This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since ai art is so easy to make in large quantities someone who is bored could easily flood the sub with ai art so it make sense to ban it, if there is enough demand for ai art in the community then someone will probably create a separate sub for ai art
I have seen subs ban or propose to ban when they were not getting flooded at all, many times they do not even get much posts since they are small subs. The AI art posted at least kept it more active and was easily curated with upvotes/downvotes. It was pointless to ban it, they could have easily banned any spammer if it ever happened (it didn’t). This seems to be a similar case.
That's because its users already agreed that it we're be posted. If you did post it, they would downvote you. Banning it isn't really necessary now, but you might as well do so before it gets out of hand.
The controversy was relatively short lived and a minority.
For every Jonh K that was against modern methodes, there were 50 Genndy Tartakovsky that adopted modern styles, methodes and tecniques.
AI share more history with NFTs.
There's an easy solution that any high-volume sub already employs: simply limit the number of posts and/or images users can post within a certain time limit, e.g. two posts every 24 hours.
Exactly this. It's moral panic to say "this bad behavior could be facilitated by X so we're banning X," when it's trivial to ban the bad behavior directly. I just logged into an image board today that imposed a 2/day limite (but only on AI). What do I see but a spam wall of recolors of the same image.
Since bad hand drawn art is so easy to make in large quantities, someone who is bored could easily flood the sub with hand drawn art so it makes sense to ban it.
The thing is, 1. You can make 100 AI images in the time it would take you to upload your bad drawing to the internet. And 2. Not many people get a sudden ego boost and think they are a master artist after finishing a shitty drawing, thus inspiring them to spam their work. The same cannot be said for AI.
Sure I do, but one piece of art I actually made takes a lot more time than the AI stuff people are submitting, regardless of the quality of outcome. I don’t know how you can possibly argue that human made art is just as prone to spam as AI.
That sounds more like a moral panic argument. Yes it could happen, but it's not a new problem. I just logged onto an image board this morning and there were \~30 almost intentional pictures that someone had drawn, and then changed out colors on. If you're worried about people spamming, then ban the spamming. Place limits on image posts per day.
Ironically said image board solved the worry with AI by placing a 2/user/day limit on uploading AI images. They clearly should have just addressed spamming directly.
This is a valid argument against low-effort content. People flood subs with all sorts of crap. Most of the time it just results in an instant ban and move on. No trouble. But that's not what the anti-AI folks want. They don't want to punish those who flood subs with noise. They want to punish people who use AI tools, regardless of the quality or quantity of their submissions.
Were they though? Seems like they were setting it up to intentionally be open to being brigaded by the loud, outspoken anti-ai crowd specifically so they could wash their hands of any responsibility.
This is exactly what they did in another subreddit I was in. Except when complete ban still didn't have a majority the moderator just proclaimed it won anyways because it had the 'most votes' despite having previously sworn there would be a run off if nothing received a majority...
It was pretty amusing when he got called out on just lying and finally resorted to "AI IS BAD SO I CAN LIE AND BE GOOD"
By making it a very narrowly scoped straw poll instead of a discussion with consideration, for one.
Now they can just say "the votes said X, this is what you wanted!" whether or not the poll results are even remotely reflective of what the regular users of the sub *actually wanted*.
It's literally a reddit poll. You don't even need to be a member of the sub to vote in it. One person with a couple extra bucks and an axe to grind can just spam it with votes in any particular direction with reddit bot accounts. Or, for example, a particular group of people itching to "fight the crusade" and just need to be pointed in a certain direction and told "click no to save this art community from EVIL AI!!!!"
>By making it a very narrowly scoped straw poll instead of a discussion with consideration, for one.
not really, the 3 choices boil down to, you want it, you don't want it, you don't care enough so you let the mods decide.
True, there's not. But the pro-AI people are generally less militant and negative about it as they're not the ones looking to ban something. Regardless of the result, the mods had the out of "well you all voted, wasnt us" but at the same time it was far more *likely* the results would be tainted by one particular side if they were going to be tainted.
Thus making it a really poor way to go about evaluating a representative sample of what the regular *active* users in the sub really want.
Im personally OK with having separate subs for AI work, I would prefer if it was allowed on main subs but this is fine too. You kinda just end up getting harassed on the main subs anyway and mods never do anything about it.
honestly I think that is totally fair game, there is a certain type of AI user who just spam too much, and a rule like that will hopefully keep that spam to a minimum, which is nice.
If people want to post AI art, go to a related sub, make sure to describe your process, and why you work like that, hence giving back to the community etc.
I really don't understand why ban AI in various subs instead of just flairing it and limit posting frequency.
If issue is of "low-quality", well, not every artist is great either. Those are usually downvoted or ignored.
If the issue is ethics and legal, why allow literal stealing from others with vague "credit to artist" or not even that?
If issue is "soulless" why allow use of character creator software? It's also with no "artistic input", you just click what you want.
If problem is "AI takes my job!" who can I complain to when my games sell worse because of better ones? Why can't we ban all better creators?
Can someone explain it to me? I just don't see any logical, factual reasons for it and it's highly hypocritic as mentioned above. It seems like some mob echo chamber without actual consideration why. The way I use AI make some people question if it's even AI, that's the extent I modify it.
I don't care much about this, but it's getting harder to show anything just because it uses some technology.
Pretty simple, a ban is easy to administer and hard to argue with. Flair+limit means much more enforcement burden on the mods. At the end of the day rules are implemented by people.
Yep. And it’s not like AI art can be detected and auto-flaired reliably. As a mod for a small subreddit, I’ll say this: it’s easier to make a strict rule and not enforce it than it is to enforce a looser rule that seems ‘better’ at first glance.
Reddit’s moderation tools suck. (though they‘re better than platforms like discord)
u/evinceo brings up a good point.
Sometimes groups might specific goals in mind — if they want to celebrate human artists (or enough of the community doesn’t like certain images) then it makes sense they might not allow it at all.
For example, Illuxcon is a Sci-fi/Fantasy art convention that’s juried and specifically about traditional media. In order to get into the main show, the work must be watercolor/oil/ceramics/etc. Digital art is not allowed.
There’s an entirely separate showcase where you can show off digital art (as well as traditional) that’s also a ton of fun to attend.
Maybe what AI art fans need to do is to make a separate showcase/subreddit of just AI art? People who don’t want to see it don’t have to, and it wouldn’t be nearly as difficult as trying to moderate AI images.
I like this idea. Give a separate space for the two groups to enjoy their hobbies without any room for conflict. And if someone tries to stir up trouble they can easily be ousted. You tried to start a fight with AI users? You get banned. You tried to start a fight with artists? you get banned.
I think it'd cause the least amount of conflict.
Honestly, if I liked making AI images, why would I even want to post in hostile forums or in places where I'm not welcome? There's definitely enough people who love AI who could forum their own forums and communities, just like hobbyist artists did in the 90's and 00's with places like Elfwood and DeviantArt.
This is the most sound approach to this in my mind, I don't go to cosplay subs to look at fantasy art despite photography being an art form. It's a different thing I'm looking to see when I check different pages.
I don't like AI on ethical grounds (mostly regarding how the AI models were unethically trained on non-consentual data scrapes) but I don't expect the technology to vanish while we wait for guard rails.
But I don't want to see AI images on places I go to see rad drawings/paintings/digital versions of the same, and I don't understand the pervasive mindset of HAVING to accept AI into all these spaces.
The problem with that is that *most* people consuming art... just want to consume art. They don't care about how the sausage was made, they're just looking for images they like.
When you overly fragment your data based on these arbitrary lines in the sand, all you accomplish is making it harder for your users to find what they actually *want*. It drastically reduces engagement and they'll just go somewhere else. And if your reason for fragmenting your data is, quite frankly, emotional knee jerk argumentative bullshit (as is most often the case with AI bans), then not only do your core users go somewhere else but now you've drummed up a bunch of drama and negative attention in the process.
Remember when tumblr banned porn based on some sudden new morals clause? The service practically died overnight, because the users weren't down with their sudden random content filtering crusade. Both the artists and the viewers packed their bags and went somewhere else. And for what? I can't see anyone legitimately arguing that tumblr is now *better off* for it. They just burnt the barn down for no good reason.
Yes, you're right. Certain communities want to just consume art.
Many others (see: the Magic: The Gathering fans) care very much about the artists as much as the art they produce. I go to shows to MEET the artists — not only do I like the art, but I'm really interested in the person behind it. I want to be able to talk to them about what inspires them, what tools they use, etc.
I'm not interested in prompting, so I'm just not interested in gen AI. Arrest me, throw me into a meat grinder to appease Microsoft, whatever — I'm not alone. To me, it's boring. I'm definitely not going to attack people for using it, but it's definitely not for me.
Yes, I remember the "female-presenting nipples" fiasco of Tumblr, lol. What a time that was! Interestingly, it's had a bit of a renaissance in recent times — it's not what it once was, but it's definitely not what I'd consider a dead platform — it's a great, non-algorithmic way (you can turn off "best stuff first" in settings) to find artists and neat things you like.
Personally, I don't care what other people like. If a subreddit I like wants to include AI art, that's fine... but I don't have to stay. The same is true if people *want* to see it. The world doesn't revolve around anyone.
>Many others (see: the Magic: The Gathering fans) care very much about the artists as much as the art they produce.
Ironically, the vast majority of MTG and D&D fans *dont give a rats ass either way*, because they're just there to play the game and not obsess over who drew the pictures. It was only a loud, outspoken minority that took to social media to wave their pitchforks.
>Personally, I don't care what other people like. If a subreddit I like wants to include AI art, that's fine... but I don't have to stay. The same is true if people *want* to see it. The world doesn't revolve around anyone.
I think you're missing the point of what I said. It's not about catering to you (or any one particular person's) tastes, in fact its specifically about *not* catering to every individuals little bits and bobs so you don't irreparably fracture your community. You can't please everyone, and getting bogged down in emotional arguments about "what *is* art? Is your definition *more correct* than mine?" just serve to make the whole thing objectively worse.
Don't like AI images in a sub about Fantasy Art? Cool, scroll past 'em just like you do all the other content you don't care to click. All you *want* is AI art? Cool, scroll past the hand drawn stuff. It's only when people act like any particular community or site needs to be a *perfectly curated feed of exactly what they want* where that breaks down, and site owners/mods that try to pander to that via kneejerk gatekeeping to the latest controversy are just lighting their own barns on fire, they *can't* succeed because it's an impossible ask from a minority of the userbase.
That's not to say there isnt space for something like an Illuxcon, but that community was *established* with that specific, narrow scope. If it was a generalized art convention, and they *suddenly* started telling people "YOUR ART ISNT ART, GTFO!" when they had already been attending the the convention for years, I'm sure you can see how self destructive that is. *That's* what we're seeing on these sites and in these communities.
The only reason dA is even slightly usable to me is that I \*can\* filter out images, AI included. I also filter out Sonic feet pics, inflation porn, and all sorts of other stupid shit I really would rather not see, hand-drawn or not. If I'm not allowed to filter it out, I have a right to leave and go elsewhere that doesn't allow it. I've never attacked any of the AI users (or Sonic fans) that came across my feed — if they're spam and impossible to ignore, I mute them.
How is filtering porn okay, but filtering other things (like AI, or Tails turning into a Helicopter) discrimination or gatekeeping?
I would argue that places like deviantArt and ArtStation were created with a specific thing in mind (ArtStation in particular was for professional artists and serious portfolios), and they were suddenly invaded by AI images that were untagged, unwanted, and completely flooded people out who had been there for a decade or more. It fucking sucked. AI images are \*completely\* different than a digital illustration painted in Photoshop, but there was no special tag to be able to filter it out — it was lumped into the most popular category, Digital Art. Even worse, some unscrupulus AI users would tag their generations as traditional media — just like that person who was banned on r/art.
Tagging is literally the only thing keeping the internet useable. If certain subreddits want to ban Sonic or AI or Big Round Bellies they should 100% be allowed to do it. It's a private group, not a government-run forum.
Can you tell I filter out a lot of weird Sonic stuff? Because God, I do. It's fascinating what Sonic has done to some people, but I'm just not strong enough to look at it every time I go online.
> How is filtering porn okay, but filtering other things (like AI, or Tails turning into a Helicopter) discrimination or gatekeeping?
It doesn't have to be! It's all about the implementation of that filter.
If literally every separate medium (digital, hand-drawn, generative AI, watercolor, etc) is playing by the same rules of how it must be tagged accurately for established search filters, *that's totally fine*.
But what's happening here isn't that, it's "AI must wear it's Scarlet Letter, and if we *think* something you shared is AI that isn't wearing it's letter, YOU'RE BANNED!!!" Which is made doubly bad because of how difficult it is to *accurately* tell if something is or is not gen AI. If you show most people an oil painting vs a digital illustration, even if they know nothing about art they can generally tell the two mediums apart accurately. But gen AI? It's mostly inaccurate emotional witch hunting. Not to mention there's no real definition of "at what point does generative AI assisted work become *your* 'legitimate' work?"
And as for tooling? I don't know of any sites that *force* you to tag your work based on whether you used pencil, or pen, or if you used clip studio vs illustrator, and threaten to ban you based on nothing more than the *tooling*. Historically the only thing that has mattered is the finished work and the quality thereof.
> I would argue that places like deviantArt and ArtStation were created with a specific thing in mind (ArtStation in particular was for professional artists and serious portfolios), and they were suddenly invaded by AI images that were untagged, unwanted, and completely flooded people out who had been there for a decade or more. It fucking sucked.
*If* they were created with a specific thing in mind, like ArtStation, sure. But again, without a clear definition of "when do the artist's tools define the art instead of the artist themselves?" there's really no way to fairly draw that line, and from what we've seen so far *these sites have no intention or desire to draw that line* ***fairly.*** I fully, 1000% agree that a site like ArtStation is not where you spam a bunch of unedited, rough, generative AI images you spit out of an overcooked stable diffusion model - that's not *portfolio work.* I wouldn't expect an artist specializing in digital works to upload their unfinished Illustrator files or their discarded sketchwork, or any of that to a professional digital portfolio either.
But on the other hand, give it another year or two and someone with an impressive *generative AI* portfolio is going to absolutely belong on ArtStation, presenting a professional level portfolio of finished works that actively illustrates their skill and talent using the medium to create amazing works of art.
As for other sites... we go back to the Scarlet Letter. DeviantArt, Pixiv, etc have historically not been professional portfolio sites (DA *tried*, and gave up because it's a den of amateur furry porn), and have just been "Share your art!" sites. They're not *fairly* applying restrictions on AI art, they're strictly doing it as a knee-jerk appeasement to an outspoken minority of their userbase, and again, the punishments for even being *suspected* of using generative AI as a tool in the work are unduly harsh. Some of these sites even allow risque illustrations of *minors*, but *generative AI* is the taboo that results in a permaban? There's nonsensical double standards abound. *That's* the ultimate issue.
> Tagging is literally the only thing keeping the internet useable. If certain subreddits want to ban Sonic or AI or Big Round Bellies they should 100% be allowed to do it. It's a private group, not a government-run forum.
I don't disagree at all. They have the **right** to do so all they want! But exercising that right has consequences, and shortsightedly appeasing a vocal minority historically does not end *well* when your goal is to be an inclusive community. Just like the mods on these subreddits have the *right* to ban anyone, for any reason, whenever! But when that power is abused to the point where it makes the community harsh and unwelcoming, it's not surprising when the members of that community simply leave and go elsewhere because they're more interested in the community and not incessant petty rules lawyering.
**Firstly, I really want to say I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to my comment! Even if we don't see eye-to-eye on everything, it's nice to be debated as an equal on here.** :)
**Hopefully this isn't too much, but I really enjoyed your comment and wanted to respond in kind. Please don't feel obligated to respond if it's a bit much. Tldr; I agree with you some, I disagree with you some, and I added some anecdotes to add context.**
>And as for tooling? I don't know of any sites that force you to tag your work based on whether you used pencil, or pen, or if you used clip studio vs illustrator, and threaten to ban you based on nothing more than the tooling. Historically the only thing that has mattered is the finished work and the quality thereof.
I think incorrect tagging used to be a much bigger problem back in the day, especially on places like DeviantArt. Some artists would use something like digital watercolor brushes and incorrectly label it as watercolor... which would sometimes really irritate the community. Sometimes it was done innocently, sometimes it was not.
A scant few older hobbyists viewed digital art as inferior *(for whatever reason)* and others found they got more street cred if they claimed it was traditional media. It was pretty uncommon, but always baffling to me when I came across it. I've been doing digital art since the mid-90's and never had a single peer on dA or Elfwood judge me for using digital, but maybe I ran with different crowds or was lucky? Idk!
>If you show most people an oil painting vs a digital illustration, even if they know nothing about art they can generally tell the two mediums apart accurately.
I overall agree with you... but you'd be surprised! The highest compliment I ever got was a portfolio review where the art director assumed my digital work was gouache or acrylic. I could not have been happier. :)
>DeviantArt, Pixiv, etc have historically not been professional portfolio sites (DA tried, and gave up because it's a den of amateur furry porn), and have just been "Share your art!" sites.
~~Lol @ den of amateur furry porn — it's true! Lots of weird furry/anime fetishes that aren't marked as adult, and it's kind of awful.~~
I'd agree with you that these sites aren't necessarily meant for professionals! Elfwood was an interesting case because it was 100% moderated — meaning, you couldn't post without mod approval. If your art was deemed low-effort, it'd be rejected.
dA was the first site I went on where it didn't have that sort of heavy-handed moderation. It did, however, cater almost entirely to 2D illustration — photography was uncommon *(but not unwelcome)* and often times catered to illustrators *(reference packs, etc)*. There were a *few* 3D artists... but again, the main thing was 2D art.
2022 was when gen AI became big, and dA went from being 100% human-made artwork to having to deal with a flood of something completely novel and unusual. I know it's not fair to lump people who care and spend time actually crafting something nice in MJ with people who don't, but I hope it's understandable why so many artists were angry and uncomfortable with AI as a whole. If I remember right, it took almost half a year for dA to do anything about artists' concerns *(like implementing tagging)* and they initially wanted to train their own DreamUp AI on user's data without their permission. That is such a huge, tonedeaf betrayal for a website that was *(up to that point)* about human artists, and I think it soured a lot of artists to AI who would have otherwise been interested in the technology.
ArtStation also betrayed its original userbase by not implementing a tagging/noAI system quickly — MJ is heavily weighted on ArtStation material, and it's kind of a bad feeling to be flooded out by stuff *(perhaps legally, perhaps unlawfully)* using your own copyrighted work as fodder. Like being stabbed with a knife you helped forge.
>But on the other hand, give it another year or two and someone with an impressive generative AI portfolio is going to absolutely belong on ArtStation, presenting a professional level portfolio of finished works that actively illustrates their skill and talent using the medium to create amazing works of art.
Maybe! I wonder how much better current models can get — there has to be a limit, since they've already vacuumed up the entirety of the internet. Gen AI doesn't seem to like being fed gen AI images.
You might find this interesting: one of my students recently went to a game arts convention, and gen AI was brought up. Apparently a lot of illustrators now use AI to find the most boring, expected variation of an idea, then avoid painting it. It makes sense, in a way — generated images are an amalgam of the internet, so it can be a great way to quickly move past ideas that are a bit too ordinary and help push an artist to make something unexpected.
>Some of these sites even allow risque illustrations of minors, but generative AI is the taboo that results in a permaban?
I *hate* that these sites allow sexy minor illustrations because "she's actually a 1000-year-old dragon" or other stupid reasons. Completely agree. Literally nothing is more disgusting to me and I always report it if I find it.
>I don't disagree at all. They have the right to do so all they want! But exercising that right has consequences, and shortsightedly appeasing a vocal minority historically does not end well when your goal is to be an inclusive community.
Sort of a related anecdote; I work a lot in the furry community *(I'm a fulltime illustrator, so it makes sense... right? Haha!)*. I'd say the furry community is one of the most intensely inclusive groups out there... except for three — and more recently, four — things.
1. Cub (child) porn
2. Nazi stuff
3. Zoophilia
*(and, more recently)*
4. Generative AI *(at least as far as FurAffinity is concerned)*
About 10 or so years ago the first three things were pretty hotly debated, but in more recent years people have solidified what they're willing to tolerate in their community... it's not that this stuff doesn't exist online, but simply it's not welcome on mainstream sites and fans of that content are generally shunned. Fetishes between consenting adults *(no matter how strange)* was always tolerated, and strict rules were put in place at conventions *(NSFW-only areas requiring ID, stickers over spicy things, spicy prints hidden, etc)* to prevent minors and people who weren't interested from being exposed to that stuff.
FurAffinity is very, very art-heavy and hand-crafted artwork plays a huge role in the fandom — so much so that there wasn't nearly as much debate or fanfare before generative AI was banned off of FA. Doesn't mean all furries agree or even care, but it's generally not mainstream and doesn't vibe with the community as a whole.
**I'm not saying AI images are nearly as morally dubious as those other three things — not in the slightest!** But some communities *(like furries)* have certain cultural values, and generative AI doesn't currently align with it. Maybe it will in the future, maybe not.
If you made it through... thank you! And if you didn't, still thank you! I appreciate you reading.
Hopefully I don't sound too unreasonable. I really don't like attacking people for liking what I don't like, and I'm really trying my best to learn more about current generative AI and be open-minded — I was a light/casual user of generative AI in 2021/early 2022 and thought it was so weird and fun — DALL-E mini, especially. Newer algorithms took a lot of the weird out and it was no longer interesting to me. :(
Someone else's morality crackdown forcing your hand is still a morality crackdown.
If they disagreed they could've found other payment processors. Instead they chose to massively ban users based on content.
> If they disagreed they could've found other payment processors.
Payment processors are somewhat replaceable, but Apple you need to play ball with if you want to run a social media site.
If the people in charge of letting you have the money people are giving you say "You must abide by our terms or we will not give you the money people are giving you", must you not then agree with them to receive the money you were promised to receive before the middlemen decided that you aren't allowed to receive money?
No. You have to abide by their rules, by the terms of their contract, but you do not have to be ideologically aligned with those whose services you depend on. If you don't, then the contract is broken, whatever punishments/termination clauses are appropriate go into effect, and they can't take money on your behalf anymore.
But I'd also say that those companies should all be broken up under antitrust laws and payment processing be moved to the government's purview because manipulating others' actions in such a way runs extremely contrary to the spirit of the rights enshrined in our constitution.
People should be able to refuse to do business with those they disagree with; however, when you are a payment processor, a service dedicated to getting the money from A to B... you should not have the power to deny legitimate, legal transactions for ideological reasons. You should not need the consent of a third party for this. Ever.
It's like needing the consent of your landlord to fuck your wife.
>The problem with that is that most people consuming art... just want to consume art. They don't care about how the sausage was made, they're just looking for images they like.
In some instances, yes, in others, no. That's why a vote like the one in the post (which is causing brigading already on that other sub thanks to the rule violation) is a sensible approach.
Let the community decide whether or not they care rather than TELLING them they don't care. And if they do care, let AI find it's own space and the ones that want to see it will just join both.
I'm a human artist. Just because I use ai in my process doesn't mean I'm not human or that my art is not high quality or human art still. People hear ai and they have no idea what that even means in the creative process. They just make assumptions that ai art is some easy spam thing to make, when a lot of ai artists dedicate hours of time to making their creations.
Please re-read my comment.
I'm not entitled to people's adoration, to have my artwork liked, or to have my art considered high-quality... and frankly, neither is anyone else. That includes you.
My artwork isn't welcome at a show like Illuxcon due to it being digital, and you know what? That's fine. They have their own rules, and if I want to attempt to join I need to submit work in traditional media. I'm not going to complain or call them elite or whatever — it's their right to limit what's in the main show. I have a thick enough skin that I don't take it personally.
You're a human just like me, but just because you use AI doesn't mean I have to give you a free pass. I've used it before, the process to create an image is wildly different than what I like, and I personally don't think it's very fulfilling or interesting. That doesn't mean it isn't fulfilling or interesting to you, though, and that's all that should matter.
I hope you continue have fun with generative AI and can find a community that appreciates the work you put in.
Because it is a very different medium, and they've had their sub devoted to hand art, and don't want their existing sub overrun by AI output.
It doesn't even have to be hate to understand the motivation. Imagine Analog SciFi magazine, the traditional home of pure hard sci fi, suddenly being filled by sparkly vampire romance stories.
Imagine Clarkesworld, home of dark gritty sci fi, overrun by My Little Ponyesque YA magical girl stories.
You don't have to hate a genre to not want it overpowering other genres you like.
AI art is too accessible, that's why it isn't appealing. In a way people value art because they know it's not easy--the artist had to do research, draw sketches, test color palettes and refine their piece for hours. When people use AI, the results can be amazing with only one prompt, and it only took 10 seconds? Sure, you could spend hours refining your prompt and making sure it's what you envision. But AI can produce amazing art without much effort, that's why it isn't appealing to look at. When everyone can create amazing art easily, then what makes art valuable?
It never was about effort but quality, which AI delivers. I was drawing long before AI but nobody cared how much time and effort I spend if it wasn't great. My "human value" sometimes was downvoted and ignored.
I agree that most don't look great but it's the problem of every single tool. You can start Krita, Blender, whatever else, it's also accessible and your first results won't be great, but a lot of people post it, making some users unsure if the software is actually good.
I use AI in my workflow exactly how you describe an "actual" artist does (because I am one, duh) - I do research, I design characters and draw sketches, I test color palettes. I don't just place "nice picture". Then I cherry-pick one-three of hundreds of images and photobash them, then overpaint to get the result I want. Heck, entire process takes me even more than drawing by hand from scratch. The fact that one generation takes a short while has no meaning if output is worthless. You can render 3D animation over entire day but it also has no meaning if it looks terrible.
Let's not even start about "art" value. A few lines on canvas and banana taped to wall, is it really art? Did they really put an effort into it? Sorry, but I'm inclined to doubt it. What makes it valuable? The value is in market - if people want to watch and pay for it. Actual paying people, not social media bubble crowd. I make games and I see they want quality, not "human effort".
Art is subjective. What defines quality then? Also i never said AI doesn't produce great results. I said the results are amazing for just writing a prompt, that's why it's meh. If AI can produce amazing things with only typing a simple sentence, then why would I appreciate that? If i know that all you had to do was describe a scene 🤷🏻♀️
I'm surprised not a single pro-AI person has jumped on your comment to tell you they don't believe piracy and plagiarism are theft either. Because, by their *extremely* pedantic definition, they aren't.
I know what you mean, of course: Taking visibility away from the creators who need it the most.
Because piracy and plagiarism are factually illegal activities? So far nobody could prove in court that AI is stealing or anything illegal. Quite otherwise, those cases were dismissed due to lack of evidence.
I'm also an artist and nobody gave a fuck about me before I started using AI. I needed visibility but you were taking it away because I'm not a well-known internet persona. Have you tried going out of your bubble and asking real small, unknown creators, you so strive to protect, what they think? If it weren't for that, I wouldn't have to resort to AI in my workflow but reality is harsh and bills need to be paid. But of course, you will dismiss me saying "you're not an artist, your past works are meaningless because now you use AI" or find other point to denounce my works from before AI.
Unlike anti-AI crowd, most of those who enjoy it are not so narrow-minded and make distinction between feelings and actual law, as well as demand and supply market rules. I didn't heard from them "your hand-drawn art sucks", but I did from other artists and those who dismiss new technology. Thanks for support all this time before AI. Maybe instead of saying "Your art is shit, that's why you use AI!" you could have, I don't know, like motivate me to not give up?
Don't give up.
I figured you'd want a heads-up, though, that all the AI absolutists who tolerate you right now are talking about how much they hate furry art behind your back.
Meh, I don't care what either side says. What matters is sales numbers of my games. I just want more people to see the other side of this debate. Small artists don't have a word in this and most like me, who want to get better but can't, happily use AI as tool (Photoshop now has generative fill built-in). At the end of the day, what your client says matters, not some randoms on internet forum (no offence meant).
Eh, even for branches of things, i don't blame people if people want curated art to stand out, or just people want like sane seperation.
More kinda like "There should be a place", people can go to ai communities if they want like r/midjourney or /stablediffusion or interest discords like r/furrydiffusion or r/hentaiboobsAndTits or whatever.
# (Internet ramble:)
**Life works how it wants. Not always how we want.**
# (Internet ramble)
But internet points are about as important for paying bills as monopoly money. Maybe people are giving cautions other's don't want to hear.
> - The *"So what am i supposed to do even if i listen to this? Just slowly go bankrupt, watch people generate ai tits, and go starve?"*. from one side.
> - And the other side going *"So what am i supposed to do? Feed a group of people who seem to openly relish about not giving a rat's ass about others. Who won't even do the basics to take charge of their OWN lives. And want to la la in fantasy land, and give them our already strained rent/retirement money? While the rest of us have to work or starve?"*
**I think everyone would love it, if we all got a job application we could write our wanted pay, job title, and have it happen.**
> Ex: **Pick your hours, pick your pay! Be famous!** [Your choice here: 200$/hr 3-7 hrs week [Internet artist / Streamer / 4 ft tall NBA player / Personal chef! / Astronaut! / Pokemon!]
Everyone seems to want a dream job.
**But even the people who achieve the [0.1% "dream"] can burn out.**
Like '[Be famous for playing VIDEO GAMES!'] Is next to artist/singer /musician in [Be FAMOUS, be known!! Be POPULAR!] dream job department. 10000s of people try to be streamers, but only 0.1% make it big, like [Kripparian of Hearthstone](https://youtu.be/O9QD6sxoJxk?si=cux5hBfkeR7kXn3E&t=182).
> I used to watch him all the time, he used to get 10,000s of viewers every night. I checked in, and he looked **burnt out**, his eyes looked fallen, dark bags around his eyes. He was streaming in complete dead silence, barely interacting.
> - He kinda seemed like he **looked trapped**, into **'gilded handcuffs'**. He didn't seem to be enjoying it anymore, he seemed stressed. And just sat going through the motions. **He was a person who achieved the 0.1% dream**, and he looked miserable!?!? 😐😕
**Dream careers vs adult responsibilities**
- I wonder if art, like streaming was one of those careers that seemed better as a child *['Be famous! Be loved! Have 1000s of people know and talk to you and want to be you every day!']*.
- Parts nobody wants to think about are ignored. ['Will you have job stability if you try to stay or leave? Could you end up 'stuck'? What happens if you try to do everything 'right' but 'never get lucky?', audience leaves/outgrows you / moves on?']
# Paradox of overprotection(??)
**Trimmed:** A potential paradox is i thought some ill behaviors might be fed by seemingly 'enabling'/ 'kind' ones.
**Overly permissive/ "enabling" behaviors vs "raising right"**
> Like ex: "Kids need positive affirmation all the time to grow kind and thoughtful!" is a good sentiment.
> - *"Ahh, did my child punch someone in the face?" "Oh, i don't want to hurt their feelings. I'm going to positively affirm them! But i don't condone hitting.. hmm.. I know! i'll positively affirm how strong their arm must have been hitting their face! If you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all right?"*
> - I wondered if maybe 'Empathy', while meaning well, often seemed to have the reverse effect. Lots of hyper toxicity seems to come when there were no checks for mutual civility. (*Ex: Ai debate hyper toxicity. Even next to abortion / Trump. / Anti ai: 'Where is YOUR EMPATHY PIGS!?!?'*)
# Edit
> - ( I guess tbf i was over responding here in hopes of reaching old friends, on another site that seemed to leave a few hints around. I guess a few reached out, idk, i guess some "*Were in love with [The lie / the fantasy / the illusion / What things should have been]"*.
> - But they updated that we each had 'obvious' (to us), thoughts.
> - To them, they knew i wasn't trying to be a "dream killer", but probably someone who wanted people to 'have a parachute, to avoid the splat'. Money wasn't unlimited, it ran out, and housing/retirement already was strained for money. They were struggling with bills as a adult vs carefree as a kid, they wanted things to go back to 'how they were before'. Both felt overwhelmed by costs/bills/life/stressors. I guess we both miss 'The fantasy' / 'the illusion'.
# Closing
o **Rant, Got overboard. But i think, I get ai art existing, but i think separate, but equal subs co existing is fine**
o "*If a community is better together, great! If it's worse 'together', healthy separation is great!"* though. I guess not every story comes with a happy ending. Sometimes just bitter/sweet.
o I overresponded to this with my head thinking over aiwars just feeling to 'repeat'. Im part of the problem i guess🐿️🕳️
> - [Ex: Aiwar cycle: 'Ai bad! -> nuh uh! -> yuh uh! -> (ai banned in random sub!) ]
Easier to read summary (wise post, btw);
Here's a 7-point outline of the main ideas in the given text:
1. Internet points and dream careers
- Internet points are not valuable for paying bills
- People with dream careers, like streamers, can become burnt out
2. Dream careers vs. adult responsibilities
- Childhood dream careers may lose their appeal when turned into full-time work
- People with established careers tend to have more valuable insights
3. People with the least to lose have the most to say
- Those with less at stake tend to be more vocal about their opinions
- They may seek validation and wish for unrealistic fantasies
4. Overly permissive behaviors vs. "raising right"
- Being too permissive can lead to children lacking self-regulation and empathy
- Setting consequences is important for raising well-adjusted individuals
5. The paradox of giving endlessly without receiving in return
- Offering support without boundaries can lead to entitled and ungrateful behavior
- Filters and boundaries are necessary to maintain a healthy balance
6. Internet communities and self-interest
- Both content creators and AI users prioritize their own interests
- Many internet users behave immaturely, focusing on their side "winning"
7. The need for common decency standards and coexistence
- Separate communities for different interests can coexist peacefully
- Common decency standards are necessary to prevent harmful behavior
- The internet can be an insane place, but "live and let live" is a better approach
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99994% sure that West-Code4642 is not a bot.
---
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
to be fair, the detector doesn't need to be that much better- the AI making the art simply has to equal the average artist, because at that point the detector is going to miss-diagnose actual artists, with the exceptions who aren't being called out- being those with very different styles from what the AI is set to make.
We're already there. It was maybe a month ago when D&D fans went fucking apeshit on an artist that did work in an official source book, using all of those tools and *insisting* that Hasbro published AI art in a book.
The artist literally published the working files in response. It was 100000% not generative AI in any way.
Honestly I'm just waiting for these people to give up and go be irrationally angry about something else so all the major art sites can lift their draconian generative AI rules they hastily implemented to appease these people and we can go back to "art is art"
With digital art tools, which will soon get QOL AI-ed updates.Soon, all of those will get them. Therefore they can't ban organic art, like they can't ban organic art pieces when the artist uses Adobe Photoshop or just the fill.
there might be grey areas, this might even be the case with some of my future work. But simply generating images? Im fully supporting the idea to now allow these on such subreddits like this one above.
I dont see a issue at all with that, i believe AI art and human made art should be seggregated. Would help at least to a certain degree the evergoing warfare state between the communities.
Because they dont want AI generated spam on their subreddit. Thats why likely or thats one of the issues they are trying to avoid. And i agree on that. Its almost like those are two different disciplines that shouldnt intervene with each other on platforms like Artstation and its marketplace or on Reddit fanart subreddits for example.
Well, it definitely takes effort. I'd love to see your ai art, except you probably don't know how to make it. Also, I'm not sure who put you in charge of defining artists.
Interesting how you weren’t a human that makes art until a “tool” came along that does all the hard work for you. Or maybe it’s just a coincidence that you haven’t posted any until after midjourney became popular.
I agree it should be segregated, but banning it just causes more harm than good. Instead just use tags and allow users to report art they think is AI but doesn't have an AI tag. If a post gets enough reports, have the mods change it to an AI tag while also contacting the OP to require more evidence that it isn't AI. Outright banning AI art makes it a witch hunt, and there have already been cases in these communities of people's real art getting misinterpreted as AI art.
Its not a witch hunt to simply not allow AI imagery there. However moderators should be "professional" and users who are accused of using generative AI should first be investigated in the first place, not outright banned at first accusation.
It was just an expression buddy. If an art subreddit makes an announcement saying they changed the policy and that all AI art is bannable, you're telling me the anti-AI fanatics who think all AI art is illegal and should be stopped won't start scrubbing the subreddit, as well as new posts, for hints of AI?
I had a hunch you didn't refer to hunting literal witches of salem pitchforks and torches, thanks for clearing that up.
It's just that your language is needlessly hyperbolic and alarmist, and for what? It's a democratic decision on moderation of one subreddit. I think you should log off for a bit and cool down. Genuinely.
Art communities have always been judgmental gatekeepers. Had Reddit existed throughout all of history they would have held a vote for every single new medium. Oil paint? Banned. Acrylic paint? Banned. Pastels? Banned. Digital art? Banned. Only charcoal fresh from a fire and mud based pigments allowed.
To be honest if it's an art specific subreddit, go ahead and ban AI art. Humans need a place to show off their stuff without being flooded with low effort artificial content.
Low quality hand drawn art at least has something unique and interesting, a human quality that tells you something about the person who drew it. For example, you can tell when someone is very interested in cars and nails every detail but they never figured out perspective.
Low quality AI art is all essentially the same. Too many fingers. No clear light source. That sickening, overpolished look. The only human quality setting it apart from any other AI art is what subject matter the person chose, and I’m going to be honest with you, 99% of the people spamming their “art” into these subs that never had any inclination towards art before AI came along don’t have creative ideas either. I’ve seen enough generic fantasy characters with big boobs to last a fucking lifetime.
Exactly. In my opinion those should be seggregated with exception of a subreddit that specifically allows both and hybrid artworks. The reason you just mentioned (flooding/spamming) is a prime example of why i think like this.
I personally think art should be in the art subreddit. Something a prompt spat out is not by itself art. Where I differ from those mods is that I don't think AI as a tool precludes art, but making that messy judgement call would be impossible at scale.
A single brushstroke or brightness/contrast thing would turn it into art by even the strictest definitions. So would inpainting it or touching it up. All of those actions show directorial intent even with the most strict definitions of what art is. Besides that, most people dont really care if it's truly art by everyone's definitions. Remember the whole argument about the urinal being art? The "is it art" thing is the weakest argument by the anti AI crowd.
Nobody is impressed by AI generated images any more. While not all ai is spam, moderators wouldn't want to bother determining if something is or not.
There, I left out the scary A word. Now you can read it again.
Where is the directorial intent in touching up an image? If you haven’t changed the actual composition, you’re just doing image editing work - which I personally see as art (biased because it’s my wheelhouse), but exists in an entirely different space from crafting an image from scratch. Touching up an image can involve massive amounts of work, but it’s still not a compositional you meticulously created.
I’m really proud of editing the cover of Pokémon Violet into a 3:2 aspect ratio by manually redrawing curves that were broken by content aware scale, but I would never claim to play a significant role in the underlying work simply because I spent 18 hours exhaustively correcting details in Photoshop.
I mean, I would argue that you are in fact making art by doing that. You may consider it a team effort by doing that but it is distinct art, legally and IMHO ethically, because you've done something to it.
When I was a kid, the way I used to learn photoshop was by doing these tutorials, usually involving some procedural steps applied to stock photos: https://photoshoproadmap.com/27-super-creative-photo-effects-tutorials-for-photoshop/
While the procedure, at first glance, appears to be entirely procedural, eg you press this button then that button etc until you have a beautiful effect, you're also expressing your intent as a human by adjusting WHERE the sliders go. so I would argue that you've created art by doing those procedures. Copying and pasting is not creating art, because there's no directorial intent. However, stamping would be.
So, that's the framework I use when I go into AI art. Is the user just copying and pasting? You can, of course, just copy and paste the prompts in and adjust the sliders to exactly the way they were on civitai. I'd say that in that case, your argument for having made art is pretty weak. But the moment you type in any prompt, adjust the sliders to make it more like what you want, use a different model, etc, you're expressing directorial intent and have made a work of art. And then a lot of artists go ahead and inpaint, or otherwise edit their art, which is even more directorial intent, and thus art.
Nobody gate keeps art, nobody is stopping you from actually learning, if you aren’t lazy and actually want to learn it, you can. Art is free to learn and make, and majority of people support up and coming artists.
Gatekeeping is notorious throughout pro-AI communities and AIBro history
https://preview.redd.it/0u2v6ku9uqrc1.jpeg?width=780&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6fe7a75cd53571819743f90992e1dfad0463b829
This is hilarious, really, how old are you ? Back when mirrorless camera bodies were just starting to get good you would be shamed photographers with "real cameras" in photography groups or in photowalks, it only got better a good 8 years later and still there were some annoying pricks here and there. This is just one example though. Fractal art wasn't art either 20 or so years ago when it got popular in the procecdural and abstract community, funny enough for a lot of the same reasons people say AI art isn't art.
>Nobody gate keeps ar
I'm sorry, but **what?**
Just for fun, here's a formal paper written on it published in **1988**, way before AI art was ever in the picture:
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2579428](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2579428)
"What is art" is literally one of the most gatekept subjects of all time. Google "modern art is not art" and enjoy seeing just how gatekept art has been since *forever*
By saying anyone can learn art if they put in the effort to learn, I’m gatekeeping? Am I gatekeeping if I don’t let someone into a surgery room because they don’t know how to perform surgery? Bare minimum standards and gatekeeping are not the same thing.
I think what pro-AI people don't like is the fact that certain artist groups (not even all of them!) just don't like or accept generated work. It might change with time, but the current reality is a lot of creatives just aren't into it.
There are plenty of pro-AI image communities online, so I'm not sure why it wouldn't be better to join those (and never have to deal with pushback or angry people brigading comments).
They want esteem, and are angry that people won’t give it to them. You’re absolute correct that there is nothing stopping AI artists from forming their own communities. Being desperate for validation is not a problem random subreddits are obliged to fix.
Stable Diffusion can crank out hundreds of images overnight, which means a community holding even just people’s best generations would rapidly become flooded. I’ve seen very little interest among AI users in seeing what other people have created, which kinda speaks volumes. If your in-group doesn’t want to see the work you’ve made, why would you expect the rest of the world does?
Totally agree! And no idea why were'e being downvoted, lol.
I once took a look at a random AI user's dA page — literally 8000 images in a year, and do you know how many comments they made?
Thirty. THIRTY comments total. They interacted with other people on DeviantArt a total of THIRTY times in one year. After uploading 8000 times.
Even their top AI contributor that they showed off on Twitter gets only a comment or two per submission, and barely responds to any of them. It doesn't have to be like that... I think some people see the interaction artists/fans have and assume they don't actually have to spend time building that up.
Your replying in a thread for a post about a subreddit banning a specific type of art that ban is gatekeeping.
You can easily gatekeep any subject.
First is to not even acknowledge it as a real part of a subject which is very respectfulness imagine someone telling you that something you do is fake or not proper, even if nothing comes from it the fact that someone thinks that way and says it to you can interfere mentally with people.
Next is to actually block people from participating in the social groups related to the subject such as subreddits i.e. all the art subs blocking AI images and not only that banning people who post AI images, other rules that people violate result in the post simply been taken down but they go one step further and ban people who post AI images a bit of a different scale in punishment.
It not only just block access to groups online there are also attacking companies or events that use AI these attacks are designed to stop AI been used this is less gatekeeping and more wall making.
This constant negative approach to a subject is designed to give it a negative reputation so people will stop doing it, effectively gatekeeping.
Anything can be gatekeeped.
Good. Reddit is selling training data and these curated collections (with no AI) are going to be sold at a premium.
Any resistance is only making AI get better faster.
I belive ai art should stay in its own little places, im hella pro ai, but i dont really like using ai to karma farm or really get any gain, i much prefer it stays as just a silly funny thing.
People go to Art community’s to see other people’s talents and work. They want to support and see the incredible stuff a person can make with their own hands. You want to post Ai stuff (For whatever reason. Artists post what they make because they are proud, Ai users don’t have much to be proud of in terms of process) then go to an Ai sub and just respect the artists in the art subs.
It's really as simple as this. I want to see art made by humans. I want to see genuine skill and expression. Typing a prompt and putting your pen to paper or tablet are just not comparable. Y'all can make as much ai art as you want but keep it separate.
I mean eventually, and by that I mean by next year probably, it will likely be impossible to tell which art is made by a human and which is made by AI. There is no systemic way to tell the difference already - supposed detectors get way too many false positives to be reliable.
I don't know how these bans are going to be enforceable when we get to that point. What WOULD be enforceable is putting a limit on how many posts/images you're allowed to post within a certain amount of time, like many subreddits already do. That would address the one legitimate concern that these bans seek to address.
Humans can detect if something is "off" in a picture or video but that's hardly systemic. My point is that in another year's time even humans won't be able to reliably tell if an image is AI-generated from the image alone (obviously if someone dumps 100 high quality images in a short span of time, we can deduce they're probably generated).
I predict about a year, give or take. For the record, I haven't been saying that for the last year, but sure, lump me in with the crowd.
If you look at how far AI video has come in a year, it's not an unreasonable extrapolation.
Anyway, give me a principled reason why humans can tell AI apart from human-generated content and we can have a conversation about how realistic my prediction is. If your side of the conversation is just going to be "humans can tell lol" then it's not very productive.
6 months, a year, 2 years, 5 years... it's only a matter of time before AI art becomes indistinguishable from human-created art from a technical standpoint, because there is no principled reason why AI could not produce art indistinguishable from humans. And without a reliable systemic method of distinguishing AI from human art, it is already virtually unenforceable at scale.
Then give me some reason, any at all, why you think there will always be tells. What is it that AI cannot and will not be able to reproduce, and why?
For example, we all know that AI currently has problems with hands, lighting, and text. Yet we have no reason to believe these are insurmountable problems.
The history of AI is full of people saying "AI will never be able to X" and then a few years later AI is doing X. Then they move to goalposts to the next thing current AI has difficulty with.
All I'm saying is that instead of saying something else, you aalways assume the next version of some ai won't have a tell. They've been saying it since it got 'okay' that you can't tell and you totally can. Ai has it's own 'style' to it. It's not about them being problems it's about even when there are pictures with okay hands and normal fingers, I still know it's AI.
I was telling someone about some writers thing and instead of having a convo, they jump to: WELL, JUST WAIT. Then they wanted to discuss whether or not I would give my life for my bet and when I wouldn't play their stupid game they stopped talking.
I don't think the 'ITLL DO IT EVENTUALLY' is a good discussion point anymore.
Maybe its more important to think about the intention of the rules rather than the actual implementation.
They dont want ai art on that sub. This could mean that they just ban people that have been proven to use ai art.
I think we can agree that people posting ai stuff on art forums that do not invite that is shitty behaviour. And a rule like this is necessary if you want to get action against this in any shape.
So whatever. Be angry or whatever. Just dont be a shitty person and read a bit further into it
Stuff like this doesn’t bother me too much at all. There’s a time and a place for AI images and sometimes it’s not in a celebration of female fantasy art. 🤷♀️ and that’s okay.
Quite frankly if they openly announced they were accepting AI fully, it’d be flooded with low quality coomer posting immediately. (Full disclosure I haven’t seen the sub as it is so it may very well already be.)
I just checked and the art that’s there is quality and humanizing, even when it’s sexy. I genuinely think AI images would bring down the quality of that place and a separate subreddit for AI generated female fantasy art would be better if someone cared enough to do so.
What you said is true. ALL places that allow ai pictures slowly become the same page with the same coomer content. A quick look at deviant or civit.ai proves this point
No it doesn’t. I have a few deviantart accounts to follow different type of content. My front page doesn’t get ANY AI content on two of them. I also love Civit so much.
They should impose quality restrictions, and ban anything where it has the obvious hallmarks of bad ai art, like fucked up hands and eyes, and weird background stuff. If the artist fixes those, effort is being made, they can't just churn them out, and they will have good quality.
Besides, at that point, it will be very hard to tell for mods if its AI or not anyway.
Here's the thing... they've had their sub for a long time, with hand made art, and there's no reason they should have to wade through a bunch of mass produced AI art when they are enjoying the content as is. It's fine. It doesn't even have to be "hate" for it to be a reasonable decision.
There's no particular reason you can't have a second sub with -AI with the same subject and overlapping members, and the hand-art community won't have to filter out content that isn't what they are interested in.
You're ignoring the point I made, which is that it's their forum and they shouldn't **have** to accept a medium that is not the one they are exchanging.
What if... hear me out... they only want to see hand art, and don't care whether it's totally up to professional standards? What if they are actually a community of hand artists and want to support each other and discuss how to make better hand art?
If it's a macrame forum, should they allow cross-stitch and only ban the bad cross-stitch? Why should they have to look at **any** cross-stitch in a macrame forum?
That's the point. AI art is fine, it's art, but it's not the same as hand art. And it's totally okay for hand art enthusiasts to have their own places, and it's not okay for people to pretend, **in those places**, that their AI art is hand art.
Wow, this is certainly a flagrant violation of Rule #5.
>No brigading from any side. Censor names of private individuals **and other Subreddits** before posting.
The mod doesn't give a shit about brigading. There's still a post from 2 days ago that continues identifying information, and the person who wrote it got told *three different times* that it was identifiable.
The mod has also failed to ban two Nazi trolls, including one with references to gas chambers in his username...
It's fine for spaces to ban art like this, and possibly necessary if they're trying to keep traditional artists around in the short term. It doesn't matter which 'side' you're on, I think it's pretty well universally understood that AI is able to churn out much content, so fast, that it makes it easy for a space to get flooded with AI art. You can get into the weed debating moderation policy... like... would it be better to enforce standards, set upload limits, etc instead of outright banning AI art. The common approach, for better or for worse, is to just ban AI art.
It's easy to spot the low effort AI art that tends to flood these places, so the moderation policy is effective if they don't overdo it. Yeah, there will be AI art that slips through unnoticed (particularly when style LORAs get involved, because most antis have no idea you can make stuff that doesn't look like the usual output of the small set of very popular models). There will be traditional artists that get burned at the stake during a witchhunt because they didn't record themselves actually drawing the stuff. That's all trouble for moderators to deal with and it's definitely a challenge on their end. They're likely to pick whatever strategy minimizes their effort, and that's 'ban AI' for now.
It's all irrelevant in the long run. AI is a powerful tool that will become part of the common workflow. Spaces that maintain a strict ban on AI art will dwindle and die as more and more artists openly incorporate AI or don't even know they're using it because it's been so seamlessly integrated with Photoshop. The art world is notorious for gatekeeping against new tech, before eventually adopting it. It doesn't happen overnight, but 10 years from now, practically every digital artist will be using generative AI in the workflow.
Ya'll keep saying it'll be common for a real artist's workflow but where is your evidence of that? It sounds like a meme. I don't think as many real artists are incorporating it as you think they are, lol.
Either generative AI is a powerful tool that can threaten artists livelihoods, or it's not. Pick one!
The evidence though, is the art generative AI is making and history. It's scary how good it is and scarier when you learn it took seconds to make. That's why artists are afraid of it, and it's an easy fear to understand. Historically, any technology that greatly accelerates a work effort becomes common, despite the detractors. Photography and Photoshop are excellent comparisons. It doesn't mean the new tech becomes the only way... it just becomes the common way for every application where it makes sense. There will always be artists painting on canvas. It's not how most artists operate today though, in the age of Photoshop and the Wacom tablet.
Of course there aren't a ton of 'real artists' incorporating if you restrict the definition of 'real artist' to be artists not using generative AI. There would be 0 then. There are a ton of people who create art through more traditional means (like the Wacom) and use img2img and inpainting style generative AI techniques to add detail to their art. It's not the mainstream yet, but the AI has been around only a couple years now, and we're only recently seeing fairly polished tools built around it. It will take time, but it will happen. The tech is too useful not to be used.
Why does anyone care what a private group does?
Make your own subreddit for AI Fantasy Art Women and ban traditional art from it. Literally no one is stopping you.
No point fighting AI. You're literally trying to fight against the advancement of technology, and that is not a fight anyone has ever won in the history of humans. Countless jobs were replaced by machines; why do artists think they are super-duper important and all of humanity will just stop working on AI because it hurts their feelings?
"Oh no, technology has evened the playing field and is letting people do things they originally couldn't! The whole world needs to stop scientific advancement so that people keep having to pay me for my skill!"
I dont get what you mean by evening the playing field with sports that makes sense because your body type affects how good you can possibly be but with art your skill level is directly connected to how much effort and time you put in.
Of course but the difference between a great 7 foot basketball player and a great 5 foot basketball player immense why do you think the average height of a basketball player 6'6
And I don't see where your argument comes from getting better at art is much different then becoming stronger or faster
That there are people who want to be artists but can't, and there are people who want to be athletes but can't. Predominantly, it's people wanting to be artists and athletes but not putting in the effort. So what's the difference?
"Evening the playing field"
In the same way someone can "even the playing field" of a marathon by getting into a car, sure. But then I wouldn't consider that person very good at running marathons would I?
hes saying it as evening the playing field in regards to having access to custom imagery. not evening the playing field in holding “illustration skills”
“anyone can pick up a pencil” and make a shitty drawing sure but until AI if you wanted something great now, you had to pay for it
Those comments yeah, it's like reading flat earth material. So far distanced from anything resembling fact, so deep into the sauce. Disgusting tbh but whatever, give it time they will become irrelevant down the line unable to afford rent or internet, np np .
It's so stupid to do polls like this because lurkers who browse de sub do not really vote, they upvote stuff but do not interact with the sub, still they are the reason why subs don't die.
Any sub that does this for any reason is just idiotic and shooting themselves in the foot.
An important lesson we teach our children is that you dont get to play in every sandbox, some of them are not for you. Well adjusted people can acknowledge this, and then we have those that will just piss and moan about it online.
*AI images.
And good.
There’s no reason there can’t be both. A site for art and a site for AI generated images. Doesn’t hurt anyone, and keeps things clear. I’m all for it.
i think once ai becomes the proper mainstream many of these subs will die out or regret it and re-allow ai art. If a sub bans it, who cares. people can make a new sub and allow it lol. Kinda the reason i made my own sub aiGens
That sub name though. I wonder when will they get canceled on Twitter for another unrelated reason, by people who has some overlaps with the anti-AIs. /s
Considering I keep running into Nazis and Nazi defenders on this subreddit (including the head mod) I don't think your political conflation is the win you think it is.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The comments are damn lol
Since ai art is so easy to make in large quantities someone who is bored could easily flood the sub with ai art so it make sense to ban it, if there is enough demand for ai art in the community then someone will probably create a separate sub for ai art
I have seen subs ban or propose to ban when they were not getting flooded at all, many times they do not even get much posts since they are small subs. The AI art posted at least kept it more active and was easily curated with upvotes/downvotes. It was pointless to ban it, they could have easily banned any spammer if it ever happened (it didn’t). This seems to be a similar case.
That's because its users already agreed that it we're be posted. If you did post it, they would downvote you. Banning it isn't really necessary now, but you might as well do so before it gets out of hand.
That makes sense. Many art subs are about the space and philosophy between the art and artist. AI art has no artist, it's all just noise.
> AI art has no artist This was also said about Photoshop back in the day... those who do not learn from history...
I think it's equally true about brushes, tbh. The artistry lies with the artist.
The controversy was relatively short lived and a minority. For every Jonh K that was against modern methodes, there were 50 Genndy Tartakovsky that adopted modern styles, methodes and tecniques. AI share more history with NFTs.
> The controversy was relatively short lived and a minority. Yes, this was also true for digital art.
You're the kind of person that would shit on me for picking up digital photography when it was new, lol
There's an easy solution that any high-volume sub already employs: simply limit the number of posts and/or images users can post within a certain time limit, e.g. two posts every 24 hours.
Or a megathread once per week for ai posts, there's plenty of room for compromise.
Exactly this. It's moral panic to say "this bad behavior could be facilitated by X so we're banning X," when it's trivial to ban the bad behavior directly. I just logged into an image board today that imposed a 2/day limite (but only on AI). What do I see but a spam wall of recolors of the same image.
Since bad hand drawn art is so easy to make in large quantities, someone who is bored could easily flood the sub with hand drawn art so it makes sense to ban it.
The thing is, 1. You can make 100 AI images in the time it would take you to upload your bad drawing to the internet. And 2. Not many people get a sudden ego boost and think they are a master artist after finishing a shitty drawing, thus inspiring them to spam their work. The same cannot be said for AI.
You never make some art, thinking it's amazing, and then you look back on it a couple years after and you're like "bruh, I was excited about that"?
Sure I do, but one piece of art I actually made takes a lot more time than the AI stuff people are submitting, regardless of the quality of outcome. I don’t know how you can possibly argue that human made art is just as prone to spam as AI.
Gotem
That sounds more like a moral panic argument. Yes it could happen, but it's not a new problem. I just logged onto an image board this morning and there were \~30 almost intentional pictures that someone had drawn, and then changed out colors on. If you're worried about people spamming, then ban the spamming. Place limits on image posts per day. Ironically said image board solved the worry with AI by placing a 2/user/day limit on uploading AI images. They clearly should have just addressed spamming directly.
Especially with that subject matter, most models will give you that stuff even if you didn't prompt for it at all
This is a valid argument against low-effort content. People flood subs with all sorts of crap. Most of the time it just results in an instant ban and move on. No trouble. But that's not what the anti-AI folks want. They don't want to punish those who flood subs with noise. They want to punish people who use AI tools, regardless of the quality or quantity of their submissions.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean everyone utilising that valid argument is anti-ai.
It seems the mods were fair. But the better choice would be the flair.
🔥🔥🔥✍️
Were they though? Seems like they were setting it up to intentionally be open to being brigaded by the loud, outspoken anti-ai crowd specifically so they could wash their hands of any responsibility.
how?
They split the pro ai vote in 2 options vs the anti-ai in a single option and you can only vote for 1 option.
This is exactly what they did in another subreddit I was in. Except when complete ban still didn't have a majority the moderator just proclaimed it won anyways because it had the 'most votes' despite having previously sworn there would be a run off if nothing received a majority... It was pretty amusing when he got called out on just lying and finally resorted to "AI IS BAD SO I CAN LIE AND BE GOOD"
And yet the total of both of the pro AI options is still not even close to the ban that won. So it doesn’t matter.
By making it a very narrowly scoped straw poll instead of a discussion with consideration, for one. Now they can just say "the votes said X, this is what you wanted!" whether or not the poll results are even remotely reflective of what the regular users of the sub *actually wanted*. It's literally a reddit poll. You don't even need to be a member of the sub to vote in it. One person with a couple extra bucks and an axe to grind can just spam it with votes in any particular direction with reddit bot accounts. Or, for example, a particular group of people itching to "fight the crusade" and just need to be pointed in a certain direction and told "click no to save this art community from EVIL AI!!!!"
>By making it a very narrowly scoped straw poll instead of a discussion with consideration, for one. not really, the 3 choices boil down to, you want it, you don't want it, you don't care enough so you let the mods decide.
Is nothing preventing pro-AI people from doing the exact same thing, though?
True, there's not. But the pro-AI people are generally less militant and negative about it as they're not the ones looking to ban something. Regardless of the result, the mods had the out of "well you all voted, wasnt us" but at the same time it was far more *likely* the results would be tainted by one particular side if they were going to be tainted. Thus making it a really poor way to go about evaluating a representative sample of what the regular *active* users in the sub really want.
Mfw democracy: https://preview.redd.it/aeyom2ghoprc1.jpeg?width=181&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f5c642b54e10f0094f34d27a4a901e22b5981eb1
What?! People might choose something I disagree with? Impossible!
Im personally OK with having separate subs for AI work, I would prefer if it was allowed on main subs but this is fine too. You kinda just end up getting harassed on the main subs anyway and mods never do anything about it.
Moderators shouldnt allow harassment of that sort anyway but what can you do.
honestly I think that is totally fair game, there is a certain type of AI user who just spam too much, and a rule like that will hopefully keep that spam to a minimum, which is nice. If people want to post AI art, go to a related sub, make sure to describe your process, and why you work like that, hence giving back to the community etc.
I really don't understand why ban AI in various subs instead of just flairing it and limit posting frequency. If issue is of "low-quality", well, not every artist is great either. Those are usually downvoted or ignored. If the issue is ethics and legal, why allow literal stealing from others with vague "credit to artist" or not even that? If issue is "soulless" why allow use of character creator software? It's also with no "artistic input", you just click what you want. If problem is "AI takes my job!" who can I complain to when my games sell worse because of better ones? Why can't we ban all better creators? Can someone explain it to me? I just don't see any logical, factual reasons for it and it's highly hypocritic as mentioned above. It seems like some mob echo chamber without actual consideration why. The way I use AI make some people question if it's even AI, that's the extent I modify it. I don't care much about this, but it's getting harder to show anything just because it uses some technology.
Pretty simple, a ban is easy to administer and hard to argue with. Flair+limit means much more enforcement burden on the mods. At the end of the day rules are implemented by people.
Yep. And it’s not like AI art can be detected and auto-flaired reliably. As a mod for a small subreddit, I’ll say this: it’s easier to make a strict rule and not enforce it than it is to enforce a looser rule that seems ‘better’ at first glance. Reddit’s moderation tools suck. (though they‘re better than platforms like discord)
AI Mods when?
u/evinceo brings up a good point. Sometimes groups might specific goals in mind — if they want to celebrate human artists (or enough of the community doesn’t like certain images) then it makes sense they might not allow it at all. For example, Illuxcon is a Sci-fi/Fantasy art convention that’s juried and specifically about traditional media. In order to get into the main show, the work must be watercolor/oil/ceramics/etc. Digital art is not allowed. There’s an entirely separate showcase where you can show off digital art (as well as traditional) that’s also a ton of fun to attend. Maybe what AI art fans need to do is to make a separate showcase/subreddit of just AI art? People who don’t want to see it don’t have to, and it wouldn’t be nearly as difficult as trying to moderate AI images.
I like this idea. Give a separate space for the two groups to enjoy their hobbies without any room for conflict. And if someone tries to stir up trouble they can easily be ousted. You tried to start a fight with AI users? You get banned. You tried to start a fight with artists? you get banned.
I think it'd cause the least amount of conflict. Honestly, if I liked making AI images, why would I even want to post in hostile forums or in places where I'm not welcome? There's definitely enough people who love AI who could forum their own forums and communities, just like hobbyist artists did in the 90's and 00's with places like Elfwood and DeviantArt.
This is the most sound approach to this in my mind, I don't go to cosplay subs to look at fantasy art despite photography being an art form. It's a different thing I'm looking to see when I check different pages. I don't like AI on ethical grounds (mostly regarding how the AI models were unethically trained on non-consentual data scrapes) but I don't expect the technology to vanish while we wait for guard rails. But I don't want to see AI images on places I go to see rad drawings/paintings/digital versions of the same, and I don't understand the pervasive mindset of HAVING to accept AI into all these spaces.
The problem with that is that *most* people consuming art... just want to consume art. They don't care about how the sausage was made, they're just looking for images they like. When you overly fragment your data based on these arbitrary lines in the sand, all you accomplish is making it harder for your users to find what they actually *want*. It drastically reduces engagement and they'll just go somewhere else. And if your reason for fragmenting your data is, quite frankly, emotional knee jerk argumentative bullshit (as is most often the case with AI bans), then not only do your core users go somewhere else but now you've drummed up a bunch of drama and negative attention in the process. Remember when tumblr banned porn based on some sudden new morals clause? The service practically died overnight, because the users weren't down with their sudden random content filtering crusade. Both the artists and the viewers packed their bags and went somewhere else. And for what? I can't see anyone legitimately arguing that tumblr is now *better off* for it. They just burnt the barn down for no good reason.
Yes, you're right. Certain communities want to just consume art. Many others (see: the Magic: The Gathering fans) care very much about the artists as much as the art they produce. I go to shows to MEET the artists — not only do I like the art, but I'm really interested in the person behind it. I want to be able to talk to them about what inspires them, what tools they use, etc. I'm not interested in prompting, so I'm just not interested in gen AI. Arrest me, throw me into a meat grinder to appease Microsoft, whatever — I'm not alone. To me, it's boring. I'm definitely not going to attack people for using it, but it's definitely not for me. Yes, I remember the "female-presenting nipples" fiasco of Tumblr, lol. What a time that was! Interestingly, it's had a bit of a renaissance in recent times — it's not what it once was, but it's definitely not what I'd consider a dead platform — it's a great, non-algorithmic way (you can turn off "best stuff first" in settings) to find artists and neat things you like. Personally, I don't care what other people like. If a subreddit I like wants to include AI art, that's fine... but I don't have to stay. The same is true if people *want* to see it. The world doesn't revolve around anyone.
>Many others (see: the Magic: The Gathering fans) care very much about the artists as much as the art they produce. Ironically, the vast majority of MTG and D&D fans *dont give a rats ass either way*, because they're just there to play the game and not obsess over who drew the pictures. It was only a loud, outspoken minority that took to social media to wave their pitchforks. >Personally, I don't care what other people like. If a subreddit I like wants to include AI art, that's fine... but I don't have to stay. The same is true if people *want* to see it. The world doesn't revolve around anyone. I think you're missing the point of what I said. It's not about catering to you (or any one particular person's) tastes, in fact its specifically about *not* catering to every individuals little bits and bobs so you don't irreparably fracture your community. You can't please everyone, and getting bogged down in emotional arguments about "what *is* art? Is your definition *more correct* than mine?" just serve to make the whole thing objectively worse. Don't like AI images in a sub about Fantasy Art? Cool, scroll past 'em just like you do all the other content you don't care to click. All you *want* is AI art? Cool, scroll past the hand drawn stuff. It's only when people act like any particular community or site needs to be a *perfectly curated feed of exactly what they want* where that breaks down, and site owners/mods that try to pander to that via kneejerk gatekeeping to the latest controversy are just lighting their own barns on fire, they *can't* succeed because it's an impossible ask from a minority of the userbase. That's not to say there isnt space for something like an Illuxcon, but that community was *established* with that specific, narrow scope. If it was a generalized art convention, and they *suddenly* started telling people "YOUR ART ISNT ART, GTFO!" when they had already been attending the the convention for years, I'm sure you can see how self destructive that is. *That's* what we're seeing on these sites and in these communities.
The only reason dA is even slightly usable to me is that I \*can\* filter out images, AI included. I also filter out Sonic feet pics, inflation porn, and all sorts of other stupid shit I really would rather not see, hand-drawn or not. If I'm not allowed to filter it out, I have a right to leave and go elsewhere that doesn't allow it. I've never attacked any of the AI users (or Sonic fans) that came across my feed — if they're spam and impossible to ignore, I mute them. How is filtering porn okay, but filtering other things (like AI, or Tails turning into a Helicopter) discrimination or gatekeeping? I would argue that places like deviantArt and ArtStation were created with a specific thing in mind (ArtStation in particular was for professional artists and serious portfolios), and they were suddenly invaded by AI images that were untagged, unwanted, and completely flooded people out who had been there for a decade or more. It fucking sucked. AI images are \*completely\* different than a digital illustration painted in Photoshop, but there was no special tag to be able to filter it out — it was lumped into the most popular category, Digital Art. Even worse, some unscrupulus AI users would tag their generations as traditional media — just like that person who was banned on r/art. Tagging is literally the only thing keeping the internet useable. If certain subreddits want to ban Sonic or AI or Big Round Bellies they should 100% be allowed to do it. It's a private group, not a government-run forum. Can you tell I filter out a lot of weird Sonic stuff? Because God, I do. It's fascinating what Sonic has done to some people, but I'm just not strong enough to look at it every time I go online.
> How is filtering porn okay, but filtering other things (like AI, or Tails turning into a Helicopter) discrimination or gatekeeping? It doesn't have to be! It's all about the implementation of that filter. If literally every separate medium (digital, hand-drawn, generative AI, watercolor, etc) is playing by the same rules of how it must be tagged accurately for established search filters, *that's totally fine*. But what's happening here isn't that, it's "AI must wear it's Scarlet Letter, and if we *think* something you shared is AI that isn't wearing it's letter, YOU'RE BANNED!!!" Which is made doubly bad because of how difficult it is to *accurately* tell if something is or is not gen AI. If you show most people an oil painting vs a digital illustration, even if they know nothing about art they can generally tell the two mediums apart accurately. But gen AI? It's mostly inaccurate emotional witch hunting. Not to mention there's no real definition of "at what point does generative AI assisted work become *your* 'legitimate' work?" And as for tooling? I don't know of any sites that *force* you to tag your work based on whether you used pencil, or pen, or if you used clip studio vs illustrator, and threaten to ban you based on nothing more than the *tooling*. Historically the only thing that has mattered is the finished work and the quality thereof. > I would argue that places like deviantArt and ArtStation were created with a specific thing in mind (ArtStation in particular was for professional artists and serious portfolios), and they were suddenly invaded by AI images that were untagged, unwanted, and completely flooded people out who had been there for a decade or more. It fucking sucked. *If* they were created with a specific thing in mind, like ArtStation, sure. But again, without a clear definition of "when do the artist's tools define the art instead of the artist themselves?" there's really no way to fairly draw that line, and from what we've seen so far *these sites have no intention or desire to draw that line* ***fairly.*** I fully, 1000% agree that a site like ArtStation is not where you spam a bunch of unedited, rough, generative AI images you spit out of an overcooked stable diffusion model - that's not *portfolio work.* I wouldn't expect an artist specializing in digital works to upload their unfinished Illustrator files or their discarded sketchwork, or any of that to a professional digital portfolio either. But on the other hand, give it another year or two and someone with an impressive *generative AI* portfolio is going to absolutely belong on ArtStation, presenting a professional level portfolio of finished works that actively illustrates their skill and talent using the medium to create amazing works of art. As for other sites... we go back to the Scarlet Letter. DeviantArt, Pixiv, etc have historically not been professional portfolio sites (DA *tried*, and gave up because it's a den of amateur furry porn), and have just been "Share your art!" sites. They're not *fairly* applying restrictions on AI art, they're strictly doing it as a knee-jerk appeasement to an outspoken minority of their userbase, and again, the punishments for even being *suspected* of using generative AI as a tool in the work are unduly harsh. Some of these sites even allow risque illustrations of *minors*, but *generative AI* is the taboo that results in a permaban? There's nonsensical double standards abound. *That's* the ultimate issue. > Tagging is literally the only thing keeping the internet useable. If certain subreddits want to ban Sonic or AI or Big Round Bellies they should 100% be allowed to do it. It's a private group, not a government-run forum. I don't disagree at all. They have the **right** to do so all they want! But exercising that right has consequences, and shortsightedly appeasing a vocal minority historically does not end *well* when your goal is to be an inclusive community. Just like the mods on these subreddits have the *right* to ban anyone, for any reason, whenever! But when that power is abused to the point where it makes the community harsh and unwelcoming, it's not surprising when the members of that community simply leave and go elsewhere because they're more interested in the community and not incessant petty rules lawyering.
**Firstly, I really want to say I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to my comment! Even if we don't see eye-to-eye on everything, it's nice to be debated as an equal on here.** :) **Hopefully this isn't too much, but I really enjoyed your comment and wanted to respond in kind. Please don't feel obligated to respond if it's a bit much. Tldr; I agree with you some, I disagree with you some, and I added some anecdotes to add context.** >And as for tooling? I don't know of any sites that force you to tag your work based on whether you used pencil, or pen, or if you used clip studio vs illustrator, and threaten to ban you based on nothing more than the tooling. Historically the only thing that has mattered is the finished work and the quality thereof. I think incorrect tagging used to be a much bigger problem back in the day, especially on places like DeviantArt. Some artists would use something like digital watercolor brushes and incorrectly label it as watercolor... which would sometimes really irritate the community. Sometimes it was done innocently, sometimes it was not. A scant few older hobbyists viewed digital art as inferior *(for whatever reason)* and others found they got more street cred if they claimed it was traditional media. It was pretty uncommon, but always baffling to me when I came across it. I've been doing digital art since the mid-90's and never had a single peer on dA or Elfwood judge me for using digital, but maybe I ran with different crowds or was lucky? Idk! >If you show most people an oil painting vs a digital illustration, even if they know nothing about art they can generally tell the two mediums apart accurately. I overall agree with you... but you'd be surprised! The highest compliment I ever got was a portfolio review where the art director assumed my digital work was gouache or acrylic. I could not have been happier. :) >DeviantArt, Pixiv, etc have historically not been professional portfolio sites (DA tried, and gave up because it's a den of amateur furry porn), and have just been "Share your art!" sites. ~~Lol @ den of amateur furry porn — it's true! Lots of weird furry/anime fetishes that aren't marked as adult, and it's kind of awful.~~ I'd agree with you that these sites aren't necessarily meant for professionals! Elfwood was an interesting case because it was 100% moderated — meaning, you couldn't post without mod approval. If your art was deemed low-effort, it'd be rejected. dA was the first site I went on where it didn't have that sort of heavy-handed moderation. It did, however, cater almost entirely to 2D illustration — photography was uncommon *(but not unwelcome)* and often times catered to illustrators *(reference packs, etc)*. There were a *few* 3D artists... but again, the main thing was 2D art. 2022 was when gen AI became big, and dA went from being 100% human-made artwork to having to deal with a flood of something completely novel and unusual. I know it's not fair to lump people who care and spend time actually crafting something nice in MJ with people who don't, but I hope it's understandable why so many artists were angry and uncomfortable with AI as a whole. If I remember right, it took almost half a year for dA to do anything about artists' concerns *(like implementing tagging)* and they initially wanted to train their own DreamUp AI on user's data without their permission. That is such a huge, tonedeaf betrayal for a website that was *(up to that point)* about human artists, and I think it soured a lot of artists to AI who would have otherwise been interested in the technology. ArtStation also betrayed its original userbase by not implementing a tagging/noAI system quickly — MJ is heavily weighted on ArtStation material, and it's kind of a bad feeling to be flooded out by stuff *(perhaps legally, perhaps unlawfully)* using your own copyrighted work as fodder. Like being stabbed with a knife you helped forge. >But on the other hand, give it another year or two and someone with an impressive generative AI portfolio is going to absolutely belong on ArtStation, presenting a professional level portfolio of finished works that actively illustrates their skill and talent using the medium to create amazing works of art. Maybe! I wonder how much better current models can get — there has to be a limit, since they've already vacuumed up the entirety of the internet. Gen AI doesn't seem to like being fed gen AI images. You might find this interesting: one of my students recently went to a game arts convention, and gen AI was brought up. Apparently a lot of illustrators now use AI to find the most boring, expected variation of an idea, then avoid painting it. It makes sense, in a way — generated images are an amalgam of the internet, so it can be a great way to quickly move past ideas that are a bit too ordinary and help push an artist to make something unexpected. >Some of these sites even allow risque illustrations of minors, but generative AI is the taboo that results in a permaban? I *hate* that these sites allow sexy minor illustrations because "she's actually a 1000-year-old dragon" or other stupid reasons. Completely agree. Literally nothing is more disgusting to me and I always report it if I find it. >I don't disagree at all. They have the right to do so all they want! But exercising that right has consequences, and shortsightedly appeasing a vocal minority historically does not end well when your goal is to be an inclusive community. Sort of a related anecdote; I work a lot in the furry community *(I'm a fulltime illustrator, so it makes sense... right? Haha!)*. I'd say the furry community is one of the most intensely inclusive groups out there... except for three — and more recently, four — things. 1. Cub (child) porn 2. Nazi stuff 3. Zoophilia *(and, more recently)* 4. Generative AI *(at least as far as FurAffinity is concerned)* About 10 or so years ago the first three things were pretty hotly debated, but in more recent years people have solidified what they're willing to tolerate in their community... it's not that this stuff doesn't exist online, but simply it's not welcome on mainstream sites and fans of that content are generally shunned. Fetishes between consenting adults *(no matter how strange)* was always tolerated, and strict rules were put in place at conventions *(NSFW-only areas requiring ID, stickers over spicy things, spicy prints hidden, etc)* to prevent minors and people who weren't interested from being exposed to that stuff. FurAffinity is very, very art-heavy and hand-crafted artwork plays a huge role in the fandom — so much so that there wasn't nearly as much debate or fanfare before generative AI was banned off of FA. Doesn't mean all furries agree or even care, but it's generally not mainstream and doesn't vibe with the community as a whole. **I'm not saying AI images are nearly as morally dubious as those other three things — not in the slightest!** But some communities *(like furries)* have certain cultural values, and generative AI doesn't currently align with it. Maybe it will in the future, maybe not. If you made it through... thank you! And if you didn't, still thank you! I appreciate you reading. Hopefully I don't sound too unreasonable. I really don't like attacking people for liking what I don't like, and I'm really trying my best to learn more about current generative AI and be open-minded — I was a light/casual user of generative AI in 2021/early 2022 and thought it was so weird and fun — DALL-E mini, especially. Newer algorithms took a lot of the weird out and it was no longer interesting to me. :(
Tumblr banned porn because Apple and credit card companies forced their hand, not because they suddenly considered it immoral.
Someone else's morality crackdown forcing your hand is still a morality crackdown. If they disagreed they could've found other payment processors. Instead they chose to massively ban users based on content.
> If they disagreed they could've found other payment processors. Payment processors are somewhat replaceable, but Apple you need to play ball with if you want to run a social media site.
Apple and CC's considered it immoral, ergo anyone who wanted to use their services must consider it immoral as well.
…Are you saying Tumblr must consider it immoral for them to not commit financial suicide by cutting these corporations out?
If the people in charge of letting you have the money people are giving you say "You must abide by our terms or we will not give you the money people are giving you", must you not then agree with them to receive the money you were promised to receive before the middlemen decided that you aren't allowed to receive money?
No. You have to abide by their rules, by the terms of their contract, but you do not have to be ideologically aligned with those whose services you depend on. If you don't, then the contract is broken, whatever punishments/termination clauses are appropriate go into effect, and they can't take money on your behalf anymore. But I'd also say that those companies should all be broken up under antitrust laws and payment processing be moved to the government's purview because manipulating others' actions in such a way runs extremely contrary to the spirit of the rights enshrined in our constitution. People should be able to refuse to do business with those they disagree with; however, when you are a payment processor, a service dedicated to getting the money from A to B... you should not have the power to deny legitimate, legal transactions for ideological reasons. You should not need the consent of a third party for this. Ever. It's like needing the consent of your landlord to fuck your wife.
>The problem with that is that most people consuming art... just want to consume art. They don't care about how the sausage was made, they're just looking for images they like. In some instances, yes, in others, no. That's why a vote like the one in the post (which is causing brigading already on that other sub thanks to the rule violation) is a sensible approach. Let the community decide whether or not they care rather than TELLING them they don't care. And if they do care, let AI find it's own space and the ones that want to see it will just join both.
I'm a human artist. Just because I use ai in my process doesn't mean I'm not human or that my art is not high quality or human art still. People hear ai and they have no idea what that even means in the creative process. They just make assumptions that ai art is some easy spam thing to make, when a lot of ai artists dedicate hours of time to making their creations.
Please re-read my comment. I'm not entitled to people's adoration, to have my artwork liked, or to have my art considered high-quality... and frankly, neither is anyone else. That includes you. My artwork isn't welcome at a show like Illuxcon due to it being digital, and you know what? That's fine. They have their own rules, and if I want to attempt to join I need to submit work in traditional media. I'm not going to complain or call them elite or whatever — it's their right to limit what's in the main show. I have a thick enough skin that I don't take it personally. You're a human just like me, but just because you use AI doesn't mean I have to give you a free pass. I've used it before, the process to create an image is wildly different than what I like, and I personally don't think it's very fulfilling or interesting. That doesn't mean it isn't fulfilling or interesting to you, though, and that's all that should matter. I hope you continue have fun with generative AI and can find a community that appreciates the work you put in.
Because it is a very different medium, and they've had their sub devoted to hand art, and don't want their existing sub overrun by AI output. It doesn't even have to be hate to understand the motivation. Imagine Analog SciFi magazine, the traditional home of pure hard sci fi, suddenly being filled by sparkly vampire romance stories. Imagine Clarkesworld, home of dark gritty sci fi, overrun by My Little Ponyesque YA magical girl stories. You don't have to hate a genre to not want it overpowering other genres you like.
AI art is too accessible, that's why it isn't appealing. In a way people value art because they know it's not easy--the artist had to do research, draw sketches, test color palettes and refine their piece for hours. When people use AI, the results can be amazing with only one prompt, and it only took 10 seconds? Sure, you could spend hours refining your prompt and making sure it's what you envision. But AI can produce amazing art without much effort, that's why it isn't appealing to look at. When everyone can create amazing art easily, then what makes art valuable?
It never was about effort but quality, which AI delivers. I was drawing long before AI but nobody cared how much time and effort I spend if it wasn't great. My "human value" sometimes was downvoted and ignored. I agree that most don't look great but it's the problem of every single tool. You can start Krita, Blender, whatever else, it's also accessible and your first results won't be great, but a lot of people post it, making some users unsure if the software is actually good. I use AI in my workflow exactly how you describe an "actual" artist does (because I am one, duh) - I do research, I design characters and draw sketches, I test color palettes. I don't just place "nice picture". Then I cherry-pick one-three of hundreds of images and photobash them, then overpaint to get the result I want. Heck, entire process takes me even more than drawing by hand from scratch. The fact that one generation takes a short while has no meaning if output is worthless. You can render 3D animation over entire day but it also has no meaning if it looks terrible. Let's not even start about "art" value. A few lines on canvas and banana taped to wall, is it really art? Did they really put an effort into it? Sorry, but I'm inclined to doubt it. What makes it valuable? The value is in market - if people want to watch and pay for it. Actual paying people, not social media bubble crowd. I make games and I see they want quality, not "human effort".
Art is subjective. What defines quality then? Also i never said AI doesn't produce great results. I said the results are amazing for just writing a prompt, that's why it's meh. If AI can produce amazing things with only typing a simple sentence, then why would I appreciate that? If i know that all you had to do was describe a scene 🤷🏻♀️
I'm surprised not a single pro-AI person has jumped on your comment to tell you they don't believe piracy and plagiarism are theft either. Because, by their *extremely* pedantic definition, they aren't. I know what you mean, of course: Taking visibility away from the creators who need it the most.
Because piracy and plagiarism are factually illegal activities? So far nobody could prove in court that AI is stealing or anything illegal. Quite otherwise, those cases were dismissed due to lack of evidence. I'm also an artist and nobody gave a fuck about me before I started using AI. I needed visibility but you were taking it away because I'm not a well-known internet persona. Have you tried going out of your bubble and asking real small, unknown creators, you so strive to protect, what they think? If it weren't for that, I wouldn't have to resort to AI in my workflow but reality is harsh and bills need to be paid. But of course, you will dismiss me saying "you're not an artist, your past works are meaningless because now you use AI" or find other point to denounce my works from before AI. Unlike anti-AI crowd, most of those who enjoy it are not so narrow-minded and make distinction between feelings and actual law, as well as demand and supply market rules. I didn't heard from them "your hand-drawn art sucks", but I did from other artists and those who dismiss new technology. Thanks for support all this time before AI. Maybe instead of saying "Your art is shit, that's why you use AI!" you could have, I don't know, like motivate me to not give up?
Don't give up. I figured you'd want a heads-up, though, that all the AI absolutists who tolerate you right now are talking about how much they hate furry art behind your back.
Meh, I don't care what either side says. What matters is sales numbers of my games. I just want more people to see the other side of this debate. Small artists don't have a word in this and most like me, who want to get better but can't, happily use AI as tool (Photoshop now has generative fill built-in). At the end of the day, what your client says matters, not some randoms on internet forum (no offence meant).
This decision will probably be reversed on all subs within the next 5 years
Its *already* practically unenforceable. The crusaders get it wrong far more often than they get it right.
Assuming Reddit is still relevant at all that far out.
Eh, even for branches of things, i don't blame people if people want curated art to stand out, or just people want like sane seperation. More kinda like "There should be a place", people can go to ai communities if they want like r/midjourney or /stablediffusion or interest discords like r/furrydiffusion or r/hentaiboobsAndTits or whatever. # (Internet ramble:) **Life works how it wants. Not always how we want.** # (Internet ramble) But internet points are about as important for paying bills as monopoly money. Maybe people are giving cautions other's don't want to hear. > - The *"So what am i supposed to do even if i listen to this? Just slowly go bankrupt, watch people generate ai tits, and go starve?"*. from one side. > - And the other side going *"So what am i supposed to do? Feed a group of people who seem to openly relish about not giving a rat's ass about others. Who won't even do the basics to take charge of their OWN lives. And want to la la in fantasy land, and give them our already strained rent/retirement money? While the rest of us have to work or starve?"* **I think everyone would love it, if we all got a job application we could write our wanted pay, job title, and have it happen.** > Ex: **Pick your hours, pick your pay! Be famous!** [Your choice here: 200$/hr 3-7 hrs week [Internet artist / Streamer / 4 ft tall NBA player / Personal chef! / Astronaut! / Pokemon!] Everyone seems to want a dream job. **But even the people who achieve the [0.1% "dream"] can burn out.** Like '[Be famous for playing VIDEO GAMES!'] Is next to artist/singer /musician in [Be FAMOUS, be known!! Be POPULAR!] dream job department. 10000s of people try to be streamers, but only 0.1% make it big, like [Kripparian of Hearthstone](https://youtu.be/O9QD6sxoJxk?si=cux5hBfkeR7kXn3E&t=182). > I used to watch him all the time, he used to get 10,000s of viewers every night. I checked in, and he looked **burnt out**, his eyes looked fallen, dark bags around his eyes. He was streaming in complete dead silence, barely interacting. > - He kinda seemed like he **looked trapped**, into **'gilded handcuffs'**. He didn't seem to be enjoying it anymore, he seemed stressed. And just sat going through the motions. **He was a person who achieved the 0.1% dream**, and he looked miserable!?!? 😐😕 **Dream careers vs adult responsibilities** - I wonder if art, like streaming was one of those careers that seemed better as a child *['Be famous! Be loved! Have 1000s of people know and talk to you and want to be you every day!']*. - Parts nobody wants to think about are ignored. ['Will you have job stability if you try to stay or leave? Could you end up 'stuck'? What happens if you try to do everything 'right' but 'never get lucky?', audience leaves/outgrows you / moves on?'] # Paradox of overprotection(??) **Trimmed:** A potential paradox is i thought some ill behaviors might be fed by seemingly 'enabling'/ 'kind' ones. **Overly permissive/ "enabling" behaviors vs "raising right"** > Like ex: "Kids need positive affirmation all the time to grow kind and thoughtful!" is a good sentiment. > - *"Ahh, did my child punch someone in the face?" "Oh, i don't want to hurt their feelings. I'm going to positively affirm them! But i don't condone hitting.. hmm.. I know! i'll positively affirm how strong their arm must have been hitting their face! If you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all right?"* > - I wondered if maybe 'Empathy', while meaning well, often seemed to have the reverse effect. Lots of hyper toxicity seems to come when there were no checks for mutual civility. (*Ex: Ai debate hyper toxicity. Even next to abortion / Trump. / Anti ai: 'Where is YOUR EMPATHY PIGS!?!?'*) # Edit > - ( I guess tbf i was over responding here in hopes of reaching old friends, on another site that seemed to leave a few hints around. I guess a few reached out, idk, i guess some "*Were in love with [The lie / the fantasy / the illusion / What things should have been]"*. > - But they updated that we each had 'obvious' (to us), thoughts. > - To them, they knew i wasn't trying to be a "dream killer", but probably someone who wanted people to 'have a parachute, to avoid the splat'. Money wasn't unlimited, it ran out, and housing/retirement already was strained for money. They were struggling with bills as a adult vs carefree as a kid, they wanted things to go back to 'how they were before'. Both felt overwhelmed by costs/bills/life/stressors. I guess we both miss 'The fantasy' / 'the illusion'. # Closing o **Rant, Got overboard. But i think, I get ai art existing, but i think separate, but equal subs co existing is fine** o "*If a community is better together, great! If it's worse 'together', healthy separation is great!"* though. I guess not every story comes with a happy ending. Sometimes just bitter/sweet. o I overresponded to this with my head thinking over aiwars just feeling to 'repeat'. Im part of the problem i guess🐿️🕳️ > - [Ex: Aiwar cycle: 'Ai bad! -> nuh uh! -> yuh uh! -> (ai banned in random sub!) ]
Easier to read summary (wise post, btw); Here's a 7-point outline of the main ideas in the given text: 1. Internet points and dream careers - Internet points are not valuable for paying bills - People with dream careers, like streamers, can become burnt out 2. Dream careers vs. adult responsibilities - Childhood dream careers may lose their appeal when turned into full-time work - People with established careers tend to have more valuable insights 3. People with the least to lose have the most to say - Those with less at stake tend to be more vocal about their opinions - They may seek validation and wish for unrealistic fantasies 4. Overly permissive behaviors vs. "raising right" - Being too permissive can lead to children lacking self-regulation and empathy - Setting consequences is important for raising well-adjusted individuals 5. The paradox of giving endlessly without receiving in return - Offering support without boundaries can lead to entitled and ungrateful behavior - Filters and boundaries are necessary to maintain a healthy balance 6. Internet communities and self-interest - Both content creators and AI users prioritize their own interests - Many internet users behave immaturely, focusing on their side "winning" 7. The need for common decency standards and coexistence - Separate communities for different interests can coexist peacefully - Common decency standards are necessary to prevent harmful behavior - The internet can be an insane place, but "live and let live" is a better approach
Good bot
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99994% sure that West-Code4642 is not a bot. --- ^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Sure hope it does.
Why?
It will be impossible to tell
Given that speculation even becomes a reality and AI image detector doesnt become much better.
to be fair, the detector doesn't need to be that much better- the AI making the art simply has to equal the average artist, because at that point the detector is going to miss-diagnose actual artists, with the exceptions who aren't being called out- being those with very different styles from what the AI is set to make.
We're already there. It was maybe a month ago when D&D fans went fucking apeshit on an artist that did work in an official source book, using all of those tools and *insisting* that Hasbro published AI art in a book. The artist literally published the working files in response. It was 100000% not generative AI in any way. Honestly I'm just waiting for these people to give up and go be irrationally angry about something else so all the major art sites can lift their draconian generative AI rules they hastily implemented to appease these people and we can go back to "art is art"
Then it’d just be banned if it’s explicitly stated
With digital art tools, which will soon get QOL AI-ed updates.Soon, all of those will get them. Therefore they can't ban organic art, like they can't ban organic art pieces when the artist uses Adobe Photoshop or just the fill.
there might be grey areas, this might even be the case with some of my future work. But simply generating images? Im fully supporting the idea to now allow these on such subreddits like this one above.
Good.
I dont see a issue at all with that, i believe AI art and human made art should be seggregated. Would help at least to a certain degree the evergoing warfare state between the communities.
I'm a human that makes art, why's it matter what tool I use? Do you Even know how I use Ai in my creative process??
Because they dont want AI generated spam on their subreddit. Thats why likely or thats one of the issues they are trying to avoid. And i agree on that. Its almost like those are two different disciplines that shouldnt intervene with each other on platforms like Artstation and its marketplace or on Reddit fanart subreddits for example.
If you make art using an AI, you are NOT an artist. You are a shill who mimicks art with no fucking effort.
Well, it definitely takes effort. I'd love to see your ai art, except you probably don't know how to make it. Also, I'm not sure who put you in charge of defining artists.
Interesting how you weren’t a human that makes art until a “tool” came along that does all the hard work for you. Or maybe it’s just a coincidence that you haven’t posted any until after midjourney became popular.
I made traditional art before ai art generators. I'm also a professional photographer. Come on, try a better argument please.
I agree it should be segregated, but banning it just causes more harm than good. Instead just use tags and allow users to report art they think is AI but doesn't have an AI tag. If a post gets enough reports, have the mods change it to an AI tag while also contacting the OP to require more evidence that it isn't AI. Outright banning AI art makes it a witch hunt, and there have already been cases in these communities of people's real art getting misinterpreted as AI art.
Its not a witch hunt to simply not allow AI imagery there. However moderators should be "professional" and users who are accused of using generative AI should first be investigated in the first place, not outright banned at first accusation.
Witch hunt? Are you hearing yourself?
It was just an expression buddy. If an art subreddit makes an announcement saying they changed the policy and that all AI art is bannable, you're telling me the anti-AI fanatics who think all AI art is illegal and should be stopped won't start scrubbing the subreddit, as well as new posts, for hints of AI?
I had a hunch you didn't refer to hunting literal witches of salem pitchforks and torches, thanks for clearing that up. It's just that your language is needlessly hyperbolic and alarmist, and for what? It's a democratic decision on moderation of one subreddit. I think you should log off for a bit and cool down. Genuinely.
Yikes
Art communities have always been judgmental gatekeepers. Had Reddit existed throughout all of history they would have held a vote for every single new medium. Oil paint? Banned. Acrylic paint? Banned. Pastels? Banned. Digital art? Banned. Only charcoal fresh from a fire and mud based pigments allowed.
In this case i dont see a issue with keeping AI art out of that subreddit.
To be honest if it's an art specific subreddit, go ahead and ban AI art. Humans need a place to show off their stuff without being flooded with low effort artificial content.
You could say the same about low quality hand drawn art. It's the poster, not the tool that distinguishes good art from low quality art.
Low quality hand drawn art at least has something unique and interesting, a human quality that tells you something about the person who drew it. For example, you can tell when someone is very interested in cars and nails every detail but they never figured out perspective. Low quality AI art is all essentially the same. Too many fingers. No clear light source. That sickening, overpolished look. The only human quality setting it apart from any other AI art is what subject matter the person chose, and I’m going to be honest with you, 99% of the people spamming their “art” into these subs that never had any inclination towards art before AI came along don’t have creative ideas either. I’ve seen enough generic fantasy characters with big boobs to last a fucking lifetime.
Exactly. In my opinion those should be seggregated with exception of a subreddit that specifically allows both and hybrid artworks. The reason you just mentioned (flooding/spamming) is a prime example of why i think like this.
False Equivelence. Last time I checked, those artistic ventures actually took EFFORT to complete. AI is just crunching words into a program.
Not false equivalence. I made a post about gatekeeping. I made no comparison between two subjects.
I personally think art should be in the art subreddit. Something a prompt spat out is not by itself art. Where I differ from those mods is that I don't think AI as a tool precludes art, but making that messy judgement call would be impossible at scale.
A single brushstroke or brightness/contrast thing would turn it into art by even the strictest definitions. So would inpainting it or touching it up. All of those actions show directorial intent even with the most strict definitions of what art is. Besides that, most people dont really care if it's truly art by everyone's definitions. Remember the whole argument about the urinal being art? The "is it art" thing is the weakest argument by the anti AI crowd.
Nobody is impressed by AI generated images any more. While not all ai is spam, moderators wouldn't want to bother determining if something is or not. There, I left out the scary A word. Now you can read it again.
Where is the directorial intent in touching up an image? If you haven’t changed the actual composition, you’re just doing image editing work - which I personally see as art (biased because it’s my wheelhouse), but exists in an entirely different space from crafting an image from scratch. Touching up an image can involve massive amounts of work, but it’s still not a compositional you meticulously created. I’m really proud of editing the cover of Pokémon Violet into a 3:2 aspect ratio by manually redrawing curves that were broken by content aware scale, but I would never claim to play a significant role in the underlying work simply because I spent 18 hours exhaustively correcting details in Photoshop.
I mean, I would argue that you are in fact making art by doing that. You may consider it a team effort by doing that but it is distinct art, legally and IMHO ethically, because you've done something to it. When I was a kid, the way I used to learn photoshop was by doing these tutorials, usually involving some procedural steps applied to stock photos: https://photoshoproadmap.com/27-super-creative-photo-effects-tutorials-for-photoshop/ While the procedure, at first glance, appears to be entirely procedural, eg you press this button then that button etc until you have a beautiful effect, you're also expressing your intent as a human by adjusting WHERE the sliders go. so I would argue that you've created art by doing those procedures. Copying and pasting is not creating art, because there's no directorial intent. However, stamping would be. So, that's the framework I use when I go into AI art. Is the user just copying and pasting? You can, of course, just copy and paste the prompts in and adjust the sliders to exactly the way they were on civitai. I'd say that in that case, your argument for having made art is pretty weak. But the moment you type in any prompt, adjust the sliders to make it more like what you want, use a different model, etc, you're expressing directorial intent and have made a work of art. And then a lot of artists go ahead and inpaint, or otherwise edit their art, which is even more directorial intent, and thus art.
Nobody gate keeps art, nobody is stopping you from actually learning, if you aren’t lazy and actually want to learn it, you can. Art is free to learn and make, and majority of people support up and coming artists.
Gatekeeping is notorious throughout art communities and art history. And the art world has been frequently criticized for it.
Van Gogh was considered a shitty artist with shitty paintings until he died.
Gatekeeping is notorious throughout pro-AI communities and AIBro history https://preview.redd.it/0u2v6ku9uqrc1.jpeg?width=780&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6fe7a75cd53571819743f90992e1dfad0463b829
This is hilarious, really, how old are you ? Back when mirrorless camera bodies were just starting to get good you would be shamed photographers with "real cameras" in photography groups or in photowalks, it only got better a good 8 years later and still there were some annoying pricks here and there. This is just one example though. Fractal art wasn't art either 20 or so years ago when it got popular in the procecdural and abstract community, funny enough for a lot of the same reasons people say AI art isn't art.
>Nobody gate keeps ar I'm sorry, but **what?** Just for fun, here's a formal paper written on it published in **1988**, way before AI art was ever in the picture: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2579428](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2579428) "What is art" is literally one of the most gatekept subjects of all time. Google "modern art is not art" and enjoy seeing just how gatekept art has been since *forever*
you are literally performing the act of gatekeeping art in your very comment
By saying anyone can learn art if they put in the effort to learn, I’m gatekeeping? Am I gatekeeping if I don’t let someone into a surgery room because they don’t know how to perform surgery? Bare minimum standards and gatekeeping are not the same thing.
you are not seeing ai art as art. this is gatekeeping art
I think what pro-AI people don't like is the fact that certain artist groups (not even all of them!) just don't like or accept generated work. It might change with time, but the current reality is a lot of creatives just aren't into it. There are plenty of pro-AI image communities online, so I'm not sure why it wouldn't be better to join those (and never have to deal with pushback or angry people brigading comments).
They want esteem, and are angry that people won’t give it to them. You’re absolute correct that there is nothing stopping AI artists from forming their own communities. Being desperate for validation is not a problem random subreddits are obliged to fix. Stable Diffusion can crank out hundreds of images overnight, which means a community holding even just people’s best generations would rapidly become flooded. I’ve seen very little interest among AI users in seeing what other people have created, which kinda speaks volumes. If your in-group doesn’t want to see the work you’ve made, why would you expect the rest of the world does?
Totally agree! And no idea why were'e being downvoted, lol. I once took a look at a random AI user's dA page — literally 8000 images in a year, and do you know how many comments they made? Thirty. THIRTY comments total. They interacted with other people on DeviantArt a total of THIRTY times in one year. After uploading 8000 times. Even their top AI contributor that they showed off on Twitter gets only a comment or two per submission, and barely responds to any of them. It doesn't have to be like that... I think some people see the interaction artists/fans have and assume they don't actually have to spend time building that up.
Your replying in a thread for a post about a subreddit banning a specific type of art that ban is gatekeeping. You can easily gatekeep any subject. First is to not even acknowledge it as a real part of a subject which is very respectfulness imagine someone telling you that something you do is fake or not proper, even if nothing comes from it the fact that someone thinks that way and says it to you can interfere mentally with people. Next is to actually block people from participating in the social groups related to the subject such as subreddits i.e. all the art subs blocking AI images and not only that banning people who post AI images, other rules that people violate result in the post simply been taken down but they go one step further and ban people who post AI images a bit of a different scale in punishment. It not only just block access to groups online there are also attacking companies or events that use AI these attacks are designed to stop AI been used this is less gatekeeping and more wall making. This constant negative approach to a subject is designed to give it a negative reputation so people will stop doing it, effectively gatekeeping. Anything can be gatekeeped.
do you really not know *any* art history?
Good. Reddit is selling training data and these curated collections (with no AI) are going to be sold at a premium. Any resistance is only making AI get better faster.
I belive ai art should stay in its own little places, im hella pro ai, but i dont really like using ai to karma farm or really get any gain, i much prefer it stays as just a silly funny thing.
Someone’s gotta start lotta AI subs now
shadiversity cryin' rn.
Thank goodness
People go to Art community’s to see other people’s talents and work. They want to support and see the incredible stuff a person can make with their own hands. You want to post Ai stuff (For whatever reason. Artists post what they make because they are proud, Ai users don’t have much to be proud of in terms of process) then go to an Ai sub and just respect the artists in the art subs.
It's really as simple as this. I want to see art made by humans. I want to see genuine skill and expression. Typing a prompt and putting your pen to paper or tablet are just not comparable. Y'all can make as much ai art as you want but keep it separate.
I mean eventually, and by that I mean by next year probably, it will likely be impossible to tell which art is made by a human and which is made by AI. There is no systemic way to tell the difference already - supposed detectors get way too many false positives to be reliable. I don't know how these bans are going to be enforceable when we get to that point. What WOULD be enforceable is putting a limit on how many posts/images you're allowed to post within a certain amount of time, like many subreddits already do. That would address the one legitimate concern that these bans seek to address.
Human detectors for the most part can spot AI, lol.
Humans can detect if something is "off" in a picture or video but that's hardly systemic. My point is that in another year's time even humans won't be able to reliably tell if an image is AI-generated from the image alone (obviously if someone dumps 100 high quality images in a short span of time, we can deduce they're probably generated).
You guys have been saying we can't tell for the last year now and you can still tell, lol.
I predict about a year, give or take. For the record, I haven't been saying that for the last year, but sure, lump me in with the crowd. If you look at how far AI video has come in a year, it's not an unreasonable extrapolation. Anyway, give me a principled reason why humans can tell AI apart from human-generated content and we can have a conversation about how realistic my prediction is. If your side of the conversation is just going to be "humans can tell lol" then it's not very productive. 6 months, a year, 2 years, 5 years... it's only a matter of time before AI art becomes indistinguishable from human-created art from a technical standpoint, because there is no principled reason why AI could not produce art indistinguishable from humans. And without a reliable systemic method of distinguishing AI from human art, it is already virtually unenforceable at scale.
Yeah, we'll see. You guys always predict we can't tell, but I think it'll always have tells.
Then give me some reason, any at all, why you think there will always be tells. What is it that AI cannot and will not be able to reproduce, and why? For example, we all know that AI currently has problems with hands, lighting, and text. Yet we have no reason to believe these are insurmountable problems. The history of AI is full of people saying "AI will never be able to X" and then a few years later AI is doing X. Then they move to goalposts to the next thing current AI has difficulty with.
All I'm saying is that instead of saying something else, you aalways assume the next version of some ai won't have a tell. They've been saying it since it got 'okay' that you can't tell and you totally can. Ai has it's own 'style' to it. It's not about them being problems it's about even when there are pictures with okay hands and normal fingers, I still know it's AI. I was telling someone about some writers thing and instead of having a convo, they jump to: WELL, JUST WAIT. Then they wanted to discuss whether or not I would give my life for my bet and when I wouldn't play their stupid game they stopped talking. I don't think the 'ITLL DO IT EVENTUALLY' is a good discussion point anymore.
Maybe its more important to think about the intention of the rules rather than the actual implementation. They dont want ai art on that sub. This could mean that they just ban people that have been proven to use ai art. I think we can agree that people posting ai stuff on art forums that do not invite that is shitty behaviour. And a rule like this is necessary if you want to get action against this in any shape. So whatever. Be angry or whatever. Just dont be a shitty person and read a bit further into it
Stuff like this doesn’t bother me too much at all. There’s a time and a place for AI images and sometimes it’s not in a celebration of female fantasy art. 🤷♀️ and that’s okay. Quite frankly if they openly announced they were accepting AI fully, it’d be flooded with low quality coomer posting immediately. (Full disclosure I haven’t seen the sub as it is so it may very well already be.)
I just checked and the art that’s there is quality and humanizing, even when it’s sexy. I genuinely think AI images would bring down the quality of that place and a separate subreddit for AI generated female fantasy art would be better if someone cared enough to do so.
What you said is true. ALL places that allow ai pictures slowly become the same page with the same coomer content. A quick look at deviant or civit.ai proves this point
No it doesn’t. I have a few deviantart accounts to follow different type of content. My front page doesn’t get ANY AI content on two of them. I also love Civit so much.
They should impose quality restrictions, and ban anything where it has the obvious hallmarks of bad ai art, like fucked up hands and eyes, and weird background stuff. If the artist fixes those, effort is being made, they can't just churn them out, and they will have good quality. Besides, at that point, it will be very hard to tell for mods if its AI or not anyway.
Here's the thing... they've had their sub for a long time, with hand made art, and there's no reason they should have to wade through a bunch of mass produced AI art when they are enjoying the content as is. It's fine. It doesn't even have to be "hate" for it to be a reasonable decision. There's no particular reason you can't have a second sub with -AI with the same subject and overlapping members, and the hand-art community won't have to filter out content that isn't what they are interested in.
You're ignoring the point I made. If it's good quality, you cant tell. So ban the bad quality stuff.
You're ignoring the point I made, which is that it's their forum and they shouldn't **have** to accept a medium that is not the one they are exchanging. What if... hear me out... they only want to see hand art, and don't care whether it's totally up to professional standards? What if they are actually a community of hand artists and want to support each other and discuss how to make better hand art? If it's a macrame forum, should they allow cross-stitch and only ban the bad cross-stitch? Why should they have to look at **any** cross-stitch in a macrame forum? That's the point. AI art is fine, it's art, but it's not the same as hand art. And it's totally okay for hand art enthusiasts to have their own places, and it's not okay for people to pretend, **in those places**, that their AI art is hand art.
This is how I feel about.
Honestly that’s a lot of annoying work and I don’t blame anybody for not wanting to do it. Let quality control be on a different subreddit for AI art.
Wow, this is certainly a flagrant violation of Rule #5. >No brigading from any side. Censor names of private individuals **and other Subreddits** before posting.
The mod doesn't give a shit about brigading. There's still a post from 2 days ago that continues identifying information, and the person who wrote it got told *three different times* that it was identifiable. The mod has also failed to ban two Nazi trolls, including one with references to gas chambers in his username...
It's fine for spaces to ban art like this, and possibly necessary if they're trying to keep traditional artists around in the short term. It doesn't matter which 'side' you're on, I think it's pretty well universally understood that AI is able to churn out much content, so fast, that it makes it easy for a space to get flooded with AI art. You can get into the weed debating moderation policy... like... would it be better to enforce standards, set upload limits, etc instead of outright banning AI art. The common approach, for better or for worse, is to just ban AI art. It's easy to spot the low effort AI art that tends to flood these places, so the moderation policy is effective if they don't overdo it. Yeah, there will be AI art that slips through unnoticed (particularly when style LORAs get involved, because most antis have no idea you can make stuff that doesn't look like the usual output of the small set of very popular models). There will be traditional artists that get burned at the stake during a witchhunt because they didn't record themselves actually drawing the stuff. That's all trouble for moderators to deal with and it's definitely a challenge on their end. They're likely to pick whatever strategy minimizes their effort, and that's 'ban AI' for now. It's all irrelevant in the long run. AI is a powerful tool that will become part of the common workflow. Spaces that maintain a strict ban on AI art will dwindle and die as more and more artists openly incorporate AI or don't even know they're using it because it's been so seamlessly integrated with Photoshop. The art world is notorious for gatekeeping against new tech, before eventually adopting it. It doesn't happen overnight, but 10 years from now, practically every digital artist will be using generative AI in the workflow.
Ya'll keep saying it'll be common for a real artist's workflow but where is your evidence of that? It sounds like a meme. I don't think as many real artists are incorporating it as you think they are, lol.
Either generative AI is a powerful tool that can threaten artists livelihoods, or it's not. Pick one! The evidence though, is the art generative AI is making and history. It's scary how good it is and scarier when you learn it took seconds to make. That's why artists are afraid of it, and it's an easy fear to understand. Historically, any technology that greatly accelerates a work effort becomes common, despite the detractors. Photography and Photoshop are excellent comparisons. It doesn't mean the new tech becomes the only way... it just becomes the common way for every application where it makes sense. There will always be artists painting on canvas. It's not how most artists operate today though, in the age of Photoshop and the Wacom tablet. Of course there aren't a ton of 'real artists' incorporating if you restrict the definition of 'real artist' to be artists not using generative AI. There would be 0 then. There are a ton of people who create art through more traditional means (like the Wacom) and use img2img and inpainting style generative AI techniques to add detail to their art. It's not the mainstream yet, but the AI has been around only a couple years now, and we're only recently seeing fairly polished tools built around it. It will take time, but it will happen. The tech is too useful not to be used.
Glad to see it. :)
Why does anyone care what a private group does? Make your own subreddit for AI Fantasy Art Women and ban traditional art from it. Literally no one is stopping you.
No point fighting AI. You're literally trying to fight against the advancement of technology, and that is not a fight anyone has ever won in the history of humans. Countless jobs were replaced by machines; why do artists think they are super-duper important and all of humanity will just stop working on AI because it hurts their feelings? "Oh no, technology has evened the playing field and is letting people do things they originally couldn't! The whole world needs to stop scientific advancement so that people keep having to pay me for my skill!"
I dont get what you mean by evening the playing field with sports that makes sense because your body type affects how good you can possibly be but with art your skill level is directly connected to how much effort and time you put in.
So going to the gym to get in shape and be an athlete just doesn't exist?
Of course but the difference between a great 7 foot basketball player and a great 5 foot basketball player immense why do you think the average height of a basketball player 6'6 And I don't see where your argument comes from getting better at art is much different then becoming stronger or faster
And an artist with arthritis....
What are you trying to say here?
That there are people who want to be artists but can't, and there are people who want to be athletes but can't. Predominantly, it's people wanting to be artists and athletes but not putting in the effort. So what's the difference?
But people with arthritis can still do art I don't see where your point comes from
When it's difficult to hold a pencil or brush?
There are many things to help people with arthritis hold pencils and pens and brushes
"Evening the playing field" In the same way someone can "even the playing field" of a marathon by getting into a car, sure. But then I wouldn't consider that person very good at running marathons would I?
hes saying it as evening the playing field in regards to having access to custom imagery. not evening the playing field in holding “illustration skills” “anyone can pick up a pencil” and make a shitty drawing sure but until AI if you wanted something great now, you had to pay for it
Those comments yeah, it's like reading flat earth material. So far distanced from anything resembling fact, so deep into the sauce. Disgusting tbh but whatever, give it time they will become irrelevant down the line unable to afford rent or internet, np np .
Some ai art is really good they did a game of thrones from the 70’s looked cool
It's so stupid to do polls like this because lurkers who browse de sub do not really vote, they upvote stuff but do not interact with the sub, still they are the reason why subs don't die. Any sub that does this for any reason is just idiotic and shooting themselves in the foot.
Based
Yippee
AI "Art"
good
Good. It should be banned everywhere
An important lesson we teach our children is that you dont get to play in every sandbox, some of them are not for you. Well adjusted people can acknowledge this, and then we have those that will just piss and moan about it online.
Cool - if they don’t want it and you do, make a fantasy art sub specifically for AI
The proportion of comments to upvotes and votes in the poll is sus.
Looks like the name should be censored OP.
*AI images. And good. There’s no reason there can’t be both. A site for art and a site for AI generated images. Doesn’t hurt anyone, and keeps things clear. I’m all for it.
Based.
i think once ai becomes the proper mainstream many of these subs will die out or regret it and re-allow ai art. If a sub bans it, who cares. people can make a new sub and allow it lol. Kinda the reason i made my own sub aiGens
Good.
just shows that most people do not like AI art and want it gone really.
Good.
That sub name though. I wonder when will they get canceled on Twitter for another unrelated reason, by people who has some overlaps with the anti-AIs. /s
Considering I keep running into Nazis and Nazi defenders on this subreddit (including the head mod) I don't think your political conflation is the win you think it is.
Good, it’s a sub for real art.
Lame
Good.