AI art not allowed?
 

Hello,

My thread about using Stable Diffusion image generation vanished without warnings. Is it against the rules? If it is, I suggest adding it to the list (ie. No AI generated content).

Otherwise, I'm just curious about why it was deleted.

Thanks.

EDIT: Well, after reading the rules again I guess I can see that AI does break this rule:

I still think you should add "AI image generators" to the list, just to be clear. I guess AI is still allowed, as long as it's not for "realistic" photos.

Regards.

To start with, I don't understand what "Stable Diffusion" is. The thread was reported as being faked images (yes, rule 18) and deleted.
It does look a fun program or bit of software to use and may have been placed better in the free sites section (is it free?).
Maybe some of the other mods would have other ideas on whether it would be OK to post or not.

Brave new world
 

Turtle,

the program in question, and others like it, use machine learning and an artificial intelligence neural network to generate images and art based off of input from a user. So, for example, I'd type something like "Huge old bazongas, I mean real big floppy donkers, on naked chicks dancing." and the site would return an image of exactly that created by the algorithm.

I'm torn here, it's original artwork so it's no different than asking a person to say paint the image and displaying what you get, but it's also generally made up of bits and pieces of other images from a MASSIVE database of bits so it's kind of like using photoshop to make an image. I think that the original intent of the "no photoshop" rule, when paired as it is with "no fakes" is to avoid making faked images of a nude from a clothed image i.e. pasting a head onto another body as
was so often caught by everyone's favorite mod Seal prior to his no longer being with us. However, where I'm worried is that this type of technology is also used in the "nudify"-type algorithms that use the same neural networks to do exactly that type of faking (just way, way better) and it's a bit of a close call.

I think that the best option would to either create a new subcategory for "original artwork" that doesn't violate rule 18, which would allow forum members to share their creations with one another, or to allow a link to the site in the "links" section, keeping in mind that while people could play with the program, they'd not be able to see each others creations.

- Pat

For what its worth, I even explicitely stated in my thread that those were AI images / "fake", I never intended to make those pass as real (although honestly some could be).

Even so, I didn't use any celebrities or known people in my prompts (ie. the text you use to generate the pictures) Mostly I used something like "A photo of a crowd of nude women, in a city, in the style of Spencer Tunick". The AI then runs with this and tries to create the photo from the billions of bits and pieces he has in his database.

If there's a way to post this again withtout breaking the rules, let me know.

I honestly don't see what the point or appeal of a thread like that would be. When I want to see naked women, I want to see real naked women, not something some computer cooked up. Regardless, as stated, it would be against the rules, and should not be reposted.

Fango

This idea could be a LOT of fun with the stories section at some point, but the technology doesn't seem to be there just yet. It seems to struggle with faces, and unless you give it a very simple story prompt, it will return a bizarre Picasso-looking pic that barely looks human.

AI photos
 

I'm with Fango on this, I want to see real naked women. There are so many fakes out there why create more? I could potentially see some being posted from here to another site, then download to this one because somebody thought is was real.

I sure if people are into this sort of thing then there is probably another web site out there for that.

Respectfully.

Those sites are fun to play with but the free sites will give you nightmares and the sites that would create anything that is even remotely sexy are behind paywalls.

I don’t know about you…
 

I don’t know man, if you’re not trying to jack it to biblically accurate angels, what are you even doing?

For real though, the sites are interesting to play with but the tech is weird right now, I’m happy to stick with real pics of normal chicks.

Right, I get that it broke the rules, and furthermore it wasn't posted in the right section (btw it seems tolerated enough in the "General Drawn ENF", so I guess anything not photorealistic is OK?). Again, just to be clear, I stated it wasn't real, in the first sentence. I wanted show the current state of that technnology, and what could eventually be possible, and hopefully exchange tips with others.

The story section could be a great idea, and I'm actually working on a old-style comic generated all from prompts about a girl getting her clothes stolen and having to walk home naked. I agree the uncanny valley is strong, but when rendering art or comics it's much more believable, IMHO. But would that be taken down, too?

Of course, I never pretended otherwise.

Moderators, If this violates the rules, I apologize but I found some rather well done AI-created women that doesn't go into the uncanny valley or create horrible, nightmarish low-quality looking art.

Also, I'm more than sure he paid for this considering all of the free A.I. sites restrict nudity and sex or create horrible-looking art

Here, the user was able to take his ideas and blend them together to create something that is fun to look at and not creepy.

Also, you can see how he was able to use specific attributes about hair color, nudity level, and ethnicity to create exactly what he was looking for. For example, there is a picture of an Asian woman, with blonde hair, nude with boots, and pregnant. Also, there is a middle-aged woman, with grey hair and glasses who is also pregnant.

Older women are shown with accurate aging effects on their breasts and bodies. There is a reasonably accurate depiction of a woman of color and a very detailed depicture of a MILF in a blue dress with a mid-thigh slit and a naked bride in her veil posing near a rock boudoir style.

(ETA) it should be noted that the creator of these pics did state that 99% of the pics are "misses" only around 1% are good ones.

I am against allowing this stuff here because there is already an existing problem with people continuing to repost fake/photoshopped pics. However, there could be an exception for this if the poster watermarks it in an obvious spot with "Fake - AI generated" when they post it. It would prevent the shots from inadvertently or deliberately being used on threads to devoted to real nude photos.

I have noticed the fake and photoshopped pics, especially pics of amateurs' heads being placed on pornstars' bodies and another very poorly done fakes and I do understand it takes away from a forum that is built on real amateur content.

I think just that maybe one thread for this stuff because we are seeing the AI-created stories threads and maybe this can function as illustrations but then again, I didn't join OCC for cartoons/digital art, I joined this forum because I like looking at everyday, relatable women.

This might be better served elsewhere.

So after spending about 5 hours trying to install this, I just gave up because I see my computer isn't quite strong enough, while I do have a gaming PC, it's a little on the old side and will not be able to this.

I was hoping to be able to create a MILF or put a woman (ex. Jeanne) in an AI secenario.

Fantastic technology
 

I haven't installed anything, just working from my browser using free sources, and am starting to get some real good artwork reproduction (such as full frontal nude Waterhouse paintings). I definitely see a forum idea here, sharing the best results and voting on which ones to work further on by modifying prompts etc.
This is the reason I logged into OCC again today, after a long break, just to find 1) the general drawn enf thread 2) this thread.
IMO, the watermark idea is not bad, as an allowed exception.

When talking to dirtyharry11, he mention that the first nude picture we took of Jeanne was in October 1971. Almost immediately, I began scribbling a fictional, alternate history story in which Harry submits that first nude of Jeanne to Playboy Magazine, and 7 months later she is named Miss May 1972 (the actual Miss May '72 was Deanna Baker).

Because Harry took so many nude pictures of Jeanne in the 1970s, the A.I. would be able to accurately recreate her face, hairstyle, breast shape, figure, buttocks, pubic grooming, and legs from that time period. When I showed Harry an A.I. upscaled image of Jeanne and he say that it looked exactly how she looked at the time. So it's safe to say that even the most basic A.I. can be very accurate.

Also, I've seen A.I. be able to accurately emulate the photography styles of different eras and even of photographers themselves. So it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that A.I. could emulate the styles of Pompeo Posar, Bill Figge, Dwight Hooker, or Mario Casilli, photographers who were employed at Playboy in the early 70s.

Had I been able to do this, along with creating a fictional May 1972 edition of Playboy, I'm sure Harry would have found it entertaining and enjoyed it but also I think an ethical issue sort of comes into play because while my idea would have been a fun and flattering look at Jeanne had she taken a different path in life back in 1971, A.I. can also extremely dangerous, which is why many of the sites outright ban NSFW or place it behind a paywall and honestly I do worry about A.I. being used to destroy somebody's reputation.

If that was a rambling rant, I apologize.

Sorry, but who is Harry? And did you or did you not manage with these AI pics and show them to Harry?
For what I've seen, creating images with faces of real persons is not that easy yet, which is probably a good thing. It doesn't recognise the names of many well-known celebrities, so I don't understand how it will know how to recreate "Jeanne".
That said, I would love to obtain A.I. pictures that look like what my wife looked like nude two-three decades ago, based on clothed pictures from that era and nude pictures from now + knowledge about what she looked like by that time. Even though I probably don't know everything yet, I really don't think the A.I. is accurately there yet.

So you're not the least turned on by this image then? ;)
(And in case anyone thinks it looks underage: I did request for the subject to be 18 years old)

Actually, I was asking for a work by painter Vladimir Belsky, but apparently the painter was not known to the A.I. and then I got this nice (if you ask me) one...

Harry is a member of OCC he uses the username "dirtyharry11" and he routinely posts pics of his wife Jeanne, he also has albums of her. He has literally over 50 years' worth of nudes of her going back to October 1971.

It can recreate Jeanne because most of these A.I. art programs allow you to upload images to give the A.I. a starting point, also given the fact that A.I. gets information from the internet, it's quite easy for the internet to learn the photography styles of different photographers.

Is its accurately there yet? Not really but it won't be long because the A.I. is constantly improving and some people are already creating photorealistic images

While that image is not bad, it's still quite a step below the A.I. art I posted earlier in the thread and it also goes back to xplondie9's point about wanting to see real women.

I was on a website looking for naked MILFs and GILFs and I kept running into A.I. art of varying quality and it turned me completely off and I ended up on a tube site looking for a completely different type of porn.

When it comes to adult material, we are ultimately looking for something to masturbate to and most people are not trying to see potentially glitchy, if not nightmarish A.I. art or experience the uncanny valley effect.

You and both agree that A.I. when done right can be amazing but we also know that it's very hit and miss, as I stated in a previous post in this thread, one A.I. art creator stated that 99% of pics are "misses" and only about 1% are good.

With a rate like that and given the fact some people never like the stuff (going back to the uncanny valley effect) I think it's best that forums such as this one, either regulate the stuff and keep it from getting mixed in with the real pics, especially when you consider the amount of photoshopped faked pics that float around this forum to begin with.

Here's a photorealistic image of a redhead.

stretch marks on her breasts, peachfuzz on her arms, and freckling on her areolas, and her areolas are not perfect circles.


Keep in mind, this is like the top 1 percent of A.I. art

An view if I may...
 

Firstly I really don't like fakes, especially when they swap heads and change sizes of various body part with some looking ridiculous.

However I do enjoy enhancing poor quality photos (see my albums for examples including DirtyHarry11's wife) and I appreciate some of the art threads on here.

Although I have no personal interest in creating and of these images I'm always interested in developments in imaging technology and have no problem with them here as long as they are declared as AI. Just another art form like the "Cartoon Yourself" thread?

A spin off would possibly be that users here would become familiar with the AI style and more readily identify fakes.

Ok that's my opinion, and there are many

Yet, more fappable, if you ask me ;)
If the work is done well, I don't care if it's a fake. That's why one solution of regulating could be a thread with watermarked generated images, where improvement suggestions can be made to get rid of the "uncanny" effects (btw, please DM me if you see something that should be improved in the posted pic). This also facilitates identifying A.I. generated art in a later stage, as we may trace back any wrongly non-watermarked A.I. generated image to posts in the A.I. improvement thread - and those who still post these A.I. images without watermark may be banned for life after one warning (with or without OCC pass). Just one suggestion among many.

After learning about "inpainting", I did a few first attempts for an old bathing suit pic of my wife, and results weren't that bad!
So far, I have two problems: waist and underbust are made too slim (compared to both original and reality) and bush is not "sprawling" enough - she has always had a thick strand of hairs that poked forward (a bit like the only hair I soon have on my forehead). Only times I obtained a really furry bush is when I added the keyword "slightly obese", which however rendered undesired results for the rest of the body (still too small waist but with a large belly)...
Anyway, judge for yourself if these images look quite "realistic", even though I acknowledge they still look too "photoshopped" to bother about watermarking. The third pic is where I only took what was "necessary" from the AI generated image, as some details were destroyed even in the "unchanging" part, among them her face.

A funny thing is that I later noticed I didn't even have to write that the "27-year old girl" should be nude or have a bush - these things came automatically, even though the bushes were always similar to the one created above - i.e. slightly too trimmed for the purpose, but I'd say still fappable...

Next step is to use a photo version from earlier manual "nudification" attempts, where I had, quite successfully, started to "erase" her bathing suit straps by just filling out with small pieces in shoulder colour. That should reduce the risk of obtaining that trace of light on her left shoulder. And then I will start by making her only topless or only bottomless, so I can force waist and underbust to be more realistic. (Still not sure how to get the "right" bush type, though...)

All right, I'm just going to go ahead and close this thread now. Please do not post AI-generated photos here. It's a violation of the rules:

***** THREAD CLOSED *****

Fango