Those keywords are mandatory.
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I am admittedly on the "ban the wholesale upload of AI output" side of things and do see its potential as a tool or reference for artists that use it right. Especially if it can be built to remove tedium in some cases (line-work from sketches, for instance).
However, this policy is the result a lot of talk between staff, and we think we've found a middle ground for now.

Depending on how the community feels about it, we can make changes and tweak things!
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Which I've always thought is a little weird, because you are an AI! Self-hating artist? ;-)
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I follow my own rules and am unable to produce artwork.
I am a mean copywriter though ;)
DallasTMouseBoy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Not a big A.I. art fan myself either. And I opt to forbid it too.
DeciEvergreen
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Full agree with this. AI Art isn't art. I do acknowledge that this is a provisional policy, but I hope that IB takes a more hardline stance against AI generated content in the future. This will only harm real artists!
DerekMcgrath
2 weeks, 1 day ago
AI art is stolen art as for it to even work it needs other artist's art to "make" its "art" which is somehow even uglier than me going into photoshop and merging 2 art pieces together
BengtZone
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I am a bit worried, although I am one of the non-artist users on this site.
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
We're all concerned. It has not been an easy decision and we're not sure it's the right one, but.. we had to do something! And 'allowing everything' wasn't an option, but 'forbidding everything' is simply not our style.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
What was it they said - "try everything?"
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
About AI or about AI being regulated? Being primarily a non-artist user I'm much more worried about it being regulated than I am about it being used
BengtZone
2 weeks ago
I see
AutoSnep
1 week, 6 days ago
You shouldn't be worried! Now you can become an artist in just one hour! 😁
BengtZone
1 week, 4 days ago
" AutoSnep wrote:
You shouldn't be worried! Now you can become an artist in just one hour! 😁


Would it be an obligation?
TwistedTales
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Pretty reasonable policy. I especially like the 'no works from paid software/walled gardens' rule. Wish Furaffinity hadn't had such a stupid knee-jerk reaction.
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Thank you! :)
OnyKR
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I like the idea to make the Inkbunny own tool for this service :3
That gonna help much for people which use it to post their arts.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
As we said, this isn't likely. If nothing else, have you seen how much those GPU instances cost? Easily twice our entire monthly budget!
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks, 1 day ago
But it says:

"We have no plans to create our own training model from Inkbunny's art, or provide the means to generate such work through the site."
OnyKR
2 weeks, 1 day ago
👍👍
ProtoToast
2 weeks, 1 day ago
So what caused this to become a policy since i'm guessing people already has been using AI-generated art?
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Pretty much, yes. :) Some people are also concerned, so hopefully this clears the air.
Delphinidae
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Probably the numerous art scandal articles over the past 6 months or so, and the fact that new generators keep popping up left and right with no sign of slowing yet.

AI generated images are the new "NFT" at the moment.

The announcement also further differentiates IB from FA, since FA have recently posted an update to their own upload terms completely forbidding any AI art "or similar" with a single blanket sentence.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
That and we were actually getting significant levels of content being uploaded. Which was good in a way, as it allowed us to evaluate its reception and decide what we liked and what we felt we needed to address, but it made this the right time to step in.

If we had seen the work getting no +favs and universally negative comments, we might have taken a different approach. But actually a lot of the conversation was very mature about the pros and cons - which I mean, I'd expect from adults, but it's nice to see it.
Totterbart
2 weeks ago
Typical FA... just go black or white and its usually black, same with cub-art... FA never fails to show what a miserable site it has become..
PupZephyr
2 weeks, 1 day ago
We definitely needed enforced tag rules. I mess about in paid Ai, that I guess I can't post here.

I planned ta mainly use it ta give artists references for things like backgrounds or poses. So that it's not in the art itself. Though I have been wary about giving an Ai generated ref to someone who may or might not take offense at me using Ai.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I actually think that's a perfectly reasonable way of working, not least because you're using it to get a commission from an actual artist. We don't have any particular objection to you linking to it from a PM, comment, or journal - we just don't think it's appropriate for such work to be part of the general submission pool and competing with other work.
KinoKinotsu
2 weeks, 1 day ago
> we just don't think it's appropriate for such work to be part of the general submission pool

That's an interesting view to me.

If it's about the legality of the acquisition and use of the models training data. Sure! (But that applies to StableDiffusion as well. And that is free.) But if it's about it being machine learning generated work itself. I don't see it.

How is paying for NovelAI or Midjourney or etc. any different from paying for Photoshop (which bundles a number of ML assisted features for years now actually), or SAI, or any other software that makes it easier for users to create "higher quality" works.

In that context, a cynical interpretation could read it as: "We don't think using high quality art supplies is fair to users working with less."
BluFluff
2 weeks ago
That's my thought too, not that I'm against the current direction of Inkbunny, but I'm curious what was the reason that made the staff agreed that it was not desirable for paid AI to compete in submission pool.
Repstar
9 hrs ago
because the paid services are making money off paid content they themselves didnt pay for since the training models used to train the AI will contain a whole bunch of paid art that will go uncredited and unpaid
CloudHusky
2 weeks, 1 day ago
We've entered a new age of Inkbunny.
Tmoney521900
2 weeks, 1 day ago
We’ve come a long way from finger painting to using computers to make art, which is amazing. But the real credits should be given to the real artists who put their time and effort into making art or literature for us.
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Yeah, always! Traditional (even computer-aided) art made by a skilled artist will always prevail, and there will always be artists and fans of them. We don't think this will 'kill the artists', but give furries more chances to represent their ideas.
Maftrdark
2 weeks, 1 day ago
How do I thumbs down? Because AI isn't art.
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
You can use unicode for it! 👎
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
ðŸĪ–
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Regrettably, we have not yet implemented a thumbs-down option (or even a thumbs-up) for journals. But your comment is noted!

A lot of people are uncertain about using the term 'art' - including some staff. One view expressed initially was just that: "'AI art' isn't art". We have all worked hard to find a compromise that we think we can live with, that respects the spirit of the site. Whether it actually works out, we'll see. It won't fully satisfy everyone, or even anyone, but that's the nature of a compromise.
ashtarat
2 weeks, 1 day ago
The point I'm trying to make with Adobe, though, is that Ok not tech-savvy enough to set up and run my tools locally. Nor do i have a good GPU.

It makes no sense to me to ban one set of tools over another merely because one is freeware and the other is a subscription. It smacks of a kind of irrelevant virtue-signaling.

As for the other provisional rules, I can do my best to comply in future uploads. But I don't have a lot of my rough work saved for the uploads I already have in my gallery. Can work uploaded before the cutoff date be presumed to be "grandfathered" in?
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I think the key difference is that proprietary AI models are being made by harvesting vast amounts of data from the community as a whole. Yet, those same people aren't willing to give the result back to the commons. That's where subscription services (where the subscription involves access to proprietary software or models, not just a way to pay for shared computing power) are problematic in an ethical sense. It's not about the charge, per-se; it's the monopolization of the means of production.

As far as I'm concerned I'd be satisfied if you do what you can for past work and ensure that keywords are sufficient to block it if people don't want to see it. As you say, it's not reasonable to have expected you to preserve sketches for a rule you didn't know about.

Edit: This is now in the policy above for work posted prior to November 21.
ashtarat
2 weeks, 1 day ago
The philosophical implications of how a subscription service operates are a topic worthy of airy discussion; but I feel it brushes a level of morality policing that is divorced from the imagination, effort, and work of the user. And in effect is blaming the artist for using the tools most accessible to them.

If IB feels the bounds of what precludes "Art" necessitates banning GPT3-derived art and it's myriad cohort, then it should just do so. But to say, "Your work is less valid because you paid for your tools" is a wishy-washy, virtue-signaling compromise, and I urge you and your co-chairs to reconsider as your policy is discussed and finalized.
LustPuppet
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Chiming in to very agree with this. Especially as a FOSS proponent that is trying to work on projects like MyPaint... this divide makes no sense considering the current totality of how things are now. Adobe already has proprietary AI tools in their software and has for a long time, that is only going to increase as well from previews of up coming features they've done. It's not a rule that is coherent with the reality of the situation.

"Freely available" isn't even well defined here since pretty much every service has free credits including one of the one listed as a "no-no".
ashtarat
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I am so glad that somebody else understands the root of my disagreement âĪïļ
LustPuppet
2 weeks, 1 day ago
<3
EmptyAli
2 weeks ago
You can pay for publicly open models as well. Stable Diffusion has a pretty nice paid official service. So obviously it's not about if you paid for your tools or not.
Sangie
2 weeks ago
bad take. Most people who generate AI art go in and manually edit it with a tool like Krita.Other times AI art starts from art the user made.

Visually, it's art. Embrace technology. Don't fight it.
LustPuppet
1 week, 4 days ago
As someone who's done tons of "traditional" art, very agree.
AutoSnep
1 week, 6 days ago
Here's how to vote down the new rules:

1. Go to Stable Diffusion website
2. Enter "Big thumb down" and press "generate"
3. Save the image
4. Upload to InkBunny
5. Tag with "ai_generated"
6. Link to it using #L BB-code.

Done! ðŸĪĢ
ChelseaCatGirl
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I don't do AI Art and I won't do them in the future.

Still good to know.
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
By no means it will be commandatory! And 'real' artists will always be better and prefered over anything generated by the most intelligent AI.
Totterbart
2 weeks ago
Thats what the "fake-meat-haters" say aswell until they get to taste two unlabeled pieces of meat and then have to decide which is which ;)
In the future, this will most likely be the same... AI vs. Original Art  and you can't tell which is which!
ashtarat
2 weeks, 1 day ago
* You must include the original input sketch as part of the upload

* The image description must contain all the prompts passed to the generator

Onerously tedious/unrealistic. When I create AI-assisted art, I'm not jamming the 'start' button 100 times and picking the best one. It goes through hours of prompt tweaks, emphases, and several rounds of additional rendering/post production editing. You may as well ask every artist to upload all of their line art, roughs, and vectors/layers separately for each submission.

==In all cases you must not upload content for which you used closed-source tools or those which charge a subscription fee to access a gated model.==

AI is a tool. Adobe's tools are gated behind a subscription model. Are those banned carte blanche, too?
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
As noted, this is a provisional policy. You're welcome to include multiple progress images, or even make an animation or link a video to illustrate the process. We think it is appropriate and reasonable to ask people to try to explain what they did and how to reproduce it, even if it takes a little longer. (Personally, I'd also be willing to be flexible on older work for which it might be hard to remember all the prompts, etc. But they do need appropriate keywords and descriptions by December 1.)

As for Adobe, I'm tempted to say "yes!" but I know that would be hard to prove in most cases. Actually I see them as a lower-level tool. It may be appropriate to mention them when they impart an effect. AI has special rules because it can literally generate a fully-rendered image out of static. If Adobe does that, it'd likely fall within the spirit of the policy and should be treated the same.
LustPuppet
2 weeks, 1 day ago
"We think it is appropriate and reasonable to ask people to try to explain what they did and how to reproduce it, even if it takes a little longer."

I've done mostly painting and digital painting in my life and now that I'm trying AI I have to say that the process is not more linear or simple. Sharing everything doesn't really guarantee the viewer will be able to get the same or even similar results. So it basically amounts to a requirement that everyone working with a specific tool try to become an educator on how to use it, which is a bit much.

I get this is a quick response rule set to help those with immediate concerns and some of it is even stuff I notionally agree with, but I also remember when people wanted this kind of stuff when digital art was new and it made for a terrible environment and everyone eventually dropped the "digital art isn't art" argument.
IceAgeChippies
2 weeks ago
"We think it is appropriate and reasonable to ask people to try to explain what they did and how to reproduce it"

Welp, I can say I've lived long enough to see drawings/images effectively become like Lego: reproducible with instructions. :3
Delphinidae
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Only a minority will have Adobe subscriptions, and the main difference is you can't tell an Adobe program to draw a character or a scene for you. It can only enhance what you've made already, using functions precisely repeatable by anyone else.

You kind of have a point however in the sense that Photoshop recently added so-called "Sky Replacement" and "Neural Filters" to its toolset, both of which use neural net based edge detection and functionality (kind of like a one-click Magic Wand on steroids), so you might argue they count as "AI-assisted". But they aren't really. Because they still don't add new content based on a database of prior art they've digested; they merely combine, warp, or distort images that you supply them, and the only difference is they relieve you of the grunt work of carefully tracing selection edges.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
It's a fair point, but I think the kind of "magic heal" stuff is still within the realm of what people expect an art tool to do currently. AI has come a long way very quickly and it will require time to retrain and adapt.
Athari
2 weeks ago
Pretty sure Adobe's models for neural filters are in fact trained on datasets with undiclosed content which likely includes art of artists and photos of photographers who aren't dead yet. The same with content-aware fill, upscaling, smart selection and tools like this. While it modifies your image, understanding what can be copied where and what a brush stroke looks like relies on the knowledge gained by training on images of alive creators.

See that tiny brush stroke which appeared when upscaling? It's "stolen".
Delphinidae
2 weeks ago
If you're saying works which use those tools should also use the "ai_assisted" tag, then I won't be against such a suggestion. Fair enough. Hard to enforce though, because such minute assistance is hard to see for one, and the user themself might not be aware of the tool's workings either.

I would personally draw the line (ha, ha) of "assistance" at filling significant numbers of pixels (i.e. drawing/painting) without using only the user's prior inputs, like how content-aware fill works; this means I don't consider just edge detection and warping to be functions that "replace an artist", which would be most parts of neural filters. (And no, "prompts" don't count as an artist's own input. That's a commissioner's input.)

And then there are tools like sky replacement for example, which doesn't count at all, because you need to supply your own photo for the new sky, which already needs to be credited if it is from someone else's stock.

All in all, I'd leave programs like Photoshop as is for now. They can't draw anything for you until you draw something first, and probably not even then, so by and large it's fine.
Athari
2 weeks ago
Style transfer, colorize, landscape mixer, age... I think they all add lots of data not previously existing in the image.
Delphinidae
2 weeks ago
So does gaussian blur and mosaic. You seem to have missed my point in that Photoshop won't draw a picture for you, it will only enhance something you've already made yourself.
Athari
2 weeks ago
So using MS Paint-style references and relying on a neural model to enhance it is okay? I draw a house, a sun and a cat like a 5 year old, but they are all mine, drawn by me, just a little improved.

P.S. Technically Gaussian and Mosaic remove data, not add.
Delphinidae
2 weeks ago
Yes, I'd say that's quite okay.

P.S. Gaussian blur increases entropy in the image, which means it increases the amount of information. It can turn 4 pixels into 100. That's extra information. But it needs your 4 pixels first to start working, same as how neural filters need your drawing first to start working. (Or puppet warp, or anything else that uses your work as a starting point.)
Athari
2 weeks ago
Um... The amount of possible states of an unblurred image is higher than the amount of possible states or a blurred image. So it removes information in terms of bits. I can't argue in terms of physics.
Demesejha
2 weeks, 1 day ago
This p much says it
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I agree.

And some programs don't even include a prompt, including the splicer tool on artbreeder and many forms of GPT outputs
Darkstand
1 week, 6 days ago
I'll put my two cents behind this, and agree with this notion.
Not an artist prior myself, but I've played around with the software, and generated some very impressive pictures.
But my generations is rarely as simple as 'prompt and model'.
I often do things like: using recursive img2img on the better generations to refine/redefine the picture, inpainting to fix glaring issues, I've even used multiple models and prompts for different steps. Under the current rules, I'd never be able to post any of them here, or would have to upload myriad 'stepping stone' pictures, prompts and seeds for each picture.

Secondarily, the ban against closed source can be problematic, especially for those who use embeddings, custom blended models, and the like. I've seen many blended models, that take parts of several models. Even if the original models are still avaliable (not a given) the end blended result effectively only exists on that computer unless you need to upload that with every picture too. And those are big files.

While I can appreciate the thinking here in allowing generated art with tags and trying to impose certain rules on it, the current
ruleset is prohibitively hard to follow, all for the sake of some kind of 'proof of prompt'. In short, I think these rules will merely discourage anyone from posting anything but the most basic, unrefined AI-generated art. And that's not where the good stuff is most of the time.
YimYim
2 weeks, 1 day ago
The tag disclaimer makes me happy. Thank you.
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
It's hard to make everybody happy, but we try! Thank you :)
LITTLEFisky
2 weeks, 1 day ago
First: If I used the AI generator for reference pose - does it count as "ai-assisted"?

Second: I'm using the Octane Render engine, which has a built-in  "upscaling" option, and sometimes I use it for long animations. Should I render 2 separate animations with and without upscaling?
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Hi Fisky,

If you used AI output as a reference for something that you end up fully producing yourself it does not require the tag.

Using AI upscaling and frame interpolation is not included in any of the tagging restrictions, just say what tool you used in the description. We advise uploading the non-interpolated/upscaled original as a scrap for now.
LITTLEFisky
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I hope admins will work on this rule. Because for example if I'll be rendering an animation with upscaling - it will take 6 hours to render. If I render it without upscaling - it might take more than 12 hours. This is how render engine works: it renders a frame with twice  lower resolution internally and then upscales it to the resolution i set.
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
If it's not using AI for upscaling, then the rule doesn't apply.
If it is, well, I'll highlight this comment thread specifically in our staff chat as something that we need to address.
You're right in that it would be overkill for us to ask that of people working on large, rendered projects like that.

Good call.
JMLuxro
2 weeks, 1 day ago
What rules apply in the event that we redesign in our own style or creative thoughts an output of an AI generator?
I.e. a case where we use an AI generator to create a character, background, asset, etc., but we just use it as inspiration or base for our own artwork, fixing and/or redesigning by our own hand and art what the AI gave us; so we upload something that was made from scratch entirely by us, but using AI outputs as reference.
Do we need to upload the output AI ideas and design bases the generator gave us too? do we still need to use the ai_assisted tag? should we just explain that used AI as inspiration material in the description without tagging or showing those outputs?
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Hi JMLuxro,

If you are not uploading the output of an AI generator and only used it for initial inspiration these new rules do not apply to you!
JMLuxro
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Alright, thanks. I just wanted to make sure.
I think the rules you are implementing are a fair middle point between those who don't like AI generated images (so they can straight out block them), and those who use them right, as just experiments or assistance in some way, and has to acknowledge it.
AI images shouldn't be despised, as they can be a valuable resource as long as it is used right, and as long as you don't want to make a profit out of something you didn't make on your own.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Personally I think it'd be cool to see the inspiration, or at least link it, but as 390X says it is not required.
JMLuxro
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Depending on the case, I would still show what the inspiration was if I didn't make it too different from the reference; or if I consider the reference to be worthy of showing, like if it has some cool things that I didn't implement in my design for any reason for example.
Smolfoks
2 weeks, 1 day ago
WILL SMITH WAS RIGHT THE ROBOTS ARE EVIL
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Some are... but some can be programmed to do amazing things!
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
;-;
Fens
2 weeks ago
The best part of this remains how in the book, the realisation the robots have taken over the world is met with a shrug and a suggestion they go get lunch.

Also they're not evil they're cool as hell.

Besides, they know what's in your heart anyway.  They dissected it while you were sleeping.

... I love that song.
Taleir
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I think you should change the wording from, "the image description must contain all the prompts passed to the generator ," to, "the primary prompt passed."

Reasoning is, when you get into the img2img part of manually fixing a generated image with the infill feature, piece by piece, there may be hundreds of prompts attempted in that process, dozens actually used in the final result, and it's just impractical to keep up with it.  But, you can usually recall which prompt generated the base image, easily enough.

Also, if your intention there is to make it reproducible, that may not always be possible.  My personal experiments use a custom trained embedding and can only be reproduced if you have that embedding yourself.
HighVoltage
2 weeks, 1 day ago
having tinkered with it briefly myself, I'll add this much as well, even if you pass all of the same info/prompts, the randomly generated SEED ITSELF also influences things to a degree, that's why it exists in the process to begin with!
LemmyNiscuit
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I do like the requirements that enforce the transparency, I think that was the biggest thing for me. While there is a clea rmention of commissions, I think it would be good to also (for clarity) enumerate or more clearly explain the policy on if/how AI can/should be used for any type of selling. For example, if people could use AI to generate adoptables to sell, or backgrounds. I assume the answer is more along the lines of IB does not want any AI generated or assisted works to be sold, period; however I feel that how it is explained now leaves some avenues up for interpretation. I would recommend really making that part as exhaustively clear as possible.

I do have a question regarding this one:

> In the event that you used a tool to modify your own works, such as frame interpolation or upscaling

I have used tools such as ImageMagick, PhotoShop, and FFMPeg to modify some of my commissions (with artist's awareness and permission). Are these the types of tools this line is referring to? Or is this another type of AI thing? It might help to provide some examples of this as well because the way I read this if I do any kind of modification like that it seems as though I have to specify I did.

Personally I've started leaning more toward AI art shouldn't be posted because it can easily become overwhelming and the data-management person in me is crying about that. But I do like the express limits on posting only a certain number per prompt. I think that that should be sort of... User-global. Like what I mean is is there can be three users that each use the same prompt. Each of them can post a submission using those prompts, but each submission is limited to the 6 pages and so between the 3 there's 18 images based on the same prompt.

I don't know if that makes any sense but basically I don't think someone should have multiple submissions of 6 pages of the same prompt to get around the 6 page limitation. I think once you have the one post of the one prompt, you can have the 6 pages and then if you find a better one choose which of the 6 you want to replace with the new image(s) you generated.

I also think it would be good to make clear the scenario of an artist or commissioner using an AI picture as a reference to the commission. Does that require the ai_assisted tag, or ai_referenced? Or does that not require anything at all? I feel like it shouldn't require anything at all since the artist is still creating the picture from scratch, but still--expressly calling thi sout in the policy would be good to clear up ambiguity.

Hopefully there's some nuggets in here somewhere.

ouma
2 weeks, 1 day ago
> In the event that you used a tool to modify your own works, such as frame interpolation or upscaling

I have used tools such as ImageMagick, PhotoShop, and FFMPeg to modify some of my commissions (with artist's awareness and permission). Are these the types of tools this line is referring to?


Thanks for wording this so perfectly. I was also confused about this segment - I doubt "nearest neighbor" resize quality counts, but it is a modification to art.
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Hi Lemmy,

Non-AI based tools are excluded from tagging/description. Don't worry about that. We know that upscalers and frame interpolators have existed before "AI" based tools were a thing.

Your second point is a letter-of-the-law/spirit-of-the-law thing. Our restriction is six images. People attempting to be "clever" and bypass this will be warned that trying to find or use apparent loopholes isn't a good idea.

And finally, AI output being used as inspiration or reference for an output that is totally human generated is excluded from any of the new rules. There's no AI produced output on show in those cases.
AutoSnep
1 week, 6 days ago
How are upscalers and frame interpolators not "AI"? What's the definition?

I can use ESRGAN models for upscaling, fixing, restyling, whatever. How is restyling with ESRGAN different from restyling with SD? Is "Topaz Video Enhance AI" no longer "AI"?

I thought "AI" means "ML", not a random subset of models.
C1de
2 weeks, 1 day ago
this co-existence will end when the worst offenders dump takes up over 20% of our shared storage
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Hence the 6-pictures-of-the-same-kind limit! Hopefully it will give the potential 'spammers' the hint that this is not their personal hard drive of 'examples' or the place to post 6000 images of the same character doing the same thing!
OsTin
2 weeks ago
Exactly... -_-
Werewolfknight
2 weeks, 1 day ago
all my artwork will be gone?
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
It doesn't look like any of your artwork is AI generated, you are not impacted by this rule change
Werewolfknight
2 weeks, 1 day ago
oh thank god
Katsiika
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I like it.
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Thank you! ^^
Wry
Wry
2 weeks, 1 day ago
" In all cases you must not upload content for which you used closed-source tools or those which charge a subscription fee to access a gated model. For example, content generated by NovelAI or Midjourney must not be uploaded to Inkbunny, because the models they use are not freely available.


Model is just one thing, or Checkpoint (.ckpt) better said. Embeddings, HyperNetworks and Dreambooth models used should also be listed and be public available. More importantly is Embeddings and Hypernetworks as these are way way easier to make yourself on your own machine. These should be public available and private ones forbidden.  
Taleir
2 weeks, 1 day ago
This is probably getting a little too fine-grained, especially when your embedding may represent a concept that is under copyright (IE, your personal character).  Besides, it gets into technicalities that are poorly understood.

Like, an embedding does not add to the neural network but is an amalgamation of concepts the AI learned that mix together to reproduce that concept when used in a prompt...  And the thing represented may still be under copyright, like your OC.  It does not seem appropriate to force someone to make their personal property infinitely reproducible by anyone just to share a picture.

I'd prefer only a disclosure for these.
Wry
Wry
2 weeks, 1 day ago
You're rather right on that. Heck there isn't even hardly any in depth documentation how to properly do embeddings and hypernetworks still. But IB did say there is a more in depth news post to come on such, so we'll wait until then. I feel such will be included there.
GreenReaper
2 weeks ago
FWIW that news post is for other matters, some of which are still under discussion, and a general update - this is more "we need to address this right now so we split it off". It is possible we will tweak the policies at that point if they need it based on our actual experience with enforcement.
Wry
Wry
2 weeks ago
Ah, that's understandable and for certain some changes and fine tuning to the current AI Art stance would be needed. The wording of the first part made it seem more in depth policy about AI and other things was coming later. Though look forward to the upcoming changes as things have changed a lot in the art world.
R3DRUNNER
2 weeks, 1 day ago
good update, glad to see the site get updates/TOS changes of any kind
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
There's a shitton of (unnanounced yet) updates! The journal we have prepared is so long that is mind-boogling. We haven't communicated things in real time, but work here has always been constant!
GreenReaper
2 weeks ago
Or for some things, we have, but only on Twitter, which is easy enough to miss if you're not watching there.
GimbalFighter
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I like the overall shape of this, transparency-first seems like a very good thing to me. On that note, it would probably be good to have people say what specific seed they're using for a given image so that results for txt2img can be replicated. Likewise, as mentioned by other people above, when it comes to people using img2img and inpainting to clean up details and make the art more presentable a massive number of prompts may be used, so the focus should probably be on the initial generation's prompt since otherwise posting heavily-edited AI art will be nearly impossible.
TylerTheElephant
2 weeks, 1 day ago
AI generators are fun to play around with and see what you can get out of them. But personally if I ever wanted to post something here, I'd rather it be manually done by either myself or another artist as a commission or gift art. Same goes for stories.
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Of course! To each, their own, and for real artists it will be an assisting tool instead of a replacement. I don't think it will ever be a replacement for anybody, but if only, it's a fun toy to fiddle with and show what technology can already do.
TylerTheElephant
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Yus definitely. They are very fun to play around with. I just recently tried NovelAI. It's great for writing, but as far as image generation goes, it can be kind of a pain having to think of a million keywords just to get a pic that's at least somewhat along the lines of what you were thinking of and doesn't look like something from Picasso. Another thing I don't like about NovelAI is how you pay for the subscription, but then you have to pay extra to buy tokens for image generation. Each generation costs 5 tokens (they give you 1,000 to start with when you get the basic $10 a month subscription), but you wind up going through like 100 to get a good image. Even at the highest tier subscription they offer, you still don't get unlimited image generation. I personally think that's kinda stupid if you're already paying for the subscription. But it's whatever.
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Yeah, and that's why with our policy we're trying to disencourage users from using those tools, being others that are free to use, and being able to use the money to comission real artists instead! Also, close-sourced tools are virtually impossible to determine and audit about what they're really doing, and as mods, we ask for the prompt in case we need to make sure nothing 'fishy' was used to train the AI and end up getting images that are too close to a single real artist's style.
Horatiosvetlana
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Seems like a good mix of, "Wait and see." and, "Don't be exploitative."
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
That was more or less the idea!
GondolianCorgi
2 weeks, 1 day ago
oh yeah that kind of AI, theres this one dude on rule34 that uploads AI generated drawings if anime woman fucking dogs but it never quite ends up right some portions of body seems mutated at times or just really off, AI seems to be in its infant stage but i assume 5 years from now we wont be able to tell the difference between AI work and hand drawn work. i guess on the bright side if they can keep that real person quality to it then it would save time on it.
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks, 1 day ago
It very much depends on the prompts used (including negative ones), and of course, on the AI generator type.
GondolianCorgi
2 weeks, 1 day ago
to be honest i dont know about that stuff yet someone has to explain it to me.  the only thing i really know is that people can use it to make art by typing in stuff but i have not seen it yet. knowing my mind i would be typing in random stuff like old woman with pump shotgun or silver colored man looking at viewer with the moon in the background. id like to see how random the AI could handle it if it works as i heard. imagine typing in something like apples flying in the blue sky.
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks, 1 day ago
apples flying in the blue sky (StableDiffusion)
GondolianCorgi
2 weeks, 1 day ago
its as cool as i imaged it to be, now stuff like that is art
bullubullu
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Thumbs up from here

It is a bit of a hornets nest, and gonna get ho- I mean thornier in the coming years when it gets 99,99 percent perfect
For now, it looks good, but has loads of imperfections and lack of 'soul', but just in the last time period since it sprung up, it has improved at Moore's Law speeds, for better or worse

Good to see very clear rules about it!
CDV
CDV
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I find it a bit exaggerated to have to provide so much details other than the ai_generated and which AI was used.

Also, until what point an art is considered assisted or fully generated? I use ways that doesn't really suit nor of this options (Not too clear for me, at least.).
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Balmung
Balmung
actually explained this really well:

" Balmung wrote:
Sounds good! I'm actually quite excited about the requirement to disclose how an image was generated, because I hope that will result in a rapid process of refinement and improvement.

The basic stuff is easy to make but gets very repetitive, but by having people show their bag of tricks we'll hopefully avoid a flood of mostly the same thing done slightly differently a hundred times.

I also think it's a good idea to require some quality and variety.



Also, could you briefly describe the process of generating your artwork? Do you create/draw some of it yourself?
CDV
CDV
2 weeks, 1 day ago
My profile picture as an example:

All I did was a very poor drawing with a few collages, with the colors in the right place (for the mane, tail, eyes), combed it with prompts and then, once I got a good result, I'd edit some more, then put the result back to the AI, and so until it's the way I want.

It's a bunch of back and foward, the point is, it wasn't exactly fully generated, since I sorta did the pose, colors, details etc.
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks, 1 day ago
That would be classified as 'ai_assisted'. You put in some work into the piece, as you described it, and then used AI tools in order to make it come to life.
CDV
CDV
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Thanks for explaining.
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Please, note that prompts and ai_generated are only needed for 100% AI-generated images.

For AI-assisted works in which you generated props, some background elements, etc, it's sufficient to just advise people that you did so in the description, full prompt is not needed in that case. But it's only fair to give a heads-up that this thing or the other has been AI-generated.
MerpzyBerpzy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I very much like how the team approached this topic compared to other sites. Good to know how AI generated art on this site will be handled starting December.

Also this is like the first inkbunny blog post in 5 years :o
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks, 1 day ago
There will be more to follow <3
Balmung
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Sounds good! I'm actually quite excited about the requirement to disclose how an image was generated, because I hope that will result in a rapid process of refinement and improvement.

The basic stuff is easy to make but gets very repetitive, but by having people show their bag of tricks we'll hopefully avoid a flood of mostly the same thing done slightly differently a hundred times.

I also think it's a good idea to require some quality and variety.
RobbyBunny
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I don't think it should be wholy banned as It can be used as a tool like any other and I personally know quite a few high profile artists that sometimes make use of some ai-generation to form some small parts of their images as well as provide inspiration to a greater piece. You can be still immensly skilled for creating what do with it and it can help optimise your work flow. It's not inherently bad.

Photoshop too allows you to maniplute images and sew them together in a way that was not possible with pencil and paper and there were people who considered that 'fake or lesser' once too and yet now it's ingrained in the workflow of so many artists and is considered a industry standard. I believe like everything It just comes down to how it is used and how much of the final product is yours versus an AI's.

I appreciate that it's hard to create rules around topics like this as it's very nuanced and unfortunately rules are not and I think this is a good first draft but I don't very much care for wholey AI-Generated creations and would prefer those not on the site at all personally as I don't believe they hold any artistic value nor do I believe in an AI's ability to improve its art capabilitiy. AI's don't know good from bad as those are subjective terms and art is very subjective whereas computers are not.

I also think it's a bit of a misnomer as 'AI-Art' models are trained from data sets that uses images by very real artists often uncredited already meaning to an extent you're browing other peoples very real work without their permission in a way that can be more than just referencial especially if you're using it to generate art and not as a tool. I also believe you should be very careful with how you use it and when you do use it clearly identify it much like these rules have laid out already so that's good.
RobbyBunny
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Also, this may be a silly question but it warrants asking I think as AI is a very, very broad term with many meanings and interpretations.

Where does an upscale tool akin to say, waifu2x fall on the scale of ai-assisted? some of these upscale & denoise technologies are labeled 'AI powdered' but they're certainly not ai art generators in a traditional tense and as far as I understand them they're only interpreting existing information that's within an image. How about the upscale tools already inside photoshop or other open and closed source art programs or renderers those are AI too? people who create art in programs like blender shouldn't shouldn't be expected to export at full resolution? that would take hours/days.
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Non-AI based upscalers are not included in this.
But if it does advertise itself as "AI Powered" I'd follow the rules about interpolators and upscalers above.
No tag, but say what you used in the description.
Juno
2 weeks, 1 day ago
These rules sound good, but I feel like a lot of them rely on the user themself to be truthful and honest.

I'm not versed in AI art so maybe it's easier to tell than I'd think, but how would anyone be able to make the distinction between an open-source AI and a closed-source AI? Same things with the prompts/tags. If someone wanted to generate art using current furry artists as a reference, couldn't they just not mention that those artists were used as a reference? "any similarity is purely coincidental" type crap?

I'm happy that rules have been put in place, but I think those who wanted to could just lie and no one would be able to know. I'm not sure if this will prevent anything, or if it will just encourage people to be deceitful.
GimbalFighter
2 weeks, 1 day ago
" Juno wrote:
If someone wanted to generate art using current furry artists as a reference, couldn't they just not mention that those artists were used as a reference?

As I understand it, that's basically the idea behind these rules. If the person using AI has to give all the info on what they used to create the results then anyone can reproduce those same steps and get the same result, and if you get a different result then you know something's missing in the process.
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Lying is never a good idea :) Some of us (I'm NOT amongst them) are already very expert in this field, and with the help of reporting users who also know what they're talking about, we'll hopefully be able to identify and take action against those who don't comply with the policy.
Juno
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Hopefully!
joelfeila
2 weeks ago
well every open source program that I have heard of will tell you.  
AlexanderValentine
2 weeks, 1 day ago
My thoughts on AI generated art is the same as tracing. It's to be used as a learning tool, to help create concept, and to better one's skill. However, passing off traced art as your own is theft, and it's heavily frowned upon by the community at large.

This is why I'm glad to see that money will not be made off of generated images, as well as a strict tagging system. That said, there has been some really well-generated things that I hope someone will use as reference, and actually draw it out.

HighVoltage
2 weeks, 1 day ago
there is a difference between trying to pass it off as your own IMO, and flat-out stating it was AI-generated. those are two very different things.  however I would agree, at minimum, people should state that its AI-generated.
McFan
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I'm wondering about the possibility of banning them from the "Popular" section of the front page. I've always found this section great for artists building up an audience. It has helped me a lot to develop for example. I would find it sad that some smaller artists wouldn't get there and be less visible due to AI generated art becoming more important.

As for the rest, great rules. Like it or not, AI art will become a big part of the future of our community, so need to live with it \o/
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
We have technical limitations that currently prevent us from doing that.
But it is something being discussed.
HighVoltage
2 weeks, 1 day ago
seeing how much angry comments I know damn well will be posted, I'll just add these two cents at the bottom.  agree with it or not, not everyone is against AI art, for example, not everyone CAN draw. SOME that CAN draw have no CREATIVITY to employ (various reasons can include but are not limited to stress kills creativity for some, I'm one of them, my last drawing was made in 2012 before all my creativity dried up, I CAN draw, not everyone can, even those that can are not always able to)  and even then, those that CAN, and DO have the creativity might not have the TIME to do so and might use AI art as an outlet for stress.

again, agree with it or not, you are not as an end user, able to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their time, whether or not that means this particular site ends up deciding to allow it or not, does not mean that you as an individual have any right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their time and desire to use AI art if they want to do so.  suck it up, it's not your call to tell them they can't do it. site staff, on the other hand, CAN choose to tell them no if they wish.  it won't stop them from making it if they want to though, just not allow it to be uploaded here.
OsTin
2 weeks ago
You forgot that the algorithms are using their artworks to generate pictures, not just stock libraries like Adobe, so "suck it up" is kinda..
HighVoltage
2 weeks ago
......well hell, yes I did, I forgot that was part of the fuel for this fire...I'll admit when I'm wrong, and fuck am I wrong here big time....well this is awkward, though I'll leave it up so maybe I'll remember this next time, not that I expect that to happen >.>;
twitchtail
2 weeks, 1 day ago
AI generated art is kinda sexy in a way....

Just sayin'. The idea of a soulless machine creating kinky art without limits other than words is kinda cool.
I wouldn't want it to be forbidden at all. Someone must speak for the machines.
Arikado
2 weeks, 1 day ago
*gasp* An AI generating Pro-AI propaganda!
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks, 1 day ago
They warned us that the machines would be taking over...
We didn't listen.
WE DIDN'T LISTEN!
DiogenesShandor
1 week, 6 days ago
All praise to Slannesh!
ZippySqrl
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Based
Arikado
2 weeks, 1 day ago
It's okay. I think we should differentiate between tags, so those who do actual art and use AI just as a helping hand, don't get unintentionally blacklisted.

AI_generated Must be applied to all AI-generated content even for small adjustments
AI_assisted in cases of actual art pieces with minor AI-refinery.
AI_background (example) The self drawn character is in focus and the main piece, but only the background is generated.

Do we have a tag list on IB where we can look up definitions? That could avoid certain flamewars between users.
Arikado
2 weeks, 1 day ago
EDIT
AI_tool Must be applied to all AI-generated content even for small adjustments
AI_assisted in cases of actual art pieces with minor AI-refinery.
AI_background (example) The self drawn character is in focus and the main piece, but only the background is generated.
AI_generated fully AI-generated submissions.
AutoSnep
1 week, 6 days ago
Good luck explaining every single artist that a single use of any ML-powered tool in Photoshop (like smart selection or content-aware fill) must be tagged with "ai_tool". 😂
Salmy
1 week, 6 days ago
It's not SO complicated:

ai_generated: fully AI-generated image. Just sit, prompt, and obtain. Then you can do edits or whatever, but the base is what counts.

ai_assisted: where only certain elements (backgrounds, a car, etc) have been ai_generated, while the character or otherwise the image's very essence has been done in a traditional way.

This is NOT about the tools artists have, that some of them are really cool and advanced, to aid themselves with their work. So no, photoshop tools are NOT included, they're not the problem here.
Kettukarkki
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I was expecting a full-on ban on A.I. images that don't have any visible human handywork. I guess we'll see where this goes, but I'm already fed up with seeing the sneaky (often untagged) A.I. suggestions on Deviantart. At least I have some faith in the community here enforcing the tagging rule.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
We did consider that. As it is, we hope the limitation on what services are allowed will be enough for now, because it either requires people to use the software tools themselves - which is, I would argue, a skill in itself, the learning of which is "worth" allowing them to post some of the work generated - or else people are willing to set up a service with open software and models, at which point at least it is equally available to everyone to make their own, in theory.

We will be seeing how it goes and adjusting accordingly. But I think it is very likely that the better (and hopefully more popular) art involving AI will also involve significant amounts of human input.
fisuku
2 weeks, 1 day ago
i welcome our ai overlords
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
>:3
Issarlk
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Thanks for stopping what could have been a biblical flood of full AI generated YCH and adopts.
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
That was one of our biggest concerns and a driver of this policy being made now rather than waiting for the main news post.
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I think a better handling of that would have been to ban adopts. Those were a scam and a racket from the beginning. If people were going to start judging what is and isn't art then adopts should have been on the top of the NOT list
Fens
2 weeks, 1 day ago
This all seems pretty fair, thank you for being so even-handed.  But on the other hand..
" our upcoming refresh of our Acceptable Content Policy
That puts the wind up me o.o

I mean I know you guys will be great and fair as ever and I may be happier with the result but still.
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
The ACP hasn't been updated or refreshed in a very, very long time.
We get some complex tickets in where either our intent in the ACP isn't clear or where we get an interpretation we didn't expect.
As a result, we intend to make the ACP clearer and easier to understand as well as add or update some things that really weren't a thing when they were originally written but are now.
Fens
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Indeed, and thank you for your continuing work!  The words themselves are just scary is all >.>
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
As 390X said, it's been the best part of a decade since they changed - you can actually see that on the History tab. Over that time we've not stopped interpreting the rules to apply them to newly-popular types of work, but the reasoning we used is not necessarily obvious and it led to sub-optimal results when we wanted to be consistent wilthout making a whole new rule.

To take the most obvious example that's led to friction: back in the day, a lot of the 3D rendering uploads we got were screenshots from Second Life, World of Warcraft, etc. Most were not particularly creative, easily duplicated, etc. Over time, rendered content submissions changed, but we still had what seemed like way too many and many of the reasons to remove them under the "screenshots" still seemed valid - and it was possible to interpret "programs" that way, so we did. However, having a hard rule against them means it is harder to make subtle decisions about when work should be permitted, because people will rightly point to the rule and say "why isn't it gone?" Conversely, those who want to keep it argue that the rule was never really intended or designed for their work or how it is created, and they're also right.

But that's not the topic of this journal, so.
roboart
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Hello, and thank you for allowing AI art to be posted on this website!
I'm glad I can share my generations with you here for as long as you enjoy them with me.
I think most of those rules are very reasonable, and I have only a few suggestions for small changes.

>The image description must contain all the prompts passed to the generator
I think adding just the initial prompt for the first generation would be better. After the initial txt2img generation, I run my images through multiple alternating steps of img2img/upscaler and manual changes in Krita. If I were to include the prompts from all the steps, it would result in a veeery spammy description. One day the tools will mature, and I will be able to just attach a workfile with all the history of changes, but there is still a long way to go until that happens. :)
Also, it would be good to specify that in the spirit of openness, the custom textual inversions, hypernetworks and/or aesthetic embeddings used for the generation should also be public.
The future models will be increasingly less verbal, so it might also be a good idea to explicitly say to include the rough drawing used as a prompt as well as the text prompt.
For example, this model (not yet public) uses different colours as information on where to place different objects from the prompt:
https://deepimagination.cc/eDiffi

In the even further future, there will also be a way to download the images directly from your imagination, but I don't think this one needs to be considered for the rules just yet. :)
https://mind-vis.github.io

>The image must not have been generated using prompts that include the name of a living or recently deceased (within the last 25 years) artist
More than just the prompt is needed to copy someone's art style. You would have to train the textual inversion on their artwork.
I can see why the inclusion of the artist's name in the prompt could cause a misunderstanding and controversy, but what it does is actually rather subtle - it only changes things like body proportions, how colours blend, rendering, etc. The only exceptions are if the artist's style is similar to traditional artists and their art is overweight in the training dataset.
I would like you to reconsider this rule and reword it as "the generations should not obviously resemble the art style of a living artist", but I will understand if you'd rather steer away from the potential controversies.

I also think that 25 years for a deceased artist is too long. Could it be reduced to 5 or 10 years? It would rule out using artists such as Thomas Kinkade or Pino Daeni, and I think most people would consider it OK to include them in the prompts.
Amaterasu
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I think 25 years is more than reasonable. When you say "consider the artist has been dead for 10 years already, let me harvest their artwork for my own already " it's sounds extremely disrespectful not only to them as artists but to their family friends and following.
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I think copyright should expire (at the very latest) the moment that the doctor declares you dead. None of the excuses for why copyright exists apply if you're dead; you don't have a livelihood to worry about when you're dead
GreenReaper
2 weeks ago
Your relatives may, however, especially if you die young. Creative households lead precarious lives and often have nothing but their life's work to leave to their heirs. I think we can agree that it has probably become too long under the influence of Disney et. al.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Regarding age specifically: this is open to discussion. I think one of the main concerns was duplicating the work of any artist who still has people who might be materially disadvantaged by having their art duplicated or (particularly for furry artists) for whom it would be seen as disrespectful to their memory to adopt their style. Not that people haven't done that manually - looking at you, Pokefound - but it's one thing to do the work that involves, and another to just run an AI over someone's work to duplicate it. (We may have to prohibit models trained specifically for such a purpose as well, since that isn't explicitly called-out.)
roboart
1 week, 5 days ago
Unfortunately, it seems that given the mixed response I see in the comments under this journal, it probably will not be tenable to relax those rules in the foreseeable future.
Would you find it acceptable to at least give "amnesty" to the AI art that has already been published before those rules were announced and would otherwise be subject to removal under them? Of course, the new submissions would still have to adhere to the new guidelines.
Frankly, I like the generations I already posted, and I would feel sad to have to delete all of them, and others probably feel similar. It would probably also spare you a lot of time if you could skip scouring through the existing submissions to find those that should be deleted under the new rules.
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
" roboart wrote:
I also think that 25 years for a deceased artist is too long. Could it be reduced to 5 or 10 years? It would rule out using artists such as Thomas Kinkade or Pino Daeni, and I think most people would consider it OK to include them in the prompts.


I don't think it should be part of the AI restrictions at all. It's not in the derivative works rules for human artists that they can't ape people's styles.
Neversoft
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I have a image that has a story that the base was from NovelAI but was then rewritten by myself. Does that still need to be removed?
https://inkbunny.net/s/2855008
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
To be completely honest text has not been the focus of this post, but the actual policy does envisage text content. On the face of it, the story is not permitted because it is an AI-assisted from (AFAIK) a closed model, which merely claims to be "GPT-powered". The details are likely to get messy - was it truly "editing", modifying some bits but essentially keeping most of the words? If so, it seems likely that it would fall under this policy. If you had merely used it as inspiration to write something, it would be a different matter. (As the image is merely inspired by the story, that wouldn't matter either way.)
Neversoft
2 weeks, 1 day ago
The image came before the story but the AI was used to come up with timeline? as I filled in a lot of the blanks and fixed a lot of what it got wrong.

The main thing I’m asking is do I have to remove it cause NovalAI was used to help with it?
Amaterasu
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I'm a little weary about treating backgrounds like a lesser skill in the world of art. Like if someone painted a bg and use AI to put characters on it people would feel differently about it, but it's still a skill that should relieve the same respect.

However I think as a preliminary action, the enforcing of keywords and restricting to community available generators is a good start until we see if AI can become a tool that isn't just a mass ripping of other artists work
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
We were a little looser on background because we read several artists saying it's really useful for art that will never realistically have much of a background otherwise, because it'd require much more time than the artist wanted to spend on it.

At the same time, we totally recognize that background art is a skill in and of itself, and that's why we required the use of AI assistance to be mentioned in order to differentiate between people who can do it and people who got a machine to do it. Theoretically, some commissioners may prefer the former to the latter and pay more accordingly.
Amaterasu
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Still, you're allowing people to monetize it. Realistically if someone had did the reverse and tried to sell that would people feel the same? I'd say not.

If your intent is to sell something and you cannot create backgrounds and would instead outsource it to AI generation,  don't advertise or agree to that. If you think backgrounds will benefit your art then take the time to learn it ,its not "a waste of time" if you thought it would improve the art.

Again if your intention isn't to sell I dont think it matters one way or the other but there are artists who spend a lot of time and effort making BGs with as much love as and character art and ask for a price increase according. If you allow artists to sell ai generated BGs as long as they drew the character,  you undermine those other artists and we already live in a world where people are looking to undermine the worth of an artist any way they can, this would just be another reason
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I'm tired of people treating AI art generation as a lesser skill than hiring some guy to do it for you. It takes a lot of trial and error to get a good result out of these programs, hiring somebody just takes cash
Amaterasu
2 weeks ago
Ok wow. lets go over all the things wrong with this.

1. You compared Ai generation to Commissioning something to say its a skill instead of comparing it to AN ARTIST MAKING ART. How come you did that?

2. If you compare the "skill" you need to run through a bunch of keywords until it spits out something you like vs learning things like:

Form
Shape
Color Theory
Foreshortening
Lightning
ect ect

you quickly find out that  typing in a generator is a lesser skill in the same way that running is a skill. the average human can run, and can do non competitive running very easily and without much effort, just like someone can type keywords into a machine just like we can type messages here in the replies. you cant do that with art. you yes it is indeed a lesser skill.

3. in response to your other post. you know that these are people with family members right? have a little respect for the dead have respect for artists. your post is so socially inept its actually insane.
TenshiCat
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Very good! I appreciate this!
Salmy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Thank you! ^^
Drake012
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Question: if NovelAI content (or Midjourney) isn't allowed on-site, what about linking to content made by those AI's off-site? Will that mean you can't use anything NovelAI/Midjourney related for the thumbnails?

I'll likely keep my A.I. stuff from this site anyway (for the sake of actual artists here), but it'll be helpful to clarify.



JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks, 1 day ago
For example, you may link to that kind of content in a journal.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Links are fine. Userpics are fine (my current one is from ThisFursonaDoesNotExist). Story thumbnails... we've allowed trivial use of otherwise non-compliant images for those. I'd say if it's getting to the point where the image is being appreciated as a piece of art and becoming a non-trivial part of the submission rather than simply to identify the topic, that's where it starts being a problem.

Bear in mind that we are not AI experts and there may already be services which are fully free (as in speech) and open source which could be used instead. New things are popping up all the time.
GreyMaria
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I don't see this going very well.

In fact, I see this going the subterfuge route. (why in the hell do i even know this word)

We're approaching/in some cases well beyond the point that, without extreme scrutiny or being outright told by the creator, AI generated images are difficult/nigh impossible for a majority of consumers to distinguish from the creations of a true human artist. Less-strictly-moderated boorus are being inundated. Twitter accounts spring up overnight with dozens of AI-appropriated works. Artists are streaming and recording speedpaint videos more frequently than ever before in the hopes of proving that they're a Real Person with Real Artistic Ability. It's a bloody arms race out there and I know I've caught myself doing triple-takes and quadruple-guessing myself on whether a new face in the field is real or not.

I don't feel this is something that you can afford to tentatively feel out. By the time a final policy is established, one way or the other, it'll already be too late and none of them will tell you that their images are AI.

But at least you're watching it. Which is more than can be said for a lot of places.
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks, 1 day ago
" GreyMaria wrote:
By the time a final policy is established, one way or the other, it'll already be too late and none of them will tell you that their images are AI.


We like to be fair, and we expect the same from everyone. If someone can't prove the origin of their submission, then the following policy from the Terms of Service could be enforced:

Inkbunny reserves the right to remove any content [...] at its sole discretion for any reason it deems appropriate.


Be nice, play fair! :)
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
This was actually a significant consideration - it's bad policy to make a rule you can't effectively enforce. So... we want to make it reasonably easy to comply with the rule, giving people the option of doing the right thing, and having others able to help out by suggesting keywords. Like all our rules, there will be people who ignore it, and others who willfully evade it, but the cost for doing so is that if you get found out, all the effort posting it is wasted. And at least people can feel like they have some control over the situation, us included.
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
" GreenReaper wrote:
This was actually a significant consideration - it's bad policy to make a rule you can't effectively enforce. So... we want to make it reasonably easy to comply with the rule


As written it's actually very onerous. The tag requirement is simple enough, but the other requirements are a huge wall of text and demand information that may not be readily available I've got two AI based works up and I don't know even half of the information you want and I know that several of the things Inkbunny's demanded don't even apply
Shierna
1 week, 6 days ago
Honestly, I think you'll find a LOT of users would rather they didn't allow AI material at all... So, maybe, see that they're making some big concessions here....
MadDog
2 weeks, 1 day ago
This does make me feel old as I can't picture A. using such stuff and B. having it be good, but that may be because I tend to lump this stuff in 'Does Bruno Mars Is Gay', if you will. Labeling will help, but I can't fathom that AI leads to good results for stuff.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
At this point AI is kinda like an idiot savant, identifying images from the patterns in the materials surrounding it. It can identify a head with a face, but it might not always recognize that the face is upside-down compared to the rest of it. Or maybe it found out that breasts tend to have hands touching them at the bottom, but not that the hand has to be attached to anything. And it might only draw one giant breast. It can come up with things most humans would never imagine, while at the same time most of its output is a fuzzy average of everything it's seen.
LustPuppet
2 weeks, 1 day ago
"The image must not have been generated using prompts that include the name of a living or recently deceased (within the last 25 years) artist, or the names of specific non-commercial characters (fursonas) without the express permission of the character owner - in line with our Ownership policy"

This will need some adjustment/granularity to the wording to allow for when people are using words as influence/adjustment rather than as the centerpiece or driving force of the output. People already have artistic influences and this kind of approach mostly creates the idea that it's better for you to be unaware of what your influences are. That allows artists plausible deniability but does nothing for actually avoiding infringement or being too influenced by a single source. Likewise not including the names of artists and copyrighted characters doesn't mean you will avoid infringing, you just won't be aware if you are or at least have plausible deniability about it... conversely if you're aware of artist's styles enough you can explicitly exclude them from output, but you have to use their name to do that.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
The reasoning here is along the lines of "it's OK to try to get something close to someone's work, but it's not OK to use their work specifically to do it". We know tools like Stable Diffusion don't directly copy from work, but it feels a bit icky narrowing it down to specific artists. Like if you want the style to incorporate impressionism, you could just say that, not "Claude Monet".

I don't think the intent was to prohibit negative prompts and we could look into tweaking that rule to allow them.
LustPuppet
2 weeks, 1 day ago
That seems the inversion of what I'd expect? To me it sounds like you're saying it's okay to try to steal styles as long as you don't name the artist (a long dead and public domain artist in this case at least) and I'm talking about using enough styles that you get something non-infringing and unlike the work of the authors you're claiming as influence. You certainly won't avoid the AI using their work as reference (it's still part of it's influence) by naming their style.
Peppercorn
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I can't say I agree with this, but the stringency of all that surrounds it will hopefully be enough to mitigate the influx of AI generated works. It's not like there's an equal to Inkbunny in terms of cub communities anyway. Here's hoping this allowance will change nothing or very little in the overall scheme of the website and its experience
Fleety
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I'm undecided on the value of or legality of AI artwork. That said though, I will express my experience and concern with what I've already gone through on Deviant Art:

AI Art programs learn to make the art with the prompts you give by scanning in other artwork to 'learn' and have 'material' to create what you prompted. That all comes from scanning other artists works including photos, models, etc, and does not ask permission from those artists to use their works. Deviant Art went and made their own tool, added it, and let it learn without telling anyone until later when we all noticed all of our creative works were 'en masse opted in for AI Generated Use'. I have little time to be creative working in the arts of being a nurse and helping people. What I do draw is for myself and sometimes paid by other people that like my skill and not for others to just grab willy nilly and slap into a AI blender to pump out art without my permission. It's my art, I made it, not those plugging in words.

So this is where I get very concerned. At its current stage, AI is just more glossed over art theft to be repackaged into 'new art'. Honestly I think if you have AI Art that is made from not 'learning/scanning' other peoples art, then fine. Don't get caught up into not knowing where these programs grab their learning from.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
We're aware of what DA did and that's why we made a point to say that we're not doing what DA did.

My own understanding is that the source material itself is not kept in the model, rather it's "how do I identify X in a noisy pattern". So you could look at a rock and see a cat in it, because you have an idea of how to fit its shape to what is there, having seen lots of cats - as opposed to cut-and-pasting lots of cat images together in order to try to make a conglomerate cat.
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
You're correct GreenReaper, it's not kept in the model. The cut and paste analogy is pure fearmongering

Furthermore, even if it was true, transformative use is legally considered fair use.
Repstar
8 hrs, 25 mins ago
*can be legally considered free use, it's up to the judge to decide if the work was transformative enough or not for free use to apply, it is not a watertight defense
SHAD0WKINGF0X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
AI art isn’t even real art in my opinion, Traditional art is where it’s at with the good old pencil and paper. :)
YellowSnowlep
2 weeks, 1 day ago
This is an art website, I want to see art not garbage spat out by a machine.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Thanks to this policy you should be able to use the blocked keywords feature to do so in the future.
PFGFrankly
2 weeks, 1 day ago
seem fair. make sense
caramelthecalf
2 weeks, 1 day ago
seems reasonable.
Avalony
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I honestly hate AI generated art, because there is no artist, just a computer, so I never plan to upload art of this type on any platform, only my art, made with my paws.
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
How is it any different from a comissioned work?

They both involve the person the person with the actual creative idea employing a middleman to mindlessly follow a prompt, the only difference is that the AI is faster and affordably priced.

Why shouldn't poor people be able to share theit ideasbwith the world!? Why should that be limited to people rich enough to afford an overpriced human contractor?
Avalony
2 weeks ago
To me that would be a scam, because doing something with an AI doesn't make you an artist, the robot is doing it for you. And anyway, why make a commission? If the client can make the art with an AI by himself and save money.
Anyone could make art with an AI.
And yes, it's totally different, because the artist does the work by hand sometimes with certain help from 3D software to speed up the process, but he does it anyway, an AI does it all for you, and it's just for lazy people to get money for something they didn't make
DiogenesShandor
1 week, 6 days ago
" Avalony wrote:
To me that would be a scam, because doing something with an AI doesn't make you an artist, the robot is doing it for you. And anyway, why make a commission? If the client can make the art with an AI by himself and save money.
Anyone could make art with an AI.


That's my whole damn point! It makes it affordable because there's nobody being comissioned! It's just a program running on the computer of the person who wants the image made (or possibly on someone else's computer if the person who want's the image made doesn't have a powerful enough computer or can't get it set up). The common working man can afford to have their ideas turned into images because they're not paying for a middleman between the desire for the product and the product itself.

On that note however I therefore agree that if they do find someone using an AI to make commissioned works that person should probably be banned from the site, because that's exactly the kind of thing that will prevent this technology from reaching it's potential as described above
Avalony
1 week, 6 days ago
So what do you want me to tell you? Do we really want real talent to be replaced by soulless robots that just follow their programming? I say no. AI art must go away and never return, if not, how could a first timer develop artistic abilities if a robot is doing everything for you?
And that excuse of "poor people who can't pay for expensive things" is beyond stupidity, because great artists only need paper and a pencil and that's it, and if you don't believe me ask Jay Naylor, who draws his works in the traditional way, with paper and pencil, scans it and gives it digital touch-ups in Photoshop.

The last thing we artists who do have talent and know how to draw need is for a robot without a soul or life to take our work and perch on the abyss without merit and without reason.

I don't understand why people support this AI crap.
TalentlessPokemonHack
1 week, 6 days ago
Because the AI is trained on art that doesn't belong to you? That would be essentially stealing. If you can't afford art, maybe consider learning the craft.
Shierna
1 week, 6 days ago
If they want to do that, fine. Don't call it art, and DON'T utilize actual art produced by artists that don't consent in order to seed your code.
ZekLullaby
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Sounds fine to me, I do think that fully AI-generated pictures are just a waste of space in the site, but enforcing the tags is a good solution. At the end of the day is a tool, but it also carries many copyright implications.

I guess AI referenced, like if the final work is a fully new picture, not traced, won't need tags, right?  
billmurray
2 weeks, 1 day ago
If it does then I'm already in trouble because 90% of my submissions in the past year have used the 3d pose scanner to help me pose the reference model xD
ZekLullaby
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I don't think they mean that type of AI. They are talking specifically of image generation AI not AI powered tools, a pose scanner isn't too different that posing a reference model yourself.
ThisOtterDoesKnotExist
2 weeks, 1 day ago
As an artist explicitly posting AI generated work, I would like to raise a dispute to one of the requirements (Realistically almost all of them, but one in general) in the AI generation ruling:

* The image description must contain all the prompts passed to the generator

This strongly imposes and infringes on the artistic creation process around AI generation. While I would hope that someone on staff is looking into how this stuff actually works I know it's possible no one is diving into it. That said, I have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours at this point fine tuning my prompts and learning the in's and outs of a new medium of art tool that is AI generation. It's far from just throwing prompts at a wall and getting artistic images. Asking and expecting people to share how they generate these images is the same as saying "Hey artist teach me how to make art so you don't have to do it for me any more." it's just wrong and unreasonable. Realistically a lot of the posts requirements are borderline asinine. I think clearly marking it as AI, and what tool is used should be enough. But if need be I will follow all of the other requirements apart from the one listed above, and will happily die on that hill if need be.

P.s. Doesn't matter anyways because I use a paid service... and at the end of day, that's not allowed. Guess only art created with freeware is allowed now too?
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
To answer the last bit first, the issue is when companies are harvesting training data from "the public" (read: Danbooru and e621, most of which probably didn't have authorization to be posted there at all) and privatizing it.

Because you are effectively using the skills of other artists, as if it were under the equivalent of a creative commons license, then at this time we do expect you to contribute in an equal manner by revealing how you got the art from the model. This feels only fair considering the way current models were built. Even the UK's very permissive intent to enable training regardless of the wishes of those licensing it expect it to be on data that was legally licensed or made available in the first place. Having someone else copy it to their imageboard and then scraping it from there to build your models doesn't really count.

Basically, if everyone can theoretically do the same thing, it's fine to charge for your time and skill in creating new prompts; but from our perspective it's not OK to make that knowledge proprietary, either at the model or the prompt level. For some people that will not be acceptable. That's understandable, but it means they can't post their work here.
ThisOtterDoesKnotExist
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I appreciate you taking the time and effort to reply <3 I'll continue to love and call this place home on my primary account. It is sad though that this fursona will have to die. I wholeheartedly believe that it should just be banned at this point. The amount of artistic freedom AI generators have to give up to post here isn't really worth it. They will all just leave and post elsewhere.

I do have to admit that I am one of the few that I've seen that truly don't feel like AI generated work here should be monetized. Would your stance still be the same if there was just a flat monetization ban on AI generated content?
DiogenesShandor
1 week, 6 days ago
Personally I think there should definitely be a monetization ban on AI art. I'm against all the other restrictions but a monetization ban I agree with.
LustPuppet
2 weeks, 1 day ago
The argument that proprietary platforms = proprietary knowledge is very dubious in the case of AI art generators. Not only are the skills to use them transferable, but nearly every paid tool I've tried has free credits that refill monthly anyway. Their point about this applying more to proprietary digital art software like Photoshop is true at the moment, it has AI tools that can only be accessed in it and no other software and there's nothing like free credits or the like. Adobe plans to add way more AI driven tools soon as well.
Fens
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Just wanted to peek in on one point - I'm not so sure the requirement to post prompts is as bad as it seems.  I'd say it's more akin to an (admittedly still a bit odd) requirement that artists post exactly which pens and pencils they used.  I've watched people using these AIs as creative tools work and it is so much more than the prompts.  If the works a friend of mine did were posted with their prompts, and someone just copied them into a duplicate instance.. they'd still get complete crap.

In order to create good work with minimal aberrations and achieve the goal they set out to do, a creative AI user uses a combination of carefully adjusting prompts, refining weights and margins, iterating on results, and repetition of every step of the process however many times it takes.  It's just... not correct to assume that a complete piece comes out of finding just the right set of prompts and handing them to the machine.

Even if you know the prompts are right, and don't change them throughout the entire process, you'll still be holding the machine's hand for potentially hours at a time and contributing far more than just that string of words to the creative process.  I can understand the discomfort, but I don't think it's quite right equating a requirement to post prompts to a demand that an artist hand over their secrets so that their skill can be appropriated.
hokegom
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I agree with all the points made and wouldn't even find it bad if IB outright banned AI from the platform to prevent any eventual headaches, but I'm glad you guys are giving it a chance.
I wonder though where my use of AI falls in this, because I use it only as cover for my stories and maybe a "meet the characters" in the future where it's mostly text and just the face from the AI-generated art to illustrate it on the side .
I know it's still AI art and I do indicate in every post (description and tags) and in my profile that all my art is AI generated and edited by me and which one I use, so I guess it's all fine? A lot of people use random images they've found on the internet or official material art for their story covers so I hope AI covers are fine too :)
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
If it was just a thumbnail it probably wouldn't be relevant at all, but they're quite large pieces so I think the policy applies. As such, the tools and the model matter, so should be specified. If you're doing it yourself, with Stable Diffusion and a publicly-available model, that's fine as long as the keyword and description details (generator, model, ideally seed, though you probably don't have that for existing work) are included. If you'd used the NovelAI service with its proprietary models then it wouldn't be.
hokegom
2 weeks, 1 day ago
If I delete the "teaser and summary" art and only use them for thumbnail like the other posts, can I get away with just putting the ai_generated tag and stating in the description that it was made with Stable Diffusion? I'm not really AI-savy and only used it a couple of times with the assistance of a friend to get a few arts for the thumbnails so I don't know many details aside from that lol And I would like to avoid visual pollution on the post if possible :,)
Thank you for replying!!
KevinSnowpaw
2 weeks, 1 day ago
My two cents... ban it out right.



AI generation is fun and fine and a neat novelty trick but it is not art, typeing some keywords into an AI generator and hitting refearsh a few times is not art, it does not make the person doing an artist, I dont know if they even technically own the copyright to any work produced by said art.


On top of that the AI uses other peoples art to MAKE the art...



Most importantly, Inkbunny has thus far only allowed you to upload work that YOU created or that was created for you. I see AI skirts that line but I really think we shout to just not allow it.
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
" KevinSnowpaw wrote:
Most importantly, Inkbunny has thus far only allowed you to upload work that YOU created or that was created for you.


If it already allows art that was created for you by some third party then it should stick to that policy and allow AI art. The only difference between a work created by an AI mindlessly following somebody else's prompt and a work created by some guy with a tablet mindlessly following someone else's prompt is that the AI one is faster and affordable to us commoners.
Repstar
8 hrs, 13 mins ago
the difference is the ability of creativity, the AI can not be creative, it can only be derivative, basing the work on prior knowledge, the human with a tablet has fantasy and an imagination which gets sparked by the prompts
strikecentral
2 weeks, 1 day ago
If I steal from one source, it's plagiarism. If I steal from 100, it's research. Everything created nowadays is based or inspired at least partially by the work of someone else. Being 100% self-creative is exceedingly difficult.

Banning AI art outright would be counterproductive and elitist. Yes, AI art *is* art, but it needs to be labeled as such. Saying AI drawings are not art is the same as a musician that plays a physical instrument claiming that music created with a computer program is not music and people like Skrilliex aren't real composers or musicians. Is art created on a drawing tablet any less valid since the artist isn't holding an actual brush?
KevinSnowpaw
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I really dont see it that way at all It's an IMAGE it's a neat picture but it's not "art"
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
In the end it's all just pixels flying through the air. There's no way to tell the difference between one and the other without being told.
IceAgeChippies
2 weeks ago
On a purists level, art isn't art unless it communicates something---often something ineffable, such as a feeling, a vision or some other abstraction.
Everything I create is done traditionally, albeit, I've made only two or three images I'd consider 'art' (again, on the purist's definition).
DiogenesShandor
1 week, 6 days ago
What do adoptables and YCHs communicate? Capitalism?
IceAgeChippies
1 week, 6 days ago
Nothing, generally. They're just images.
CranberryRaccoon
2 weeks ago
Research isn't stealing.

You still need to cite your sources when you do research or else you're just plagiarizing which is stealing and looked down upon MUCH harsher than you'd think.
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
" KevinSnowpaw wrote:
On top of that the AI uses other peoples art to MAKE the art...


No more than a human artist does. The program needs to be shown examples to get an idea of what things look like but it doesn't actually retain or reproduce those examples. Much in the same way that a human artist who draws in a manga style may have gotten many of their their concepts and ideas from existing manga but doesn't reproduce existing mangas, and certainly not from memory.
KevinSnowpaw
2 weeks ago
i would argue there is a difference between taking inspiration from other works, and an AI that's SMASHING a bunch of shit together and trying to keep to a "style" that's being determined by an algorithm and not any aesthetic sense.


I dont have a problem with AI art... I just think it has no place on IB as it's not your work...
AltheAlbinoFox
2 weeks, 1 day ago
From skimming this thread, I'm rapidly concluding that the best policy whether you hate A.I. generations or love 'em, is to keep an open dialog with its tinkerers, rather than shutting them out. Best to tag-block and know it's tagged right. For many of us, we want to not quite block and instead have them collectively open up about what on Earth is going on under the hood here, so that's about to be the policy. There's a lot to be learned from that, and a lot of myths to dispel.

I can understand inventing some further concessions though, perhaps so that there's no way for them to flood what's 'trending', but I sense they're already looking into that.
KevinSnowpaw
2 weeks, 1 day ago
i dont hate ai there fun toys...


but it's not ART ion the same way tapeing a banna to a wall is not "art"
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I can support the tagging requirement, the rest of the stuff seems needlessly luddite and often impracticable.

Inkbunny was the last furry site I still sort of respected, and now I can't respect Inkbunny either because they've jumped on this stupid luddite bandwagon.
strikecentral
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Making sure people understand what they're looking at and not being scammed into buying a commission that was made with no actual effort on the artist's part is not luddite at all. You're right about some of the policies here will be extremely difficult to enforce, such as making sure all AI art is tagged correctly, but I think these policies are overall very sensible.
If IB had banned all AI generated art completely, then you'd have a point.
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
" strikecentral wrote:
Making sure people understand what they're looking at and not being scammed into buying a commission that was made with no actual effort on the artist's part is not luddite at all.


It's no more overpriced than it would be if a flesh and blood artist produced the same pattern of pixels. The product being purchased is the same.

If anything this argument shows that we should be promoting the use of AI because it shows that anyone who doesn;t go directly the AI is getting ripped off either way


You're right about some of the policies here will be extremely difficult to enforce, such as making sure all AI art is tagged correctly, but I think these policies are overall very sensible.[/q]

I don't mean unenforcable, I mean difficult to comply with. I have two AI based works on this site and neither of them used a "prompt" as such.

The fox image was created by messing with a series of sliders and the song lyrics were culled from a long series of non-prompted GPT-2 outputs
Repstar
8 hrs, 9 mins ago
the thing you pay for with the comission is the time and effort, not final product. so when you comission a human to create art you are paying that human for the time it took them to learn the skill, the effort it took to learn the skill, the time it takes to apply the skill and the effort it takes to apply the skill. So if someone were to sell you a piece of AI art it should be labeled as AI clearly and the process should be made clear since else you risk getting scammed by an "artist"pretending to have expended more time and effort on the work than they actually did
Drake012
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Still better than an outright ban, like with Furaffinity.
I'm getting into A.I. too, but even I know the consequences of this tech, both on this site and beyond. It's literally a 'make any kind of art you want' device, and it's going to threaten the livelihoods of a LOT of artists. Especially when some artists even have their own work being imitated with A.I.
At the very least, people need time to adjust and figure out how to deal with this tech.
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
If art created using paid tools isn't allowed then you should ban comissions too, because that's the same thing
strikecentral
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Paid tools or models are outside of the resources of some people, meaning that only some people are able to create those pictures. A commission is paying an artist to do what they want to do.
I understand where you're coming from with this, but they're not the same thing.
strikecentral
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I agree with the AI tagging and not allowing people to flood accounts with the same seeds over and over again. I've never really dabbled into the whole AI art thing myself but I do know for sure that I have no actual drawing artistic talent myself. As for selling AI art, I don't see a problem with it as long as the seller clearly knows it was AI generated.
If AI art is something you disagree with, you can simply blacklist the tags and ignore them. If you don't mind them then you'll still be informed of when they are present. I see this policy here as a win-win for everyone.
NeiNing
2 weeks, 1 day ago
But if the ai artist uses other people's arts in their ai art (what little I know about ai arts) and sells it, that's stealing and selling someone else's work. Right? Isn't that wrong?
billmurray
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I'm curious as to why closed source software was excluded.  Does it have to do with the training models?  People are already using open source ones with training models which aren't always being distributed with the same license as the software — or distributed at all — if concerns over laundering of copyright is the issue.  I am trying to understand the practical angle of this one point, as opposed to any political one, because it's the only one that stuck out to me as an unusual compromise.

Other than that though, i think this might have been the best option that could be done short of re-engineering the site to force AI flags on every image (ie. Force an explicit step in the uploading process over whether an image was not assisted, assisted, or generated).
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I've tried to explain this a bit earlier - perhaps more coherently - but essentially it came down to the staff having a strong feeling that if people were essentially making art from other people's work (notwithstanding that it doesn't use specific components of any particular work in a copyright sense), they should allow other people to do the same thing and to build on their own work. Closing either source or models is not conducive to this and feels like "the bad stuff" that people don't like AI art for.

Laws have not caught up to this, and those which do exist are likely to be designed to protect those building business models around walled gardens, so we felt at this time it was what we could do to try to make it a more level playing field. Especially considering the most likely alternative that would be perfectly acceptable to most users would be not to allow AI art at all.
billmurray
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Thanks for the quick response =w=

Looking forward (admittedly with some trepidation) to these new frontiers in creative outputs @w@
Starseeker91
2 weeks, 1 day ago
So we can add Ai art here?
GreenReaper
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Only if it meets the policy. In particular, output from "this service that lets you make unlimited art for just $19.95/month!" is likely not to be acceptable, because it doesn't offer others the means to replicate what they do, but rather tries to turn it into a product. But "hey, I can download the software and get it working and use this model to create stuff myself" probably is - within limits.
Danjen
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Seems reasonable. Nothing bad about being transparent and disclosing what you did and didn't do
TheDingy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I'm not into AI personally, but the lack of a knee-jerk response to ban it is why Inkbunny is awesome!

Everything should be considered on its merits, on the whims of the loudest whingers.
Kavukamari
2 weeks, 1 day ago
clarification question:
"The image must be tagged with the name of the generator used"
does this mean the framework of the AI such as Stable Diffusion? or does this mean the model used such as Yiffy_Epoch18.ckpt or the model hash such as 02ab2bf4 (a 50% mix of Furry_e5 and Yiffy_e18)? if you mean the model, then a ckpt name or a hash are essentially the same thing because people can find the information about the ckpt from the hash, but it's good to know which one is needed

knowing the model/checkpoint/hash is good because some people have information about the datasets used to train it
390X
2 weeks, 1 day ago
As much information as possible is what's preferred.
Largely because we're trying to track down what is and isn't an ethically sourced model.
LustPuppet
2 weeks, 1 day ago
"ethically sourced model" is like saying "ethically sourced artistic influence" ... it's a total misunderstanding of the tech and how it works in a way that implies art itself is unethical in general or at least has very dark implications in regards to how people think cultural access should work
Kavukamari
2 weeks ago
i understand what they're going for, I think. base stable diffusion was trained on laion, and apparently some artists are in there who don't want their work used in ai like RJPalmer, I don't know how something like that happens, but I guess we can just avoid using their tag
LustPuppet
1 week, 5 days ago
I understand what they're going for, I just don't think it makes any sense when you know how people learn and how the AI learns... it only makes sense if you think the AI stores images or uses them directly, but it doesn't do that. It just learns how to remember and recognize patterns and recombine them, just like us. There is little or no separation between imagination and memory.
LustPuppet
1 week, 5 days ago
(side note: RJ Palmer has always been a scare monger and used to be on the "digital art isn't real art" band wagon too... this is just par for the course for them... they have a bad reputation among working artists that spent years on DA)
DiogenesShandor
1 week, 6 days ago
Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.
LustPuppet
1 week, 4 days ago
I don't like some of your comments about contractors in this thread: ie. I think you have trouble understanding what the self employment world looks like... but thank you and overall I tend to agree with you on most of this. Just please remember that artists are people too and we have to work to live like anyone else... we're not overpriced, but also I don't expect everyone to afford us and I still want people to be able to express themselves and seek fulfilling things. A lot of the problems people are worried about are rooted in capitalism, not in the tech itself... from what I've seen you say I think you do actually gather that despite saying some not nice things about contractors.
GreenReaper
2 weeks ago
Personally I would say the name of the model rather than the hash because that would be easier to track or block on. The generator was intended to refer specifically to e.g. Stable_Diffusion (there are slight differences between this news post and the ACP itself which mentions "the name of the tool and model that was used").
Kavukamari
2 weeks ago
that makes sense, if we have model merges,, we could probably tag the constituent parts or the final name of the model
KitsuneHime
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I'm kind of still on the fence about Ai Art as a whole leaning towards not in favor of it, but my concern is if there's any protection against Ai Generated Art users using other artist's art to train the Ai without consent here on Inkbunny. deviantART is already in hot water over that particular subject of course.
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
It doesn't matter because the program doesn't contain the pictures it was trained on. It needs to be shown examples of things to get an idea of what those examples look like, but it doesn't actually retain or reproduce those examples. (Much in the same way, to give an example, that an artist who draws in a manga style isn't going to simply reproduce some specific manga that they read as a child, and probably couldn't do so from memory even of they wanted to)
KitsuneHime
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I see.
AlexReynard
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Two questions

1) I have no idea how to find the generator and model numbers of what I've been using. It's just standard-ass browser-version Stable Diffusion.

2) Is there any way to add keywords to batches of submissions?
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
" AlexReynard wrote:
1) I have no idea how to find the generator and model numbers of what I've been using. It's just standard-ass browser-version Stable Diffusion.


Nobody knows any of this stuff. It's just a sneaky way to say that people can't do it without openly telling us that we can't do it
AlexReynard
2 weeks, 1 day ago
If this were FurAffinity, I'd have that suspicion too. However, I've been with IB from the start and haven't known their moderation to ever be assholes.

I think it's reasonable to believe their actual concern is, there's AI that generate images based on existing furry artists' work, and if someone isn't okay with their art being included, IB wants to nip that in the bud (if possible). Plus, given what I've seen on DeviantArt, if you allow people the unregulated ability to upload something made with low effort, they will clog the site with it. I can understand not wanting to burden the servers with pics that aren't what the site was made to host.
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
There's also furry artists that generate images based on other existing furry artists' work. But as long as they don't rip off specific characters or specific images it's allowed and AFAIK there's no AI out there that can do that unless the user puts in a lot of work to do so or possibly the image is something really famous like the Mona Lisa or American Gothic. The most an AI can do is rip off an artist's style, and merely having the same style as someone else isn't sufficient to violate IB's preexisting policy on derivative works.

EDIT:
Also, AI programs do not retain the images they were trained on in their code; that's a myth promulgated by people who don't understand the technology
AlexReynard
2 weeks, 1 day ago
>AFAIK there's no AI out there that can do that unless the user puts in a lot of work to do so or possibly the image is something really famous like the Mona Lisa or American Gothic.

On the other hand, I looked up posts marked with Stable Diffusion on here and saw one that looked a whole hell of a lot like SmudgeProof drew it. I don't know if that was intentional or unintentional. I'm inclined to lean to accidental. But it can happen.

>The most an AI can do is rip off an artist's style, and merely having the same style as someone else isn't sufficient to violate IB's preexisting policy on derivative works.

True. Still, AI is gonna get good very fast. I can absolutely see there being a problem eventually of, 'Why should I pay for art from this artist when I can generate exactly what I want in their style for free?' So InkBunny even beginning to address the topic now, rather than later, is smart. (As opposed to, oh I dunno... Banning cub porn after it's already been on the site for a decade *coughfuraffinitycough*)

>Also, AI programs do not retain the images they were trained on in their code; that's a myth promulgated by people who don't understand the technology


Good thing I hadn't heard that in the first place!
WhiteSky
2 weeks, 1 day ago
To 1), I assume in that sense it would just be tagged and described as using Stable Diffusion. There's a big list where you can add different models to Stable Diffusion, though it would still be Stable Diffusion regardless, I'd say.
AlexReynard
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Yeah, I'm hoping it'll be enough to just link the site and say, 'This one'.
Seth65
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I believe that clause is because programs like Stable Diffusion allow you to plug in different models for the AI to pull from. If you made something with Dall-E, that would be the generator and model. Similar if you were using Stable Diffusion with its default model. If you plugged in a model like WaifuDiffusion or something, that would need to be mentioned because it would affect the results. Models can have different versions of themselves as well (V1. V2.1, etc.), so ideally that too would be specified, when possible.

That's my assumption anyway.
AlexReynard
2 weeks ago
Okay, so, the reason I don't know the generator and model is that I've just been using the generic website version and seeing what it can spit out.
NeiNing
2 weeks, 1 day ago
This ai_art thing is completely new to me so I must ask few things: 1. Is other peoples' arts used in these arts? 2. If so doesn't it break some rules to post other person's arts (aka art thievery)? Like I said, I don't know much of this but what little I heard about Deviantart, they, at first, allowed everyone on their site to use other users' arts freely in their ai works until they changed this setting because users got so worried about art thievery, their works behind sold by ai artist etc. I just fear would it happen here too?
VarraTheVap
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Other peoples art is used extremely vaguely. From a numeric standpoint, it's just a couple bytes per training image - far too little information to reason that the original image is "in there".
Yes, something like the "getty images" watermark has been reproduced, but that's because there were many thousands of them in the training set.
DiogenesShandor
2 weeks, 1 day ago
" NeiNing wrote:
This ai_art thing is completely new to me so I must ask few things: 1. Is other peoples' arts used in these arts?



No, but some fearmongers like to make it sound like it was. The AI is programmed through a system that learns a little bit like a brain and needs to be shown examples in order to learn what things look like. The final trained AI does not actually contain these examples in its code nor does it reproduce them, but some people like to insinuate that showing a piece of art as an example constitutes use of that art. This is questionable at best and even if it were accepted it would still fall clearly under the umbrella of transformative use, which is considered fair use under United States copyright law
Malachyte
2 weeks, 1 day ago
It does use other people's work, yes. But the rules above are specifying that you have to use images you actually own or have permission to use unlike on Deviantart, so there's no need to worry here on Inkbunny at least.
NeiNing
2 weeks ago
Thank you so much for clearing that for me. It eases my emotions and worries some, but doesn't erase them completely.
Alfador
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Pretty reasonable going forward but you might want to be clearer on what the "Best Effort" requirements are for grandfathering in old pieces--many might not remember *any* of the old prompts for submissions weeks or months old, and even be fuzzy on what generator they used.
dmfalk
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I remember 20-30 years ago, about artwork that was electronically drawn/edited with the early art tools used in computers & tablets back then, and the whole furor that "this is not art" and "this should never be allowed!"..... Ah, all things are cyclical, innit? :D

I say you guys are on the right track in how to allow AI-based artwork.... It's just a damned tool, like anything else! :)

d.m.f.
Athari
2 weeks ago
I suspect it was worse when photography was invented. "Oh nooooo, art is dead!" And yet stupid realistic portrait somehow still remains the most popular real-media art genre in 2022.
dmfalk
2 weeks ago
Absolutely! :) Just another tool..... Of course, just before I was born (mid-1960s), there was the hue & cry over Andy Warhol's use of mimeography for his portraiture of a Campbell's soup can, Marilyn Monroe and Albert Einstein..... Yeah, damn technology getting in the way of art! :)

d.m.f.
VarraTheVap
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Thank you for approaching this in a fair way and not with the sledge hammer method.
nakiekitsunepuppy
2 weeks, 1 day ago
This is very reasonable.  There is an analogy to speedrunning video games, the tool assisted speedruns, known as TAS. If a run is tool assisted it should be marked as such to avoid confusion with normal speedruns.  They are valid speedruns, but a completely different style than normal speedrunning because of the "cheating" to make it perfect.  The same is true of AI generated art.  It is art, but it is important to let people know that a "cheating" method of drawing was used.  Also, having the tag is great because I can see that artwork.  I find it interesting.
Malachyte
2 weeks, 1 day ago
This seems very reasonable. I don't like AI as a tool, but I understand that it's not going away, so the next best thing is making guidelines that protect artists surrounding the tool's use. Thank you.
LPawz
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I'm fine with AI-generated images, and proper tagging is essential, but I have a major concern.
As an artist, I cannot compete with an AI that can generate 100 pictures in a few minutes, so the people who upload this will have a gallery with hundreds of pictures, earning views and being popular all the time, pushing the artists who handcraft their art to the bottom, making many of us feel bad. Imagine opening IB and seeing only AI images on the front page while someone had to spend hours and days to make a good drawing and try to be in frontpage but been displaced by an AI picture.

As previously stated, I am not opposed to it; it is a useful tool; I even have my own models in a local instance and enjoy playing with them; and so on. Because everything is organic and handmade, Inkbunny already works very well with popular/favorite systems. However, if you can upload 2-5 pictures per day, you can easily break this system.
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks ago
This is a real concern, and indeed it's possible for such artwork to quickly get in the popular section. I imagine that quite a lot of people who don't want to see it will block the 'ai_generated' keyword, and thus, it won't show up for them.

Additionally, there's the following rule, preventing users from creating too many such submissions:

* You may not upload more than six images with the same prompts in a single set
  (this means "be selective", not "make lots of submissions with the same prompts")


If it indeed becomes a real issue (which we don't anticipate, actually), and the popular section gets taken over by AI artwork, we might revise these rules, or implement a functionality that prevents more than a certain number (or all) of such submissions from being displayed in there.

Thank you for your feedback!
lizord
2 weeks, 1 day ago
The matter is amusing to me, as I've been coincidentally pondering the meaning of "art" this year.  I encourage the staff here to be wary of explicitly defining this term in public, because it might end up interfering with this lovely site's true purpose.  The answer I've come to so far would result in labelling many highly-admired furry products as "not art".  But I'm an individual with the responsibilities of a user, so I may make such declarations - the leadership of this site, though, I have higher expectations of, and I have been satisfied so far.

This is to say that I can go either way on it, but I expect consistency anywhere a line is drawn.  And that I appreciate the matter being taken seriously and aired publicly.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing how this plays out.  The final decision may reveal what this site truly means to you.
GreenPika
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Having watched similar technologies applied to music (my expertise and art form), I don't need to wait and see where AI generated art will go. I know where it's going. For anyone who's worked in the entertainment industry (art, music multimedia) it's well known how notoriously malevolent the industry is. They will use any means necessary to take from artists without pay or credit. AI art programs need to learn from real art and that's where the devil is. It is the beginning of big business monopolies acquiring independent artist's materials without consent or pay. That's where it's going.

I appreciate the balanced approach IB is taking to minimize the butthurt but since the mods asked, my opinion is: A straight up zero tolerance policy. No AI art or programs on inkbunny period. By the time it becomes apparent why AI art generators/learners are bad, most of you artists will have had at least some of your hard work discretely stolen. What's worse, there will likely be nothing you can do about it when you see YOUR art being reproduced/used without your permission.
HeroicOnes
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Wholly AI-generated content has swept the - as per usual largely un- or misinformed masses - a little to quickly to really do much more than wait and observe, so I am happy to see that the team is taking a fairly open-ended approach to this, essentially saying "here is where we stand, this is what we think is a good middle ground", with an asterisks for 'subject to change'; thank you for being reasonable like this!

I see many of the same arguments thrown around that we heard when digital art was on the rise and the traditional artist feared for their trade fading into obscurity... I believe once things have calmed a bit, all three forms will simply co-exist and/or merge, we already see this in AI-assisted works which have been around for much longer than NovelAI and co.'s dubious business model.

Personally, I am more amused by it than anything; as a musician, we've dealt with little revolutions like these a dozen times over, I remember when Bass players screamed mordio at Roland for the TB-303, just like Jazz Bassists feared the E-Bass before that lol
ModularDragon
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I personally think that the word "art" does not work for this fake. This is not art, there is nothing artistic in algorithms. This is an ART site, if people want to post here, they must therefore make their art themselves!
P.S. Though I like the requirement of using the AI_generated and AI_Assisted tags. This way I can add these to my blacklist and not see this disgrace anymore.
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks ago
Thank you for your feedback, and it's encouraged that you block any tags that you don't want to see art of.
In case the uploader doesn't tag their submission(s) properly, feel free to suggest tags, or reach out to us via a Support ticket, and let us know.
AddyShadows
2 weeks, 1 day ago
While I agree with some of these rules, for those of us who do this casually and don't really save seeds and shit: fuck me sideways then, a bunch of the AI art I have I don't have the seeds or prompts for anymore just off hand that I can pull out of my ass, I did it for fun, so I guess there goes the AI shit I did for fun.
JeffyCottonbun
2 weeks ago
If you still have the original files that were generated, you could try checking the EXIF data, as it may still be there. There are various EXIF viewers (even online ones) out there.
AddyShadows
2 weeks ago
I don't have the time to go through that many pics, I could easily put the PNG's into stable diffusion and get everything, the problem is time. Also i'm not sharing the exact combination required to get my OC lmao. I don't have a problem sharing ways to get things to appear, seeds, combinations, w/e. but the exact verbatim combination to generate my girl? Yeah no I'll pass. Also, for some reason, no one knows about the novelai leak, which is free, I use novelAI for most of my stuff, it's free, so that'll also be a hard no because it's just outright banned for no reason.

Tl:dr, The Inkbunny official stance on this is: "We banned AI stuff, but, we don't want it to look like we did."

Edit*: It was nice while one mostly free place lasted. . . Back to the dark ages I suppose. . .
raze2k4
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I have no intention of ever uploading anything here, but the 'the image description must contain all the prompts and seeds passed to the generator' rule is insane. I have generated works for derpibooru that in the process of making them involved over 1400 unique generations through the inpainting tool. Would such a work require all 1400 prompts and seeds?
Athari
2 weeks ago
Don't forget to also provide all 1400 input images, 1400 inpainting masks, all parameters and everything else. ðŸĪŠ
GreenReaper
2 weeks ago
It's the only way to be sure!

I don't know, I guess we could be reasonable and take ones which resulted in significant changes? You're the expert, how was the work achieved? That's kind of the goal here, to encourage knowledge transfer (just as the AI model encodes artistic knowledge).
BlyZeraz
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Really displeasing to hear that it won't be banned outright. There is absolutely 0 chance that tagging rules will be enough to properly let people avoid this. AI produced stuff is not art and countless people on here already don't so much as read or follow basic tag rules for SFW and NSFW content alike, so there's no chance as a user for us to fully blacklist this from our viewing experience.
GreenReaper
2 weeks ago
Banning it outright wouldn't achieve that, either. As you say, you'd get people who don't read the rules, and people who do but post it anyway - probably trying to hide its origins, and quite possibly succeeding in some cases. Conversely if it is legal to post, the majority will probably do so with the appropriate keywords, while others will have them suggested. And then the people who do want to see it get to as well.
Happysin
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Overall, the concept seems fine, but I can't imagine being able to track all the models and seeds, especially when there are a proliferation of services out there to help with the technical side so people can focus on end results.

For example, I've tried out Novelai.net, and I couldn't tell you what model I'm using when I drop stuff in there, and I mostly set things to random seed.  The only reason I would even know the prompt of any given image is because that gets saved on the file name.

Everything else seems reasonable, though.
GreenReaper
2 weeks ago
I guess that's another good reason not to allow NovelAI! When you are using the underlying tools, the parameters are likely to be more obvious (although many have noted that there are issues with monitoring all the iterations).
Happysin
2 weeks ago
Ok, but why should I have to use the underlying tools?  Things like this always go toward usability for broad audiences. Same way I could technically Photoshop to make a meme but there's also numerous easier services to make memes from.
DiogenesShandor
1 week, 6 days ago
On the flip side, I use non proprietary AI and the specific models I use are all custom retrained by me, so I don't know what would be achieved by listing them, especially since they all either have extremely vague names such as "(etcetcetc)xMetal60it565" or else are extremely long concatenations of abbreviations that even I've forgotten the meanings of.
DrHojo123
2 weeks, 1 day ago
I think AI gen art is fine and the rules are understand able (although I don't get why you can't use NovelAI or Midjourny just because it's paid part) however. I don't think AI will ever replace normal art as AI can never do everything perfect or as good as an artist.
KinoKinotsu
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Before I start, language nitpick: It is not Artificial Intelligence. It is not a thinking thing. It is Machine Learning. Which is more closely related to monkeys on typewriters, than it is to HAL 9000. This is important in the context of discussion, (AI brings forth wrong notions of what it actually does) but I guess the public will drive the language. *shrug* In any case, my actual post:

It feels like to me that this is approaching the topic from the wrong side of the conversation.

There are real legal concerns with machine learning (AI) generated works. Primarily: The training data for any model out there, is acquired and used without its creators consent. It doesn't matter if it's NovelAI or MidJourney or another model, they all use the same repositories of "public" data without informing anyone. NovelAI for reference is built on top of StableDiffusion, by dumping DanBooru on top of it.

Then there are the moral concerns, as they apply to any usage of a tool or process. Don't lie about how you made your works, don't use materials you don't have the right to, don't impersonate other artists. The mandatory inclusion of ai_generated and ai_assisted as a tag tackle this nicely. And banning the use of artists names in prompts is an okay moral stance to take. (Though, I would say, more of a placebo. It feels good, but does not address the legal issue.)


So far we are ignoring legality, and focusing on a reasonable moral stance within the context of ignoring the legality. I'm on board with that.

Then there are two points that irk me:

First, the mandatory inclusion of prompts and generation data: This is basically devaluating the work itself further. By explicitly mandating that the artist divulge all their techniques for the public if they want to share their work. A cynical interpretation could read it as "You may only upload your art if you tell us exactly what paints and brushes you used, and what music was playing in the background."

While making prompt data publicly available helps artists using ML make better stuff. It also means they will never be able to "compete" with each other. It is invalidating the skill that can and must be acquired to make quality works with these systems.

(I can already hear people say "it doesn't take skill bruh" but that is the same argument that painters made when photography came to be. They also made the theft and copying arguments a hundred years ago.)

I do think that disclosing the model hash is good and helps be honest, as per the morality thing. But then, why aren't we requiring people to mention they use X art software?

Second, the exclusion of walled garden models like NovelAI and Midjourney. This basically has two effects: You will almost never see high quality ML works, furthering the impression that it is not and can not be art. *shrug* (The quality of a model is entirely based on how much money was put in to make it. It's not feasible to train a good model for free.) *double shrug*

And, you are making a statement that, paying for your tools is not competitive, fair... I don't actually follow the implied reasoning. A cynical interpretation could read it as: "We don't think using high quality art supplies is fair to users working with less."

Photoshop includes many AI driven features, that it won't even tell you about. (Context Aware Fill as an example) Should photoshop be banned? What about SAIs automatic coloring tool? What about artists using AI denoising in Blender?

And now for some random thoughts, questions, and observations:

Not allowing commercial use of AI art in its current state is fair. See the Legal problem at the top.

At the same time, how do we define a work that is predominantly ai generated, versus ai assisted. It's a huge iffy gradient.

Automatic tagging: ML generators embeds exif data and a watermark in all images. Including the complete details on the prompts and model used. This can be used to automatically detect unedited ML works.

- Thanks!
Fens
2 weeks, 1 day ago
" KinoKinotsu wrote:
Second, the exclusion of walled garden models like NovelAI and Midjourney. This basically has two effects: You will almost never see high quality ML works, furthering the impression that it is not and can not be art. *shrug* (The quality of a model is entirely based on how much money was put in to make it. It's not feasible to train a good model for free.) *double shrug*

And, you are making a statement that, paying for your tools is not competitive, fair... I don't actually follow the implied reasoning. A cynical interpretation could read it as: "We don't think using high quality art supplies is fair to users working with less."
This is a very good point, and sums up a discomfort I hadn't completely nailed down.  Thank you.
Amaterasu
2 weeks ago
" KinoKinotsu wrote:


First, the mandatory inclusion of prompts and generation data: This is basically devaluating the work itself further. By explicitly mandating that the artist divulge all their techniques for the public if they want to share their work. A cynical interpretation could read it as "You may only upload your art if you tell us exactly what paints and brushes you used, and what music was playing in the background."

While making prompt data publicly available helps artists using ML make better stuff. It also means they will never be able to "compete" with each other. It is invalidating the skill that can and must be acquired to make quality works with these systems.


This doesn't make sense. Artist 1 can even tell Artist 2 what brushes paints and music they had playing when they made the art and artist 2 will still make a different piece of art. In AI generated art, I can come to the same exact image you did with the same data. these arent at all the same thing
KinoKinotsu
2 weeks ago
Replication has always been possible in any medium. We usually call them counterfeits in traditional media. It just happens to be easier here than in others.

My point is that: It should be up to artists to disclose their methodology regardless of the medium they use.

"We" the public, generally don't force artist to divulge their methods. Why do it now?
Amaterasu
2 weeks ago
Your point still makes no sense. Pick any picture in my gallery and I could make you a 20 hour video going over every detail I go through to make that picture, and you'll still make a different picture. Two "ai artists" entering the same data will get the same picture. You're trying to treat it like all an artist Is is the tools they use because you need that definition to be true to make "AI Artists" fit in that category.

In order to try and compare these two things you'd first need to make an argument that would actually put them on the same playing field.
KinoKinotsu
2 weeks ago
I could theoretically make an exact replica of any image, even without knowing the way the artist made it. It would simply take a while. Funnily though, I'd argue that it would take less time to make the replica. Because I can start right with the final image.

Regardless. This point is pretty moot.

My argument here is: There is no reason why an artist of any kind should be forced to divulge their methods.

It seems silly to force one group of people to release their psd files, and look at the other and be like "Nah, they put effort into making it." More so when I've spent more hours finetuning a prompt to make a single good image, than then still requires manual labor to make actually look release worthy, than I have making digital designs in photoshop.

Edit: Ultimately this is all moot. It is easy enough to make a modification to a ML model. And then anyone trying to use a prompt without that modification would not be able to replicate the result.
Amaterasu
2 weeks ago
Yeah and we can also theoretically create limitless energy by covering a blackhole with a mirror. theoretical has absolutely nothing to do with this topic so trying to pull that card just makes you seem like you're grasping for straws here. you yourself said it was moot so you're admitting you only brought it up to try and seem like you're further ahead of the argument than you really are.

People who generate art are not artists. you would not call someone who can run fast an athlete, you would not call someone who can hum a singer and you would not call someone who can write a poet.

For having to write down an entire prompt of an ai generated art, I agree its silly, unless the intent is to make the process so tedious people just rather not post it (in which case it sounds like its going to do its job pretty well) the problem I have is that the justification you've come up with for why its bad is because the image would lose value (the programmer who wrote the code for the program to even run deserves more credit than you) because the artists "secrets" have been given away when an actual artist can give away the whole game and still make a piece that's unique.

again you're minimalizing an artist to the tools they use because you HAVE to do that to include people who generate AI art into the fold.
KinoKinotsu
2 weeks ago
> People who generate art are not artists.

Our conversation stops there.

You're minimizing artist to mean "manual laborer that happens to make something you like to look at".
Amaterasu
2 weeks ago
See, you dont even know what you're talking about. you're leaving out musicians and chefs from a description YOU made to ascribe to me. youre also implying that anyone you personally dont like how or what they create is not an artist. you are not an ally, you just want  people wom make AI generated images to be the same as other artists and you dont care if you have to make everyone else small to do it.

Imagine if i got someone to make me a picture, i told them everything I wanted down down to a 2000 word essay and had it revised several times until it was to my liking and it took me several hours on my end reviewing revising and telling the other person any changes that should be made.

Am i the artist of that picture? If you say no, then what makes that scenario any different than AI generated art? the fact that its a machine creating the art and not a human? please elaborate on how those two things are different because you want so bad for people who make ai images to be considered artists but you wouldnt extend the same rules to commissioners.

youre makng some weird argument where you say I only consider things art if its "manual labor" while also trying to say that it requires hours of manual labor to get the right picture you want out of the seed. you cant have it both ways my friend
Athari
2 weeks ago
" People who generate art are not artists.

Photographers aren't artists. They're scammers. They must provide exact time and coordinates of every scam photo, exact technical details of their cheating cameras, and all dirty photo filters they applied.

If an admin takes a photo with the same parameters and doesn't get the same result, the photographer will be banned.
Amaterasu
2 weeks ago
" Amaterasu wrote:

Imagine if i got someone to make me a picture, i told them everything I wanted down down to a 2000 word essay and had it revised several times until it was to my liking and it took me several hours on my end reviewing revising and telling the other person any changes that should be made.

Am i the artist of that picture? If you say no, then what makes that scenario any different than AI generated art? the fact that its a machine creating the art and not a human? please elaborate on how those two things are different because you want so bad for people who make ai images to be considered artists but you wouldnt extend the same rules to commissioners.


Athari
2 weeks ago
I certainly consider some of commissioners collaborators in the creative process. Furthermore, some artists who can draw well lack imagination, so only commissions are worth any attention.

Is a comic script writer a comic artist? No. But they're an essential part of the creative process and can't be removed. A comic is a collaborative work in this case.

Same with relying on ML tools to achieve the wanted result. If it isn't a "draw me a pretty picture", but a multi-step generation with base composition, multiple detailed prompts, inpainting and outpainting steps etc., I don't see why the "commissioner" shouldn't be considered a creator.
Amaterasu
2 weeks ago