Seeing AI pokemon porn in the popular list of IB by AsbieArts < Journal

36 Comments on this Journal

Leave a Comment...

JaredTheBunnyBoy

1 year, 3 months ago

link

Damn 💀

PoorSal

1 year, 3 months ago

link

I saw twelve posts by the same AI prompter on popular once. When will those calling the shots around here finally see this stuff as the spam that it is?

AsbieArts

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ PoorSal

IB has rules towards AI, tho the only right way to deal with it is forbiding it in absolutely every possible way.

PoorSal

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ AsbieArts

100% could not agree more! This place is for sharing art, not "content".

VarraTheVap

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ PoorSal

How is it spam if people literally click it willingly, thus making it popular?
Spam is normally something unwanted by the recepient and the receipient are all watchers...

PoorSal

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ VarraTheVap

I'm sure plenty of people click on spam emails, but that doesn't make them "popular." I know there are quite a few people on this website that accept the presence of AI generated imagery here. That isn't really the point I'm trying to make. This website exists for people to share their creations. AI images should not be allowed because it has no creator. Prompters are not artists; they are instruction givers. If anything, they are commissioners of AI generators.

That brings me to the point I am trying to make. When an AI image gets onto popular, it takes the place of a piece of art that could have been there instead. If 5% of the popular page is held by the same prompter, than that obscures artists that could have benefitted greatly from getting their work featured on the front page. Possibly even a financial benefit. What is there instead is nothing content that has no thought, reason, or curiosity. It already isn't art, but even if a person made it, it would still be bad. The amount of work needed to instruct a generator to the point that it would be art is just as large as if it would be if you were to actually make it digitally. Requesting changes down to the fingernails sounds tedious as hell. I doubt anyone will ever get to that level.

AI should help automate long, tedious tasks that benefit humanity, like mapping genomes and sorting data. In art, it should be used to create things like more realistic particle effects and nonrepeating textures. Things that are impossible or timely for people to do. I personally would love to see art websites create an AI driven database that recommends tags on a given piece. It should not, however, be used to replace the work of artists. These are jobs that people desperately want to have.

TLDR; It is spam because the output volume is high, so it greatly decreases the chance of an artists work being seen. Just as a flurry of spam emails might obscure important ones.

VarraTheVap

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ PoorSal

"I'm sure plenty of people click on spam emails, but that doesn't make them "popular."" but they are not gonna also fave the spam mails then, lol.
AI generations are just a new form of content. It can coexist with "regular" art and will not go away (even if IB were to ban it).
Also please do not throw everyone into a pot. A fair share of the AI generations here are done with a lot on inpainting or even manually edited. There is human effort involved an thus a form of artistic skill required.

PoorSal

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ VarraTheVap

Sorry if what I said made you think I was trying to draw to big of a net. There are many different kinds of people using AI. But, from everything I have read, heard, and even seen about AI images, there is only so much that you can do to make the art your own. When you get down to the root of everything, that base isn't the work of the prompter. It is just what the AI "thinks" what you are asking about looks like based on the work that it stole from artists. Many will point out how artists look to others for interpretation, but it is not the same at all. I know what an arm looks like. I know what a flower looks like. An AI does not know what either of these looks like, it is only performs what it believes the average of what a flower looks like. No matter what idea you give the AI or what you change about it, the image will not be yours. It does not speak for you. Only you can speak for you.

I'm incredibly afraid that younger potential artists will not see this. They will only see lackluster results spread like a disease across the internet and wonder why they aren't as good as the drawing that Asbie is talking about in this journal. It does not matter that the Lucario in question has a gross blob hand. It removes incentive to get better when you can just have something else do the work for you and you can call that work your own. It removes humanity, creativity, and evolution from the process. Art will become stagnant and shit. All will become content and no one will be passionate about anything.

I think everyone should be given time to make something. AI isn't doing that, instead it is freeing up our creativity time to do more work. I think it is disgusting.

VarraTheVap

1 year, 3 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 3 months ago by Owner

@ PoorSal

You have chosen a throughly negative interpretation of all this if you ask me.
Whether the generated art piece can ever be "yours" or not is purely an opinion. I shall leave you your opinion though.
Personally I see a future where both will coexist, having their usecase and especially the young potential artists will feel encouraged because it's easier to get to solid results.
If prompting art is actually similar to commissioning art (like I do for a decade), People who use AI are certainly not less passionate either.

PoorSal

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ VarraTheVap

If you mean legal ownership, then yes, it is an opinion. An opinion that the law will decide. Probably sooner than you and I think. If it is ownership, as in "I made this", than, no, I don't think it is an opinion. Unless we are redefining authorship, being a collaborator is as good as it gets. I will never see AI as giving a "solid result" because, as an artist, I could never get what I truly want out of those machines. It would never be a reflection of who I am.

Think of the people you commission. That probably allows them to eat. It helps them greatly. How does taking that commission and typing it into a generator improve anyone's lives? AI imagery threatens a lot of peoples ability to make a living off their art because it increases supply and lowers prices.

GreenReaper

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ PoorSal

I'm sure plenty of people click on spam emails, but that doesn't make them "popular." I know there are quite a few people on this website that accept the presence of AI generated imagery here. […] It is spam because the output volume is high, so it greatly decreases the chance of an artists work being seen. Just as a flurry of spam emails might obscure important ones.

You're looking at this from an artist's perspective, which is understandable. But Popular is first and foremost designed to give consumers what they want; a way to get them to stick around with some "known good" content. Featured artists are already likely to be doing better than average due to the work needed to get that many members' views within three days.

We looked at +fav/view ratios rather than views when considering whether to keep AI art. They were not low, as you might expect for spam. If anything, they may have been higher than average, probably reflecting an enhanced level of rendering. This suggested AI could give consumers what they wanted, and thus was suitable to retain, within limits designed to address particular pain points - like volume, emulating recently-deceased artists, or supporting subscription-funded sites.

"	This website exists for people to share their creations. AI images should not be allowed because it has no creator. Prompters are not artists; they are instruction givers. If anything, they are commissioners of AI generators.

Per English law, under which Inkbunny primarily operates, the person who caused a computer-generated image to be rendered is considered its creator and obtains copyright in it for 50 years. There is an argument that the designers of the AI tool contributed, but overall I suspect this would be considered a piece of technical equipment, like a camera. The director determines the final output.

When an AI image gets onto popular, it takes the place of a piece of art that could have been there instead. If 5% of the popular page is held by the same prompter, than that obscures artists that could have benefitted greatly from getting their work featured on the front page. Possibly even a financial benefit. What is there instead is nothing content that has no thought, reason, or curiosity. It already isn't art, but even if a person made it, it would still be bad. […] AI should help automate long, tedious tasks that benefit humanity […] It should not, however, be used to replace the work of artists. These are jobs that people desperately want to have.

To be blunt, furry fandom is not a jobs program. "Helping furry artists [make money]" is one of Inkbunny goals, but in the context of supporting the whole furry community. It's a means to an end: professional artists can work on bigger projects, like long-term comics. AI reduces the cost of rendering ideas, while lowering barriers to entry - thus it benefits humanity and furry fandom overall, if not all artists.

As mentioned in the ToS, artists control their own galleries. Other people's are outside their control. Censorship elsewhere has become one of the major reasons for artists to come to Inkbunny. It is disappointing to see the same artists turn around and say "I wanted freedom to post stuff I like, that benefits me; not for everyone to do so".

"	The amount of work needed to instruct a generator to the point that it would be art is just as large as if it would be if you were to actually make it digitally. Requesting changes down to the fingernails sounds tedious as hell. I doubt anyone will ever get to that level.

Some absolutely do put in that level of effort and this is one of the differences between "good enough" and work that stands out. As there is no back-and-forth between commissioner and artist, tweaks can be made at a stream-like rate. Of course, if the topic is appealing, people may be willing to overlook imperfections, but this has always been the case.

RIPInkbunny

1 year, 3 months ago

link

Yup, just how it is. It frustrates me like it would with any other artist but, luckily, just like any fad, it'll fad away in a year or two just like NFTs did.

AsbieArts

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ RIPInkbunny

Can't die soon enough. NFS were gross but this is just straight up theft and a real risk to artists.

RIPInkbunny

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ AsbieArts

Yeah, I wish it would die faster as well. It's probably one of the main de-motivators for me at the moment.

WhiteSky

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ RIPInkbunny

I've heard that AI art will eventually just learn from images of the ones they created. Like AI inbreeding, which might eventually lead to bad outputs. Then it might fade away.

Lurdanjo

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ RIPInkbunny

NFTs were always terrible and had zero benefit to anybody and most people realized there was nothing of value to be had with them. Arguably there are many benefits to modern AI that I don't think are going to go away. That being said, I believe we've hit a bit of a plateau in the tech and I'm not sure how viable it's going to be in the future.

TalentlessHack

1 year, 3 months ago

link

I can't find the AI art?

AsbieArts

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ TalentlessHack

https://inkbunny.net/s/3205614?override=true :s

TalentlessHack

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ AsbieArts

Oh I’m blacklisting the tags that’s why I cannot see

Linker

1 year, 3 months ago

link

I just blacklist AI tags. tho its annoying when someone spells it slightly different.

AsbieArts

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ Linker

Doesn't change the fact that that garbage is allowed in the site.

But yeah I added a tag or two to hide it from now on

SomebodyDontAskWho

1 year, 3 months ago

link

AI art is crap. It misses one important thing ._.

FestivalGrey

1 year, 3 months ago

link

Couldn't agree more. AI "art" isn't art, it steals attention and labor from actual artists, and IB allowing it at all is scummy. Sigh...

AsbieArts

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ FestivalGrey

For all the bad things FA has done, fully banning anything involving AI is among the one I can give them the most praise for.

Hoping IB reconsiders.

RunawayDanish

1 year, 3 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 3 months ago by Owner

Hey Asbie, long time no speak!

I'm investigating this as a larger topic, but on the IB and posting front, I definitely cannot agree more on the need to prune Machine Generated images from art spaces. Unlike the arguments that exist normally (unethical sampling, unfair competition, extreme volume, uncanny valley, etc) I think the most compelling right now is that the best choices for generating porn have an algorithmic training base probably compromised by illegal images.

Stanford released a finding, you can read a larger summary of the topic over on Ars Technica (link) but I really encourage you have at the report itself and just take a look at some of the data summaries and scan down to page 10 of the PDF to see the distribution map of the sample data. Furry spaces, right now, are largely clear of illegal content (the blue dots are all illustrations rated at a certain level of NSFW) and if anyone in IB's staff reads this, I recommend reversing the course of action immediately and banning all Machine Generated imagery.

If the database for Stable Diffusion is anything to go off-of, model plug-ins like YiffyMix and other fixing tech like LORA's will be generating images with spiked punch that algorithmically was trained by real life harm inducing illegal content. It isn't even the Anime people's fault, it's regular creeps the FBI (and other agencies internationally) are hunting who have been spotted having image/video content (some of which, detected for the first time ever) that documents sexual abuse of minors. If people were willing to cross the line on the ethics of scraping data without consent before, I would hope many of them would find this distressing enough to swear off the technology entirely.

This could have serious implications for the internet in general, it's bad enough with organizations like Furaffinity changing the rulebook without clear rules so-as to eject people for any reason. The possibility that the EU or US government regulatory agencies might see this as a chance to crush sites hosting any Machine Generated Images is real. The findings in that report are only for Stable Diffusion, and many observers independently document similar phenomena within results and training data queried for other databanks that other systems use. This is the tip of the iceberg.

AsbieArts

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ RunawayDanish

I just want anything involving AI and artwork to fucking die in a pit fire and stay dead forever.

I've always had a distaste for AI bros and their NFT bullshit, and would just laugh at them getting scammed, but this issue is a threat to the art business as a whole, and while I don't expect the fandom to sway towards AI garbage vs commissioning us artists, it remains a threat nonetheless, an insult to our work and effort, and I just fucking hate the people who use it.

Just want this shit dead, want it expunged from any site meant for art & work sharing, it has no room, it just can't coexist.

RunawayDanish

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ AsbieArts

It's a strong mood. The technology is an issue for a lot of labor markets and none are impacted quite as disproportionately as the arts. Writing, Music, Videography, Photography, Illustration -- all of them were readily pillaged for mathematical algorithm training without consent or even as much as a warning.

People in that space are not swayed by the ethics of effectively mass-copying the data for analysis, and I worry that even in finding that training data also scooped up illegal content and used it without checking to build those models will not change the paradigm. It's distressing because the idea of Authorship, Intent, and the labor inherent to developing the skills to create anything are being devalued even worse than before in the professional scene.

The small victories of making the works that are "purely generated" non-copyrightable only goes so far. I think even more troubling is that the tech isn't going anywhere, because the militaries of the world are trying to find applications for it. That to me is just an extra layer of dystopic nightmare. At the minimum, I wouldn't want the content on my website because it's just so skeevy and untrustworthy.

GreenReaper

1 year, 3 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 3 months ago by Owner

@ RunawayDanish

I read the paper. But I'm not convinced that "input data might include CSEM" (roughly 1,000-3,000 images out of ~5,000,000,000) leads to "models are illegal", let alone "output is illegal". I wouldn't be surprised if some artists looked at illegal content as well; what matters is what they do with that.

As for "IB might be taken down" - we've been contacted maybe two or three times about content by various hosts in fourteen years, and they don't actually look at the content in question, they just pass on reports they've been given. And it's never anything that's actually illegal, it's just cub.

What is illegal here is a 'person' [by which they mean a legal person - a human - or those close enough to be deemed one] under 18 depicted in certain ways. Those situations are covered by our policy on human characters. So it doesn't matter what creates it, it's not allowed on Inkbunny. We also don't host training data, software, models or LoRAs; we just require documentation of the latter.

Incidentally, I was disappointed by the way researchers echoed legislators in conflating photography and drawings, resulting in laws like the one above:

"	...significant amounts of illustrated cartoons depicting CSAM appear to be present in the dataset, but none of these resulted in PhotoDNA matches.

The reason for that is that one does not "depict CSAM". Either it is or it isn't. A cartoon is not the same as a photograph because the characters depicted need never have existed - undermining the purported point of tools and legislation which is to protect the safety and dignity of actual children.

The "small victory" you mention doesn't apply in our jurisdiction; rather, copyright in computer-generated work is granted for 50 years from creation to whoever caused the work to be created. (The consultation mentioned resulted in no changes to this aspect.)

RunawayDanish

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

Ah pardon me, I did not say the models are illegal; rather they are trained on content documenting actual and legally significant abuse. The authors of the article make an interesting mess about of their distinction between illustration and CSAM/CSEM, their data-cleaning systems rely on documented real persons (EG, photoDNA) and a degree of catalogue matching. Repeat instances of certain images was present if you read closely.

The database of 5 Billion was also cleaned to a 'maximum unsafe' rating, resulting in their sample size being about 32,000 images. The detection ratio of CSAM/CSEM to the total sample size is much more significant, but their writing lead and editor need to be taught how to organize methods better (it's quite sloppily laid out).

The purpose for the recommendation is based on both the ethics of the situation at large, and the risk that automated tools could be employed to hunt for data signatures or generations that share features with that CSAM/CSEM which could be present. This is what the Spiked Punch analogy refers to, the risk of actual legal consequences for hosting generations which may contain meta-data identifiable by automated web-crawling content ID systems. Having at-risk content hosted in large volumes within IB is what I'd find concerning here from this hypothetical attack angle.

No one is going to really react to this kind of news until it hits their website of choice, so ultimately it's semantics until such a time as consequences (if any) start rolling out. I'm not willing to let automated systems rationalize mass deplatforming of art communities out over machine generated images, the trade off isn't worth it.

MoxSully

1 year, 3 months ago

link

Jesus fucking christ

AsbieArts

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ MoxSully

IB has a lot of good things, but they're really making a big oopsie with this one.

Fucking furaffinity, of all places, bans that shit. IB needs to do better.

MoxSully

1 year, 3 months ago

link

@ AsbieArts

Seriously. What a shitshow

SomebodyDontAskWho

1 year, 3 months ago

link

Speaking of AI art, I remember when I asked for suggestions who draws requests (since my friend had some financial issues) in one group chat and they sent me a link to AI art generator and that same person said that it draws billion times better than some artist ._.

Lurdanjo

1 year, 3 months ago

link

AI never gets close enough to giving me exactly what I want anyway, so I use it more for quick and dirty concept work or just fun little ideas that I wouldn't normally commission anyone for. My tastes are very niche so it's very hard to find content at all that tailors to my fetishes. That being said, I would never post AI renders (I don't call it "art") to a gallery and act like I made it. I like to take renders to real artists and have them actually bring my ideas to life, at least the artists who can understand my kinks.

Playing devil's advocate, prompt engineering is not necessarily easy. To get really good results you have to know how to finagle everything. But yeah, that doesn't mean someone has "made" that "art".

ShimmeringSpectrum

1 year, 3 months ago

link

Agreed. To me, "AI artwork" is just a euphemism for procedurally generated copyright infringement. Most (if not all) the current models were trained on data that was used without permission nor even credit to the artists whose work was used.

Even if those ethical issues were resolved, there's just something about art created by a person that machine learning can't match. There are lots of subtle details that elevate a good picture into a great piece of artwork.

foxhound2000

2 months, 4 weeks ago

link

I can understand this sentiment. Also, feels like it will probably get more and more difficult to distinguish AI art from original art as AI improves.

New Comment:

Move reply box to top ↑

Viewed:	271 times
Added:	1 year, 3 months ago 23 Dec 2023 05:59 CET

Inkbunny

Seeing AI pokemon porn in the popular list of IB

Help

Information

Policy & Legal