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

Some good news, and some bad news

by
The good news is that we hit 700 watches! Many people have shown appreciation for my creations, and it means a lot that I'm able to make something people like so much.

The bad news, is that we lost another fellow AI director. The hateful masses of Inkbunny that HATE AI art had ganged up on him and got his account deleted.

I can't believe how pissed off I am about it because Inkbunny is shamefully violating their core philosophy and letting their personal bias influence their actions and letting their integrity be eroded by these shitbags.

It says they value "artistic freedom above all else", unless you make AI, then here's all these rules of what you can and can't do.

It says "Don't worry too much about piracy. Yes, you just read that in the rules on a commercial art site. We're here to do things differently for a change!" unless you want to harmlessly make AI for your own personal interests and have ZERO shown interest in monetizing your works or stealing other people's fame. AI generation isn't stealing, at BEST it's a "Fan Art Simulator" AND this rule existed LONG BEFORE AI art generation was even a concept.

It says not to bully other people, yet some of these "normal" artists have filed over 100 tickets against AI artists for the things they make, and then the admins ban people without warning. This also violates their other principle of "Deal with it yourself" by just adding those tags on your blacklist and NOT bothering the admins about your petty problems.

And one of the rules regarding posting AI is that you can't use the works of artists that are living or haven't been deceased for less than 25 years. This rule is actually the most bullshit of all, and here's why. The OVERWHELMINGLY VAST MAJORITY of furry art in general is less than 25 years old, let alone there's any reason to think that artists would have been deceased for longer. On top of that, these AI furry models are ALL based on art that was interpreted from e621, from LIVING artists. Even if you don't use artist's styles directly, EVERYTHING GENERATED still uses mathematical data used from current artists. ON TOP OF THAT.... the expectation that ANYONE is supposed to know actual, real life, personally identifiable information about anonymous artists in order to determine whether or not they're alive is practically an IMPOSSIBLE ask!

All this is, is a GIANT FUCKING BUREAUCRATIC LOOPHOLE for them to save fucking face that says "UwU, we support ALL forms of artistic expression <3....... EXCEPT THAT."

Meanwhile, a whole REALM of people that didn't have time, money, resources, or intrinsic talent, for the first time in their ENTIRE lives, had the ability to make art, and experience that joy and passion for it. And what are they met with?

A whole community of people that have endowed themselves with the indignant "right" to squash that passion into the dirt by telling them what, how, when, and where they're "allowed" to make?! Backed by the ONLY place that "accepts" AI art + furry art + unique fantasies and kinks, all of which are banned from the vast majority of almost EVERY other art based hosting site, and a site that "supports artistic freedom" and "does not tolerate bullies" and now THEY have given into the demands of the bullies, and outright BAN people who participate even remotely outside of the realm of their tightly constricted noose of fucking "artistic freedom," intentionally or ignorantly.

Absolutely shameful. All of you act like AI art is destroying artistic freedoms, when it's really YOU who are destroying artistic freedoms just because a TOOL "could" be used to do harm, which is in fact ALL of the same harm that ANYONE CAN, AND DOES, CURRENTLY DO in the artistic space, and you shame, exile, and forcibly oppress anyone that uses that tool, negatively or not.

You have destroyed the hearts of people who found passion in art for the first time in their lives, destroyed the hearts of people who had NO negative intentions, you have effectively KILLED their passion and spirit for art that just BARELY began to grow and the desire to show it off, you have violated what this community "supposedly" stands for, you have given into mob rule to violate said integrities, or you have let your personal bias towards the tool and medium of AI art generation abuse your power and trump the integrities of the site and the position YOU'RE supposed to uphold, and you have allowed bullies to continuously do the same, no only without reprimand, but have also JOINED IN WITH THEM and ban people's accounts without warning while tying a tightly bound leash around their necks of what they're "allowed" to make.

The ONLY place we had to go, the place that accepts EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING, and you have turned your back on them too. Disgusting.
Viewed: 189 times
Added: 9 months, 2 weeks ago
 
AngelF
9 months, 2 weeks ago
The common artist won’t be replaced by AI.  They will be replaced by other artists who know how to utilise AI.  What these repressive types don’t understand is that AI is as inevitable as a pressure sensitive stylus on a tablet.  It’s a new tool that everyone will be using to speed up art creation and to improve the final product for both amateur commissions and commercial operations.  As is always the case, there are those who can see the future and those who scream at the moon.
VenisonCreamPie
9 months, 2 weeks ago
You might have clung onto the negative a bit too deeply 😅 well said nonetheless.. just.. maybe leas anger maybe?~<3 We must learn to coexist ^w^
Sponch
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Haha, 😅, youre right. I started off ok, and then got pissed. I just hate seeing people's motivations crushed, especially when most AI users are just beginning artists who ha e found the passion of art for the first time, only to be treated like some kind of criminal about it. Plus, seeing a place that supposedly hold high values about artistic freedom just completely violate and ignore that to align with those people, its disheartening.
parszuki
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Their crushing power is only as strong as you let them! Be like grass in the wind, not a stiff tree that will eventually break. Please, instead of spending time writing this type of texts, spend it on creating graphics - you won't beat "concrete", you won't convince them with arguments. You touched on their "exclusivity" and that's why they're pissed. Time will decide this - but we don't know which way. We'll live to see - we'll see...

It's really a waste of your nerves and time. Still do your thing - just wisely and carefully.


(hugs from an anonymous fox:)
Sponch
9 months, 2 weeks ago
You said the words that I needed to hear most, thanks. I have a compulsive habit to fight against people that have oppressive attitudes to people around them, especially when it's treating innocent people as though they're evil. It's a waste of time to fight people that center their beliefs on emotions and not logic.
parszuki
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Well, that's what I sensed, I'm a 'fighting fox', very sensitive to injustice. Sometimes I have to restrain myself so as not to waste energy on convincing people who are resistant to arguments anyway.
I was able to write here on IB, comments of 2 x 4000 characters to express my opinion in depth, although on a slightly different topic:)

I call it. You can't spin a ball because someone thinks the earth is flat.
IcyButt
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Please, don't be angry. I fucked up. I broke the rules, so I have to suffer the consequences. I cried enough yesterday, and reading all those comments and journals people wrote, when I woke up, made me cry even more today. Please, just have fun and smile. Don't be angry ;_;
Sponch
9 months, 2 weeks ago
You may have broken their rules, but you didnt DO anything wrong. The rules are unfair and not understanding of how AI generation tools actually work, and have unrealistic expectations of compliance. ALL of that boils down to a violation of supporting artistic freedom.

You werent hurting ANYONE, and now theyve hurt you, crushed your spirit, and made you feel horrible about simply wanting to create art. Theyve robbed you of your artistic spirit and nothing in this world pisses me off than people who gatekeep creative expression.

Just because something is a rule, doesnt mean that its fair.
IcyButt
9 months, 2 weeks ago
*sighs* Beautiful words, but they won't change anything now. The mods has made their decission. They even replied in my journal.
RunicMyth
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Do you have your stuff posted anywhere else?

I hadn't found you yet, but I'd like to see it.
IcyButt
9 months, 2 weeks ago
No. This was the only place I could post my stuff.
RunicMyth
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Well, let us know if you post anywhere else. Furbooru or something. IB is far from the only site out there. ^.^
IcyButt
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Furbooru forbids cub.
AerinPierce
9 months, 2 weeks ago
The thing that bothers me is depending on the bot you use it will add certain descriptors to it  to try and generate better images so even if your doing the right thing trying to not use stuff like that you could still end up with a picture thats prompt reads with some of the forbidden text.
Hornybunny
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Even if something else is added. It's easy to remove the Metadata that shows the generation information. When I upscale my stuff it create a whole new file, so if I don't add prompts to ot it will show no prompt information. Just saving as a different format will remove it, so no one would know what was used to generate the picture than just forget to add the prompts that aren't allowed. It's a pretty scummy thing to do.
Sponch
9 months, 2 weeks ago
But if you go through numerous iterations of inpainting, img2img generation, and post editing through Photoshop, Photopea, or Krita, you can't carry all that image data with the image the whole time based on the original prompt.

It's not some form of intentional maliciousness like so many people are trying to act like AI generators do, it's just an outcome of the process. People have created a bias that AI generation is an evil tool that's only used to steal and that anyone using it also shares those evil traits, but in reality, that's both WILDLY not true, and even though there's POTENTIAL to do these evil things with these tools, it's no different than anything anyone can currently do with traditional mediums to steal and falsely profit off of other people's works.

The medium isn't evil, the people that use the medium aren't inherently evil either by proxy. It's the evil people choosing to do evil shit that's the problem. A murderer is gonna use a hammer if they can't find a knife. Just because a image file doesn't contain generation data, doesn't mean that someone is nefariously "trying to hide it."
Sponch
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Not accusing you specifically of anything BTW. I'm just tired of the rhetoric of people who don't understand how these technologies work accusing innocent people of nefarious acts, when that's not even remotely the case. Also not accusing you of not knowing how the tech works, I know you make AI too.
Kadm
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Having more people strip information and intentionally deceive us would be a great way to simply get AI works banned completely. If we cannot trust users to supply accurate information and abide by the rules, and more importantly, to not lie to us, then they cannot be trusted to make submissions at all.

The tone of this journal rails against people reporting rule violations, acting as if people that don't follow the rules are victims of something. But we don't ban people and remove their submission ability for warnings normally. We tell people how to fix the problems with their submissions, and tell them to read the policy and abide by it, citing the areas that they failed to comply with. But people that choose to take people in the community warning them that they're doing something wrong, blocking those people, deleting their comments, and trying to cover up the violations, that's just flat out lying to us. An immediate loss of submission ability.

If as the journal implies, we're some sort of safe haven for this content, the only place you can turn, then you should bend over backwards to comply with the requirements that we've laid out, not sit here, lie to us, abuse our tolerance, and make us question whether we ever should have extended it in the first place.
Sponch
9 months, 2 weeks ago
I don't think you're understanding the concern about the people going to the lengths they do to file the complaints. I'd be willing to say that the majority of complaints about the rules are only geared towards AI users, rules that were just missed out of ignorance and not ignored through maliciousness, and most specifically, spearheaded by people that hate AI generations using every pedantic tool they can to make us not feel welcome. Technically yes, they're in the right based on rules, but the motivations are centered around driving us out in any way they can, in a way that AI generators would never do to them.

"Bend over backwards to comply" is the kind of language my concerns keep trying to address, and my frustrations keep boiling over with. Other artists who use other mediums aren't bound by that kind of restrictive attitude, the community doesn't overtly scan and pedantically scrutinize your every move with traditional artists, nor does anyone who uses AI care to act like that to traditional artists. It's clearly not welcome here, we're clearly not welcome here, and clearly not supported by the same ethical morals and values of "artistic freedom" listed in the Inkbunny philosophy. Even though this is supposed to be a safe haven for all artistic expression, a lot of the community constantly cares to remind us that it's not, and no one seems to understand or care how that's problematic.

The rules themselves aren't even the major issue here, those are mostly understandable and reasonable. It's the underlying attitude of the community and it's hostility. There's an underlying fear that just because the tool "could" be directly used for nefarious means, that it's some kind of evil creation. This fear then gets imparted onto the people that use the tool, transferring into hate and prejudice against them as a whole too.

Even your own reply contains that imparted attitude. That just because someone "could" use the tool to intentionally remove prompt data to be dishonest, now you're assuming that the totality of AI generators are lying to you, shouldn't be trusted, and their art shouldn't be welcome here.

For people on that end of the spectrum, they see AI art generation as a direct attack on the art community as a whole, they see it as stealing and lacking any effort or skill, and they see people that are fine with using the medium and it's tools as people who are evil, selfish, lie, cheat, and steal.

For people on the other end of the spectrum, they see it as the first time they've had access to the resources and ability to make art. Most don't have the tools, time, or intrinsic talent needed to make traditional art. They've finally found the joy and passion that can come from art and their ability to participate, but they're immediately met with hatred, prejudice, distrust, every effort to scrutinize their creations, every effort to push them out the door, and people constantly talking down to them.

These people are having their spirits crushed, made to feel guilty for wanting to express themselves, and end up giving up art when they just started, simply because most on the other side don't even truly understand how the technology works or what it's actually doing. These people don't want to exploit, or steal, or monetize, or profit in any way, they just want to create and show off those creations. There's no intent for maliciousness, but they're being held to the standard that there is, just because the tool "could" be used that way.

It's sad and angering to see, and honestly I get too worked up about it. I apologize that I get angry about it when I'm not able to restrain my frustrations on the matter. I love all forms of creative expression, and I support all forms and all people trying to express that desire to get something out. What I can't stand is not only a lack of desire to nurture that growth it's new forms, but people specifically going out of their way to destroy that spirit.
Kadm
9 months, 2 weeks ago
" I don't think you're understanding the concern about the people going to the lengths they do to file the complaints. I'd be willing to say that the majority of complaints about the rules are only geared towards AI users, rules that were just missed out of ignorance and not ignored through maliciousness, and most specifically, spearheaded by people that hate AI generations using every pedantic tool they can to make us not feel welcome. Technically yes, they're in the right based on rules, but the motivations are centered around driving us out in any way they can, in a way that AI generators would never do to them.


The motivations don't matter. Did something break the rules? Then it's a perfectly valid report and we handle it. We won't inject the reporters feelings into the handling on an issue. If there's a violation, we handle it. It's not even that much effort to copy a link, go down to Support Tickets, and create a new one. There are so many examples of people posting works with artists used in the prompts that it's resulting in serious conversation about it constantly. If a user is told "this is against the rules" by other users, and the action they take is to try (and fail) to remove the evidence, rather than removing the work that doesn't comply, they have done something even more wrong than just being mistaken. They are intentionally deceiving us. That's why we are banning or removing submission permissions from users that do this. If you simply had artists in the prompts and we catch it, we warn you, remove the impacted works, and you can continue on. Follow the rules. Remove submissions that violate the rules when informed.

" "Bend over backwards to comply" is the kind of language my concerns keep trying to address, and my frustrations keep boiling over with. Other artists who use other mediums aren't bound by that kind of restrictive attitude, the community doesn't overtly scan and pedantically scrutinize your every move with traditional artists, nor does anyone who uses AI care to act like that to traditional artists. It's clearly not welcome here, we're clearly not welcome here, and clearly not supported by the same ethical morals and values of "artistic freedom" listed in the Inkbunny philosophy. Even though this is supposed to be a safe haven for all artistic expression, a lot of the community constantly cares to remind us that it's not, and no one seems to understand or care how that's problematic.


This is just empty conjecture on your part, not knowing anything about Inkbunny or it's history. There have been traditional artists who have been banned from Inkbunny or had their ability to submit works restricted because they could not comply with the rest of our rules. Most specifically the guidelines regarding humans in works results in a huge amount of warnings and notices. Prior to the introduction of AI, it was probably the highest generator of tickets. I think you'd find your welcome a lot warmer if you didn't rail against our requirements and simply followed them.

" Even your own reply contains that imparted attitude. That just because someone "could" use the tool to intentionally remove prompt data to be dishonest, now you're assuming that the totality of AI generators are lying to you, shouldn't be trusted, and their art shouldn't be welcome here.


If there comes a point that there's no way to sort the good actors from the bad actors, what course of action do we take? We're not compromising on the requirements we've already laid out. These were the minimum to allow this medium to exist on Inkbunny. This is what we, the people that run Inkbunny decided. It's our platform. If anything, as I said before I could see a world in which we impose further restrictions. We expect that people submitting AI works will give something back, in the form of technical information and reproducibility.
AIFluffyMatrix
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Let me start off by saying I agree fully with the rules as they've been laid out, and they are most certainly not unreasonable as far as I'm concerned. I can only assume that AI has become the major headache dossier for the mods which is why it's good to at least have discussions about it. Not only internally with the rest of the mods, but with the AI directors as well. The main issue I'm concerned by, and I know a few other folks as well, is the result of the process. I've stated pretty much in all of my submissions that a lot of photoshopping and inpainting is involved. Usually my in-painting is nothing more than adding some extra weight to one prompt, adding a word, subtracting a word. But a single image can be literally dozens of different slight modifications to the prompt for inpainting, not to mention no way to reasonably indicate what the area of inpainting looked like. So I've always posted in good faith the prompt for the base image (and in case of multiple base images, the prompts for all of them), thinking it unreasonable to post literal dozens of prompt for each minute step. But I am kind of curious if you, and the rest of the mods agree that this is a good way of doing it that is, within reason, within the rules.

That also leads to what other people here have been saying. Img2img, Inpainting, ControlNet and just general workflow for a single image can consist of so many steps that it becomes near impossible to give a 100% reproducibility simply by virtue of complexity. There is no conscious or wilful deception there, just a level impracticality that would make it impossible for people wanting to produce quality images to be accountable to that level of detail. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
Kadm
9 months, 2 weeks ago
This has indeed been a significant amount of new work for us. From the problems I describe above regarding dishonesty in the process to people intentionally gaming the software to drive other uses off the front page we've had to deal with a raft of bad actors as a result of attempting to allow AI works on Inkbunny.

It sounds like you're trying, but if you're using things like img2img, we make clear that you need to include the base image itself in the submission. And since the base image is AI generated, you're right to include it's prompt. We're not as rigorous with the subsequent iterations, but personally I'd still prefer if you adhered to the rest of the rules, and if we ever thought it was a problem, we'd probably change them.

The goal is not 100% reproducibility at all. But if we take what someone provides, and it consistently generates a mess, and then we stick 'zaush' on the prompt, and we get approximations of the output, then I think we've got a pretty good idea that someone has been dishonest.

My hope is to eventually add people that are Subject Matter Experts for various areas that could deal in more depth with these things. I don't think we'll ever got around generating every image we see, but I could see a world where we spot check things where there's suspicion to ensure that people are being honest.
AIFluffyMatrix
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Thanks for answering. I genuinely don't like that this has been such a ballache for you guys because I do like IB as a community and, let's face it, one of the few places where we can post the kind of content that's being posted (being both cub and AI, and combining the two).

" The goal is not 100% reproducibility at all. But if we take what someone provides, and it consistently generates a mess, and then we stick 'zaush' on the prompt, and we get approximations of the output, then I think we've got a pretty good idea that someone has been dishonest


The stance on reproducibility is good to be aware of. I'm pretty certain I operate within the rules then, which is a personal relief to know.

Concerning bad actors, I'd like to address what
Sponch
Sponch
said here:
" Well, since practically everything we're discussing is just speculation at this point, one could speculate that people trying to freely use AI art generation to express themselves might feel the rules are unfair and outdated. Whoever these people are that violate the rules might feel that your rules could be unfair, outdated, steeped in bias, or based on ignorance of how these tools work. They could also be feeling that they're held to different standards or are pinned down in their ability to freely create from these rules. Maybe they feel like the core fundamental values of what this site claims to be about overly contradict their rules regarding AI.


I'm afraid I'm going to have to wholly disagree with this. I can understand that some AI directors might feel that the rules are unfairly targeting them, restricting capabilities of what is possible with AI, restricting a certain level of creativity - but that does not mean they are free to take matters into their own hands by just ignoring and violating the rules because they disagree with them. Even if you've suggested adaptations to these rules, or improvements and the mods have decided to not take your advice to heart then it's a severe case of tough luck. This is indeed not your site, it's theirs and they're allowing us to put our content here. We're not entitled to it, and they could've just as easily said "No, we're not allowing AI works at all.". Philosophy of creative freedom or not, we're in a privileged position where we're able to create works at a pace that exceeds what any traditional artist is capable of with the added ability to make those works imitate the style of established artists in the community. We're not on equal footing, nor should we be because there's the potential of our works to harm the viewership and income of those artists - and I think the last thing any AI director wants is to screw over the furry artists we admire.

There's a level of trust the site staff has extended us, and we should be very careful not to throw that back in the admins faces or, if I'm reading Kadm's messages correctly, we could well end up with no place to post our works. So I think many of my fellow AI directors who don't think the rules apply to them would do well to remember that.
Sponch
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Thats fine that you feel that way. I dont condone or justify anyone breaking the rules for all the reasons you just mentioned, Im simply saying that i understand where that motivation could potentially come from. At this point, Id rather them ban AI all together than have a very "half in/half out" attitude regarding the medium, contradicting  the supposed beliefs of artistic freedom, but i also recognize its not fair to other people to chose to die on that hill on their behalf.

So Im just going to give up on that crusade, and likely just give up art all together, because squashing the spirits of budding artists seems to be the desire and intention for the haters of this medium. Hopefully they dont feel the need to further tighten their noose around your neck of what or how they feel youre "allowed" to use art tools to express yourself like theyve been talking about. Ive never been one to simply bow my head and stay silent when people with power violate standards they say they uphold or abuse that power to fulfill personal beliefs or biases, but I can see now how useless it is. No amount of frustration of mine is going to stop this attitude of gatekeeping AI, so do what you will, im done fighting in the hopes of appealing to logic or integrity.
Sponch
9 months, 2 weeks ago
" If there comes a point that there's no way to sort the good actors from the bad actors, what course of action do we take?


So then because many of your non-AI complaints center around human character violations from traditional artists, do you make the same assumption that ALL traditional artists are going to do it and therefore you shouldn't allow ANYONE to post anything? That's the kind of double standards I'm talking about. Overwhelming bias against the medium and people that use it.

But whatever, nothing I say matters. You're the one with the power, you're the one that gets to decide how to use it. If you want to bend the values of your integrity to conform things to your bias, you have every right to, because no one can stop you or hold you accountable for it. Do whatever you feel is best, I'm tired of caring.
Kadm
9 months, 2 weeks ago
" So then because many of your non-AI complaints center around human character violations from traditional artists, do you make the same assumption that ALL traditional artists are going to do it and therefore you shouldn't allow ANYONE to post anything? That's the kind of double standards I'm talking about. Overwhelming bias against the medium and people that use it.


We can LOOK at a work and determine if something is human. We often do, in cases where someone posts something that they think is not-human enough, but we don't.

We can't LOOK at an AI work and determine if you use an artist prompt without their permission, Moreover, we don't have traditional artists encouraging people to post borderline humans in spite of the rules. We don't have traditional artists saying "take this out of your description, it's against the rules". Instead we have people here advocating for AI and recommending ways that people circumvent our rules and undermine the intent of them. A lot of our allowance of AI is predicated upon trust, and you're willfully choosing to damage that trust. What did you expect? Did you think things through? It's clearly not even some false flag against AI users, it's AI users taking the inch we give, and pushing it into what we clearly disallow.

If someone tells you 'you shouldn't do this', and you block that person, delete their comments, and delete evidence of your violation (without removing the violation), what do you think should happen?
Sponch
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Well, since practically everything we're discussing is just speculation at this point, one could speculate that people trying to freely use AI art generation to express themselves might feel the rules are unfair and outdated. Whoever these people are that violate the rules might feel that your rules could be unfair, outdated, steeped in bias, or based on ignorance of how these tools work. They could also be feeling that they're held to different standards or are pinned down in their ability to freely create from these rules. Maybe they feel like the core fundamental values of what this site claims to be about overly contradict their rules regarding AI. I don't really know and can't say how other people feel about it. I've made my own call to request to update the rules with all the logic in the discussions we've had and to let you know how people have been treating one another, but apathy and disdain are all I get, so what else is there left for me to do to try and speak on the behalf of people who feel strongly about AI? Nothing.

But again, you're the one with the power, do whatever you want. If someone breaks the rules, and they've received fair warning from an admin on this site and not just some random person, and you have quantifiable proof that they broke the rules and that someone from your end has tried to correct them, then by all means do what you gotta.
RetroNumanox
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Without taking sides, the rules are completely outdated.

First of all, there are good alternatives for getting information, such as Discord:Furry Diffusion (not the website, like I sayed, discord). There are hundreds of thousands of furries, both artists and AI users, without hate. Even artists are increasingly using ai, informing themselves but not daring to say so because of the hate. No matter how you feel about it, the people who spread hate have not yet realised that they are outnumbered. Even most people from the furry community turn away from such people. Being against something is one thing, but nobody wants that hate. It is important to understand that you are not alone and that such people will soon be left behind. Not because of opinions, whether someonelike AI or not, but because nobody likes people who spread hate. As I said, the user numbers at discord alone, the last time I looked, were tens of thousands of people meeting peacefully. It feels like more than half of furry fandom is there. It's a force, but a peaceful one, whether AI enthusiast, artist or just curious.

Next: (by artist) is no longer necessary. As soon as you use img2img, or even better ControlNet, you are no longer dealing with thes artistic references. Actually, it was the great wish of the Furry Community to openly communicate which artists were used as references. That is now a thing of the past: exactly the opposite has been achieved. The common ground that was established peacefully has been destroyed. But this is not a war, it's simply a test of endurance and it's up to everyone to stay reasonable.

Technology has developed further. Change the workflow. Find out more about ControlNet. This is expressly not a workaround of the rules! It's about adapting the processes that (by artist) are no longer required. Adjusting to a reasonable level is the best thing you can do now.

...and another bit of personal advice: don't argue too much with people, keep it short and adapt. Don't get caught up in discussions! If Prompt (by artist) is no more needet, stop using it. I guarantee that you can do without it. Even IF you can't do without it, you don't have to use it in promts. At least use img2img and the issue is immediately resolved: you can even post the original meta information, no artist will be taken as a reference any more. Don't fight a war, because there really isn't one. The people spreading hate are outnumbered. But don't cheat either, develop yourself further from it, as well as others who read this, that nobody has to rely to (by artist).

For all those who are reading this now and don't understand: It is not a cover-up, nor an instruction to get round it: It is a further development of the workflow!
Sponch
9 months, 2 weeks ago
I am already aware of all the things you mentioned. I came here from Furry Diffusion because FD is a little more restrictive with content types, such as the kind of stuff I make here. There's also no real way to carve out your own personal space like you can here with IB.

I'm aware that referencing artist names aren't needed in prompting, I do it all the time without them, but it can definitely improve compositional quality a lot by referencing multiple, 6 or 7 or more, different artists with complimentary styles. That's not even my concern though, because even without referencing a single one, every single checkpoint model is still based and made with modern furry art. By their rules here, that would technically exclude all furry AI art models outright.

I can't help myself when arguing with people, and I know that's a flaw of mine, but so many people lack understanding or knowledge on this matter and these technologies. They act like AI is evil and so are the people that use it, when in reality, it's simply a machine just like any other, made to make harder laborious tasks easier, but the task is the EXACT same as how humans did it, just exponentially faster. People keep drawing lines in the sand where there is none and at least for me, keeping my head down and keeping quiet to angry ignorance, are two things I can just watch. So I get involved, and say what needs to be said from the other side of the fence.
GreenReaper
8 months, 4 weeks ago
This is a bit late, but the thing that really gets up a lot of people's gizzards is not just "oh, it might be using a particular artist's art" (although there is a fair bit of that) but "it definitely is, for these specific artists". It's the difference between looking at "pictures of dragons" as references and opening up your favourite artist's gallery to draw dragons just like them. That might be fine for a one-off, but not so much if you integrate "drawing like X" into your workflow - by any means.

As such, the issue isn't just that they don't understand the technology - some do - but that they don't like what you're doing and wouldn't like it even if you did it by hand. Staff have also zapped work for occasional close referencing of other fans' work well before AI art was a thing - machine learning just makes it a lot easier.
kemowolf
8 months, 3 weeks ago
But you all don't zap accounts of people that steal copyrighted photos from Google images and use it as their background with a cheap filter.

I have reported clear copyright violations before in the past and was told by a mod that only the copyright holder can file a complaint.

But when it comes to AI, anyone can file a complaint. AI directors are being targeted unfairly.

Make an AI art category, make a required box to put in your prompt, and let people block it if they don't like it. You all allow screenshots of games and crap which have zero creativity but AI must be vanquished apparently.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.