AI art not allowed?

[~*ghetto_star*~]

Originally Posted by ds97

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...

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.

[~*ghetto_star*~]

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

[thefergieferg1]

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

[ds97]

Originally Posted by ~*ghetto_star*~

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.

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.

[ds97]

Originally Posted by ds97

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.

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...)

[Fango]

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:

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

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

Fango