AI art not allowed?

[krashcdm]

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.

[krashcdm]

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

18. DO NOT post or request photoshop / edited fake photos.

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.

[Turtle]

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.

[patrockhard]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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.

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

[krashcdm]

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.

[Fango]

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

[dlammy]

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.

[xplondie9]

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.

[Gee_Star]

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.

[patrockhard]

Originally Posted by ~*ghetto_star*~

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 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.