Inkbunny

YCH Reminders still plague FA's front page from time to time too, but I feel like there was something done recently to try curtailing it. ...Unless that's just people realizing those things don't-work, and the problem sorted itself.

But yeah, AI feels like a malicious fad tbh.

Codelizard

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

As far as I know, FA's only move to curtail it was to add and enforce a rule that reminders can only be posted once every 24 hours. I definitely noticed a big falloff in reminders filling up my inbox at some point, though it could also be a consequence of eastern European artists (who frequently use YCHs) having a harder time taking commissions and getting on FA.

TepTepgi

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

dosnt deviantart have a blacklist?

Waccoon

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ TepTepgi

Maybe... I dunno. I don't browse DA anymore, as the site has far too many other problems. That Eclipse interface drives me bonkers and doesn't work properly in my web browser of choice.

SpoonFox

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

YCH and Adoptables are a problem and a half on Furaffinity... They put a rule in that reminders can't be duplicated, and must be deleted over time... but it doesn't stop someone from posting the same reminder every 4 hours like some do. And dear lord... The adoptables... Sooooo many recolors... I saw one instance of 36 different recolors of one piece over and over, not even changed little details, just recolors. All posted in less than a couple of hours.

Waccoon

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ SpoonFox

Yeah, the rules aren't really enforced. I reported someone posting 15 reminders a day on each of multiple accounts, resulting in several dozen violations a day. It took a whole month for my trouble ticket to be addressed, and the artist in question still kept posting reminders after the issue was "resolved". I'm not sure anything was done about it.

The irony is that a few months later, the artist just quit FA entirely. I think the only reason why the number of reminders has dropped off as of late is that eventually artists realize their spam doesn't work.

Roler42

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Oh man, I remember the reminders, and the reminders for the reminders, and so on, I think that one sorted itself because nowadays I don't see it often, even if it's not enforced, I think some artists realized people learned to ignore them.

I wish AI was so easily ignorable as well...

Goivanni

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

I too am tired of seeing the "shiny clay" style.

TheSpazman

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Owner

@ Goivanni

This is a really good likening tbh. I never thought of it being a very 'clay' look.

But at that point, I'd just say 'use actual clay'.

Goivanni

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

If they do that then it'd require effort!
But yeah nah I'm honestly tired of seeing this stuff, like many fads that have come before, this too will die, it's only a matter of "when".

TheSpazman

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Owner

@ Goivanni

I think the AI / NFT / Web3 shit is a horse so beaten it has been effectively cleaved in half through repeated blunt force. That's me, though.

Idiots are still trying to 'find use' in it and 'make it work' though. Much to the detriment of everyone involved.

missilver

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ Goivanni

You know this is what i dont get because its possible to not get that look.

You can add water color with pencil drawing and get regular drawing looking pictures or black and white along with crayon or just anything really.

I dont mind that its AI but i dont get it why there isnt more style being used.

Norithics

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

I'm guessing the site owner heard the "it's just like digital art used to be considered not-art, this will pass!" argument and took that on, not understanding that not all things are created equal, and people would, in fact, detest it more over time.

TheSpazman

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Owner

@ Norithics

Man, I actually remember when that argument was made (and for a while, it actually got me to reconsider digital because I was still new-and-unsure at the time).

Then I went back and looked at things like 2D / 3D hybrid animated movies and realized those people were full of it.

---

That being said -- Feel like enough artists raising a stink and collectively saying 'Hey, this isn't cool' from all-ends might be an okay call. With appropriate information / facts and all laid-out. Then again, this might be me being far too generous / hopeful in things, and probably has even already been attempted.

EDIT: I feel like a good statement against AI from the onset is other peoples' signatures and all popping up in pieces wholly unrelated to them -- but I'm unsure when the last solid example of this came to light.

EDIT 2: Actually -- I remember just recently that someone on either R34.net or E621 had run some previous Sally Acorn art of mine through such a slop-generator and tried to claim it as theirs, too.

EDIT 3: Thinking on it, I suppose one could make the argument that at the very least Digital Art in any form at least has the capacity to translate back into proficiency with pen / pencil and paper, given it's mainly motor-skills / hand-eye coordination. Typing on a keyboard has no translation path back to those same motor functions and effort it takes to create -- So anyone calling it of equal-value is just lying to themselves.

Violet52

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Sadly few sites outright ban the slop, Pillowfort is the only one I know of. Others just pick the mealy-mouthed "containment" strategy of going "oooh please tag your slop guys please please!!!"

AI dorks need to understand that they are not welcome.

missilver

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Infact if you go further back in time you will also hear the same argument against digital cameras, they werent considered art for almost entirely the same reasons people used against digital art and are using right now against AI.

sofur

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

There will always be people looking for an 'easier way,' even and sometimes especially if the method is less than ethical. Good news though, anything made by AI is not subject to copyright protection, nor is it protected by 'fair use.' It's legally speaking all theft and copyright infringement at this point. At least in the US.

TheSpazman

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ sofur

You would think that yeah, even with the legality of these things already called into question and rightly outed as theft -- that sites allowing the use of AI-anything would be an eventual site / community-killer on its own.

No actual artists put up with it at DeviantArt, and we see how that site's doing. Why do the same here?

sofur

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

I don't like any of the large language models or large image models, especially as none of it constitutes 'artificial intelligence' nor are they novel. I do get why sites allowed it and bought into it. It's a fad, and any website needs users to pull in ad revenue. Tech bros that previously were spouting bullshit about crypto, NFTs and block chain moved their focus to slinging 'AI' crap, getting any and every person and organization to buy into a sunk cost fallacy. These sites and companies feel the need to validate allowing or using LLMs in order to try and make back, at least on paper, the money and effort spent investing in it. In the case of art sites, I'm willing to bet the money to be made was 'the scrapers will take it anyway, so we better make it legitimate and try to charge them for it.' e621 straight up disallows any of it, I think on the standing that they pride themselves as being an archive, not a 'social' site subject to such trends.

The legal precedents are very new, unfortunately, and it'll take time for them to sink in. I straight block any AI stuff like you've done, and I think we probably will have to for a while.

missilver

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ sofur

Technically speaking AI isnt stealing anything at all neither when it generates nor when it gets trained.

AI makes statistics, its not intelligence by any means. For it to make a picture it first need to make statistics on something like a circle for example.
It doesnt use pictures nor does it need access to the internet for any generation, all it does is that when you write something in thats in that statistics you get a picture. This is why no artist can prove their pictures are used by the AI, the final product has none of them and that database that the training was made on could be safely deleted.
You typed in sexy red cat and it looks up the statistics on how that thing looks based purely on numbers then builds it from pixel to pixel.

To fit for copyright infringment or theft argument the people accusing it would need to actually point out the exact things that are lost due to it existing but theres problems with that such as:

Style is non-copyrightable. Literally no artist has the right to own a style.
Fair use protects AI art in making but not AI art itself. Its fair use to make AI Pikachu but you have no right to claim ownership on that picture or complain that someone is using it.
Generic concepts and such are also non-copyright materials.
AI art generates from scratch so no one can argue that its not a process that transformative isnt enough to file a copyright complaint without someone doing their hardest to make AI copy pictures directly.

The worst thing is theres a chance that any law process that goes a bit overboard on what is under copyright protection and how WILL open the floodgates to shitty companies like Disney or Nintendo to try to sue everyone involved.

sofur

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ missilver

Legal definition for US copyright has been established as 'novel creation by humans,' prior to LLMs becoming relevant.

LLMs start with a randomly generated image that is just noise, and work backward from the noise to 'find' the image.

It is on record that LLMs had to be specifically altered to not directly create works that they had been trained on.

All LLMs use data scraped from the Internet without consent from the individuals or companies that own that data.  Websites had to alter their user agreements and create opt-in or opt-out systems to cover their ass, because they will be held liable for theft of copyrighted material.

Statistics, probability, and datasets are three different things.  LLMs are a vector array of associations using massive data sets to create their associations and probabilities.

I hate 'AI,' but I make myself learn about things I don't like.  Please learn more.

missilver

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ sofur

From what i know image generators do start with noise but arent going backwards to find an image, that is only a thing during the training phase and they arent excluding generating the originals infact their efficiency is graded on how close they can get to the original thing.

When this is done and repeated countless times then the AI now has a set of rules based on machine learning to now start blank and as a generative AI create content that didnt exist before.
It doesnt store any of the pictures, it only stores a kind of statistics as i said before or a ruleset on how certain things look like so when you type in black wolf in forest it paints out the noise then wildly modifies it till a pixel is within an accepted rule/statistical position then goes for the next till an image is made.

Its impossible for them to ever create 1:1 copies because it doesnt store that much key data from any picture in the first place.

AI image generators arent necesseary purely LLM's as they need to use more to get the same results.

Also LLM's have copyright problems because written text has different copyright laws than regular art. If i copy out your comment that was somehow copyright protected then thats gonna get me in trouble but if i look at your art and make a copy of it then as long as its deemed transformative enough im breaking no laws.
LLM's have been proven to be able to directly spill out copyright material as you said so they had to make rules for that to not happen but image diffusers dont work on the same principle so even if you train your own generator AI it will be almost impossible for it to create an image that you fed into it.

whitepawrolls

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Don't know, but every since I blocked all the AI keywords I never see anything except when someone mentions it in a journal like this.

joykill

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ whitepawrolls

100 % this. Makes me worried to unblock ai generated

SpoonFox

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ joykill

It isn't as exaggerated as some people make it out to be. But there are some who don't group properly, some who don't post their prompts, some who don't tag, and a very small amount who break the general ACP for regular art too.

A lot of the time it'll be a new director who wants to show off all the stuff they've generated, so they flood the site. Many of the older directors either stopped or slowed down. This results in a flood, which if seen at the wrong time, might lead to one thinking it's a majority of uploads.

I do believe it shouldn't be in the most popular, or should have its own that you can hide. Since most popular is meant to showcase artists, not directors.

Happysin

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Different site standards. FA bans it, Inkbunny says it has to be clearly tagged. Reddit has a whole array or rules, depending on the subreddit. I think all are fine, as long as there is general consensus among the community.

That said, those that use just a single style are annoying. For my own curiosity, I have generated pieces in impressionist style, and they came out fun. Not high art or anything, but not like most modern furry art styles. As you can imagine, I don't have a hard problem with AI art, but it should be clearly marked. And people building models to specifically imitate living, active artists do bother me a lot.

Homerboy4

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Owner

As long as can be treated like all other art, like being tagged, can be blocked, and copyright striked, and so on, I really don't give much of a shit.

Banning is a good alternative since it discourages wannabe artists from even trying.

Out-spamming the AI spam under the guise of "protesting" is just crying for attention.

Farrel

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Having grown up around modern and post modern art students, honestly? I'd say that decently produced AI slop has got more claim to being 'art' than a good deal of stuff that's filling galleries in recent decades.

At very least some of it has visual appeal and about the same level of effort as some of the stuff I've seen in the Tate.

On the question of why it all looks visually similar? Here, at least, folks are using mostly the same generation prompts and AI models. IB places restrictions on posting art "in the style of..." or using not-publically available checkpoints and loras which are commonly used to alter visual styles. Requiring the posters to add in the generation details means that if someone likes what they see, it's near trivial to duplicate the style... So yeah, we get a very uniform visual style posted here.

There are a few folks I've seen post stuff that clearly are breaching these rules, and getting a more interesting style. Heck, if you go out to some of the sites dedicated to pushing AI generation hard, there are some startlingly nice results.

My personal view is that if someone is posting stuff as a genuine expression of something, then it's just as worthy of the title of art as anything else, regardless of the tools used... Photography can be art... Collage can be art... To my mind this is somewhat similar.

As for the ethics and legality, I understand that whilst AI generation was ruled as not copyrightable, it was also ruled as not theft on the basis that it's not actually storing the reference art itself. (This may have changed since I last looked at it.)

But with all of that said, I can utterly get why folks that have spent years to develop their style get bent out of shape when some yahoo like me can come along, scrape their portfolio of art, do some processing and start to shotgun out semi to good imitations in a couple of hours.

Not to mention, from my own personal dabbling, the more specific you are in what you want to see? The less AI is able to cope... At least, not without a vastly increasing level of effort. (I often think of it of trying to build a kaleidoscope that will produce the image in your mind's eye... It just can't be done. But sometimes you get close enough.)

I hadn't noticed that AI stuff had been moved to blocked by standard... That's a step in the right direction, folks can opt in if they wanna see it... Now all they need to do is update the popular images to respect a viewer's preferences.

But yeah, bottom line? I don't think AI should be removed from IB, but folks should tag it as such, and visibility of it would be fine on an opt-in basis. Organic artists are hurting and it wouldn't hurt to accommodate a bit better to their needs for visibility.

WAtheAnum

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

"At very least some of it has visual appeal and about the same level of effort as some of the stuff I've seen in the Tate"

excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me pls but where is the "same level of effort" if i draw 2-5 hours on an empty canvas a great, detailed and nice landscape wile "someone else" just puts random words in an AI generator?

Please explain the "same level of effort" there.

Farrel

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ WAtheAnum

I was referencing visual appeal, how nice AI images can look in comparison to some stuff that I've seen displayed in museums and fine art galleries. Not even referencing the level of effort that goes in, but the end result.

I'm not familiar with your art in particular, but on the assumption that you're reasonably competent in your trade, in two to three hours of effort you'd probably be able to produce something comparable to what I as a yutz with a keyboard can squeeze out of the AI generation toothpaste tube... In terms of overall visual appeal.

What you, as an artist could do, that I could not, for example, would be to put a specific building in that landscape, then move 200 yards around the landscape and give a good rendition of the same scene from a different angle.

When I was talking about visual appeal, I'm talking about 'art' like the work of folks like Rothko... Who had an entire room at an exhibition I was dragged though when I was younger... His work consists of very carefully worked canvasses showing two to three rectangles, typically brownish red and a different shade of red-brown on a background of, maybe blue or green.

Technically, it's art. I just wouldn't want to waste any more time looking at it than I have already.

You are 100% correct, there's little to no effort in the vast majority of AI generation... Yet it still holds more visual interest to the average punter than a lot of stuff that's considered art.

Violet52

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Point 1: Unethical since it's always based off stolen and illegally scraped content.

Point 2: Soulless, heartless, pointless, meaningless. I will praise the meanest scribble by someone who really NEEDED to get their emotions on to paper, over the most polished pile of slop produced by a five-mile line of keywords vomited out by some "prompt engineer." If there's no heart, it's got nothing. Being made by people doesn't necessarily guarantee it's got heart, plenty of corporate "art" is dogshit, but being made by machines guarantees it will have no heart.

AI should be removed, people who post AI should be removed, Butlerian Jihad now.

Farrel

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ Violet52

There's no much that can be said to a lot of this, but I'll have a go.

Point 1: Unethical, sure. Illegal? Not demonstrated yet in any legal system I'm aware of. Which leaves this as one of the few legal but unethical technologies still open to the general public for use. (As opposed to a lot which business are tacitly permitted to use, but a private citizen that tried would be arrested.)

And when it comes down to it, as the popular image section shows, I don't think a lot of the audience cares about the ethics. IB was founded as being a place to post art that other sites wouldn't allow on the basis of ethics and largely it's tried to keep it's doors open as wide as it reasonably can. If a work is legal to produce and depicts a subject matter appropriate to the site, it should be allowed.

Point 2: And I praise you for doing it. Organic artists (I use the term to differentiate from AI producers only) need support and often pour their heart and soul into a work. I love watching artists grow in skill and confidence, but everything else there is purely subjective. Sure, you don't find anything redeemable about AI generated work, I can't argue that... But that doesn't mean by a long shot that no one finds meaning in it, or that folks can't feel as invested in creating the stuff.

I would liken the technology to photography. Really good photographs really need a set of skills that is largely separate to the skills required to put pigment to canvas. Some argue that it's making images on 'easy mode', but to get exactly the photo you want takes skills that a pigment and canvas artist might not even be aware of.

Similarly, getting -a- picture out of an AI is easy... Getting a visually pleasing image is a little more difficult. If you want to get a specific scene or specific character in a specific pose out of an AI? ... That's a challenge requiring specific skills.

Alas, we're in an environment where a lot of the meaning for any image (traditional or AI) is lost on the audience... They wanna see some specific things and don't care so much how it gets there. To remove AI generation as an option entirely would be to cut out the portion of IB's users that like to see it and, ultimately, damage the site just as much as keeping it could potentially harm organic artists.

Rather than cut either short, all I'm arguing for is some kind of middle ground. Make it easy for AI art to be hidden so users who dislike it, like yourself, don't need to be bothered by it, but keep it on the site, so users who enjoy it aren't pushed out and looking for another community. (As that was how IB started in the first place.)

Violet52

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Comparing "prompt engineering" to photography is a savage fucking diss on photographers who put heart and soul into getting the right angle, lighting, technical setup, possibly waiting hours for the right chance to snap a picture for something that might happen maybe once a day, week, month or lifetime.

Also no, no middle ground for AI. Kill it. Mock it. Shame anyone who uses it.

Farrel

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ Violet52

And yet more apt than you consider.

It is still easily possible for a rank amateur with a cheap camera and little clue of the skills you mentioned to wander into the wilderness see a view they like, take a snap with a disposable camera and win awards. Similarly, there are folks who do study both photographic and artistic methods in addition to learning how to develop their own AI tool kits to improve their image generation... Spend hours and days curating and tagging data sets in ways which will allow them to achieve the result they want.

Could they put that effort into learning how to draw and compose an image themselves? Yes... Should they have to? I guess you would also argue also yes. I would disagree with that standpoint. Let them cook, lets see where this technology goes before business, self referencing databases and legislation ruin it's ability to produce stuff that's nice to look at.

We've had artists in this discussion openly state that they view AI generation as a useful tool. To purge every use of AI would reduce the tool set of what you'd deem to be legitimate artists too.

*Shrugs* But yeah, I'm not really interested in a shouting match. Please do feel free to reply. If you say something I feel is interesting discussion I'll continue. If not, well :) Maybe lighten up a little. There's room enough for everyone here.

Violet52

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

Correct. It would purge a lot of "legitimate" artists that I have no interest in interacting with or ever seeing any work from, this I would absolutely consider a positive. If they want to use AI tools they should go back to another kind of work that they'd be more suited to, like being the middle manager who walks around and vaguely tells people to do their jobs while holding a mug of coffee and never actually doing anything themselves. Roughly the same level of value.

furryfluffywolf

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

I see AI as a tool added to my tool belt, I only use it to assist my art, I don't post AI art for free attention for example, if you have a finished project you can use AI to enhance the effects to give it more life and bloom to it, that's how I see it anyway.

Playfulpetfox

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

It's the inexorable double edged blade we're all forced to shoulder right now. Even those who like it somehow fail to understand that the growing pox upon all creatives that they continue to propegate will end up being their own undoing. Art, movies, and game devs all have the same issue. Studio leads begging people to embrace it, all the while saying they know that people "MIGHT" lose their jobs, or "MAY" be threatened by it...despite thousands already having been laidoff due to its usage. Microsoft alone has proven this to be the case, but no...surely THEY won't be next. They're to valuable!

Generative AI, the fascination that cannibalizes all who use it. Those that hate it can't avoid it. Those that love it, and in turn, use it, chip away at the very foundation its built upon.

Artists. Writers. Creatives of any field.

And we're just supposed to be happy about it :3

WAtheAnum

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

"To say that these things are of equal value is false. "

heh, tell that also pls the devs of DA. they literally promote AI art, even on their X account...

TheSpazman

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link

@ WAtheAnum

DeviantArt was mentioned elsewhere in a thread on here! haha

Way ahead of you on that front :D

WAtheAnum

1 month, 2 weeks ago

link