Pornographic sites subject to the same rules as social media sites

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

All that is happening on Twitter today and long ago as well as people being the worst possible to each other on the regular which is many times worse than copyright infringement. Actual abuse is worse than monetary loss, often corporate monetary loss.

Except that sites like PH wasn't just simply the copyinfringment...they included things like revenge videos, for a while beast videos, fake videos etc (until they got eyes on them), lots of race type of stuff as well.  The difference between Twitter and PH I think is that at least Twitter tried to operate as a legitimate; PH's origins were pretty sketchy from what I remember, with intention for copyright infringement and other stuff.

[starsmine]

11 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Except that sites like PH wasn't just simply the copyinfringment...they included things like revenge videos, for a while beast videos, fake videos etc (until they got eyes on them), lots of race type of stuff as well.  The difference between Twitter and PH I think is that at least Twitter tried to operate as a legitimate; PH's origins were pretty sketchy from what I remember, with intention for copyright infringement and other stuff.

PH as far as I recall didnt "allow" revenge porn, or anything illegal, it took things down if and when it was reported, but they cant assume what is uploaded is revenge porn. They eventually found it easier to maintain the site by requiring uploaders to verify before uploading as it was to difficult. A lot of content that was legit was thrown out as well so it was a baby with bath water situation. 

There has never been an intention of copyright infringement at any point. Copyright infringement being there does not mean it was the goal. It just had upload rules similar to youtube. 

Its dishonest to say youtube was made with the intention of copyright infringement because it was full of it in the past.

 

[wanderingfool2]

34 minutes ago, starsmine said:

There has never been an intention of copyright infringement at any point. Copyright infringement being there does not mean it was the goal. It just had upload rules similar to youtube. 

Its dishonest to say youtube was made with the intention of copyright infringement because it was full of it in the past.

YouTube was created as a means for people to share their videos with each other.  Yes it did mean there was copyright infringement but not a willful disregard towards it.

 

It would be hard to say the same with PH that it was created for lawful sharing to occur.  Given the nature of the content, and how at the time sites not creating their own content would normally pull content from other sites. Yes it was quite clear they knew that the vast majority of their content would be from copyright infringement.

 

It's similar to how MegaUpload was designed to store copyrighted stuff, and clearly was meant to

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Except that sites like PH wasn't just simply the copyinfringment...they included things like revenge videos, for a while beast videos, fake videos etc (until they got eyes on them), lots of race type of stuff as well.  The difference between Twitter and PH I think is that at least Twitter tried to operate as a legitimate; PH's origins were pretty sketchy from what I remember, with intention for copyright infringement and other stuff.

Yep but all of those also get posted on social media. And no Twitter etc has actually never done anything substantive to stop it, while PH actually has. If you are going to be subjected to any kind of abuse it'll happen on Twitter/FB/TikTok/YouTube etc than it will on PH via any method. If it's revenge porn then you'll be told about it and it'll be spread via social media.

 

I don't think any porn site has ever pretended to be "legitimate", while Twitter etc still does. Just look at the most recent South Park episode. "Statistics show that the average age of our users is 21, we are not targeting children". One is "Hey porn is here", telling the truth, and the other is just talking out their ass about absolutely everything.

 

Twitter has got "Cred" bro, you should get "Cred" too.

[Stahlmann]

10 hours ago, Kisai said:

Honestly a midjourney of porn would just add more garbage nobody was paying for before. Why would you go through the effort of paying for something that fits their interests already unless it was forbidden or illegal?

I don't know either but Onlyfans is a thing and there are a lot of people who gladly pay some random girl to post some nudes, even while you can just go on Twitter, Reddit, or literally any other social media or porn site and have the same thing for free. These people don't think logically, otherwise paywalled sites like Onlyfans and Fansly wouldn't have blown up this much over the last few years. Obviously there are plenty of guys that love throwing money at attractive women to be noticed for just a few seconds.

[Doobeedoo]

Ah so Twitch too 

[RejZoR]

4 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

I don't know either but Onlyfans is a thing and there are a lot of people who gladly pay some random girl to post some nudes, even while you can just go on Twitter, Reddit, or literally any other social media or porn site and have the same thing for free. These people don't think logically, otherwise paywalled sites like Onlyfans and Fansly wouldn't have blown up this much over the last few years. Obviously there are plenty of guys that love throwing money at attractive women to be noticed for just a few seconds.

The whole shtick of OnlyFans is the "personalized" content or stuff done by request. Stuff you can't just randomly find online for free or otherwise. But you usually have to pay for certain higher tier to get that.

[Kisai]

12 hours ago, leadeater said:

How do you know if anything is AI generated? Short of psychic powers it's actually not possible to know with 100% accuracy and precision. 

 

Because it's in their contract not to. The site is curated, and will not pay an artist/performer for content that is deemed poor quality, questionable IP claims, or can be interpretated as illegal in the United States, or just doesn't fit the vibe. 

 

So that means:

- We do not accept any material that we can not claim exclusivity over (eg, no previously published material)

- We do not accept non-consensual situations, or situations where the character can not freely consent (eg under duress, drunk)

- We do not accept material where the subject engages in a non-consensual violent act

- We do not accept Vore/cannibalism, real or simulated

- We do not accept Snuff (necrophilia), real or simulated

- We do not accept hate material of any kind, even if implied

- We do not accept any material where any character can be determined to be underage, or coded to be underage, real or simulated

- We do not accept any material where there are animals present, real or simulated (all characters may only engage with sex acts when they have human shaped anatomy)

- We do not permit name-dropping of drug names. (Since it encourages non-consensual activity)

 

There's also a bunch of garbage rules that has to be imposed because VISA is afraid of clowns and vampires, and it's absolutely stupid. VISA doesn't like the monster-f*ckers regardless if they are fictional drawings or cosplayers. So if your kink or fetish is hard to find, blame VISA, if it's not illegal, it's probably VISA telling the site to remove that content.

 

But the Furry community and offshoots of it, hates VISA for ruining their fun. Which is funny, because Furries tend to have a lot of money. Artists just can't accept most of their commissions because it's high risk and Paypal will shut them down if it's revealed to be adult-oriented. If you want monster-f*cking artwork, you're pretty much going to side-channel the discussion of what you're buying just like someone would if they were to engage in escort services.

 

Sites like CB also have additional restrictions since the performers are real people, that forbid things like insertions of objects that would be unhealthy or dangerous, drug use, etc. And on those sites, the performers get zero tolerance for rule breaking, for exactly the same reasons as above. VISA will refuse to allow card payments.

 

OnlyFans/Fansly are basically Instagram-like social media services. They wouldn't exist if you could do that on Instagram or Youtube. Onlyfans wanting to remove porn is a completely tone-deaf position the tried to take, and had they done that, they would have just killed the site overnight, like with what happened with Tumblr. But I know why they tried to do that, Because they would get a cheaper merchant rate if they downgrade from "high risk" (which allows porn) to "low risk" (which forbids porn and various other things that have high chargeback risk.)

 

 

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

I don't know either but Onlyfans is a thing and there are a lot of people who gladly pay some random girl to post some nudes, even while you can just go on Twitter, Reddit, or literally any other social media or porn site and have the same thing for free. These people don't think logically, otherwise paywalled sites like Onlyfans and Fansly wouldn't have blown up this much over the last few years. Obviously there are plenty of guys that love throwing money at attractive women to be noticed for just a few seconds.

It's only blown up because they will get banned permanently from Patreon if it was there.

[Stahlmann]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

It's only blown up because they will get banned permanently from Patreon if it was there.

Yeah but my point still stands even if they would be on Patreon. My point is that there are more then enough people willing to pay for porn, even without going into the illegal stuff.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

Yeah but my point still stands even if they would be on Patreon. My point is that there are more then enough people willing to pay for porn, even without going into the illegal stuff.

People don't want "Random garbage", they want to be invested. You can't be invested in an AI generated piece of garbage, thus it's value is zero.

 

Just like you can't be invested in film, television, comics, or video games if it doesn't even play the same content twice. Ask why people don't buy sequels. The story is done. If a sequel comes out, but it doesn't feature the original characters or location, then it's not a sequel is it? It's "something new based on something old that you were not invested in."

 

That's why cutting the human out of the creative process will never produce something people want. It will only produce stuff "based on something old, that you have no investment in"

 

If generative AI could generate anything consistent, and retain that consistency over 50 years, I would probably be impressed, but without knowing the random seed and prompt, not even the same AI model will generate the same image again. Now extend that to video. 

 

At the current point in time, people are not going to be fooled by anything made by generative AI, porn or not. If it's artwork, you can demand to see the WIP. If it's video, you can demand to see the original video. But if you're not invested in someone, you're not coming back, and as we've seen with the asset-flip video games on steam, people see past uncreative content pretty quick.

 

If onlyfans or fansly was full of nothing but AI generated realistic looking images, people would just stop visiting it, because nobody wants to pay for that.

[StDragon]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

People don't want "Random garbage", they want to be invested. You can't be invested in an AI generated piece of garbage, thus it's value is zero.

There are people out there that will wank-off because it's free. So don't discount the "value" of AI.

[Kisai]

34 minutes ago, StDragon said:

There are people out there that will wank-off because it's free. So don't discount the "value" of AI.

And if datasets no longer contain the data needed to create such models, then it won't be able to. Not without someone training it on that material on their own hardware.

 

 

[StDragon]

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

And if datasets no longer contain the data needed to create such models, then it won't be able to. Not without someone training it on that material on their own hardware.

Naw. I was thinking more basic in terms of how animalistic and predictable people can be.

https://mashable.com/article/pornhub-hawaii-spike-traffic

[leadeater]

16 hours ago, Kisai said:

Because it's in their contract not to. The site is curated, and will not pay an artist/performer for content that is deemed poor quality, questionable IP claims, or can be interpretated as illegal in the United States, or just doesn't fit the vibe. 

And no law breakers, liars or nefarious people exist anywhere in the world?

 

Not allowing it in the ToS doesn't mean you are able to know if something is or is not AI generated. How do you actually know?

 

It doesn't matter how much you say "We do not accept it", I as the "artist" give exactly zero F's, call me on it. I've just submitted art, it is my own human work. Up to you to figure it out, I'll deny it being AI until I die.

 

How do you actually know if something is or is not AI generated? I'm asking the literal exact how to figure it out. Where is the litmus paper to know if a substance is an Acid or Base? Is your "AI litmus paper" 100% accurate and precise?

 

If you do not have a way to properly detect it then you do not have a way to prevent it being used where you don't want it to be used. It actually is that simple of an issue, with an impossibly complex answer to the issue.

 

Games have anti-cheat engines right? So no online cheating exists or happens at all?

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

And no law breakers, liars or nefarious people exist anywhere in the world?

 

Not allowing it in the ToS doesn't mean you are able to know if something is or is not AI generated. How do you actually know?

 

It doesn't matter how much you say "We do not accept it", I as the "artist" give exactly zero F's, call me on it. I've just submitted art, it is my own human work. Up to you to figure it out, I'll deny it being AI until I die.

 

How do you actually know if something is or is not AI generated? I'm asking the literal exact how to figure it out. Where is the litmus paper to know if a substance is an Acid or Base? Is your "AI litmus paper" 100% accurate and precise?

 

If you do not have a way to properly detect it then you do not have a way to prevent it being used where you don't want it to be used. It actually is that simple of an issue, with an impossibly complex answer to the issue.

 

Games have anti-cheat engines right? So no online cheating exists or happens at all?

 

This, some of the sites i visit are full of AI generated drawings, even when they have policies against it. It tends to get deleted fairly fast but it's being generated in such huge quantities that i imagine it's overloading their moderation resources. And not everywhere is banning such artwork either.

[Kisai]

14 hours ago, leadeater said:

And no law breakers, liars or nefarious people exist anywhere in the world?

I didn't say that.

14 hours ago, leadeater said:

Not allowing it in the ToS doesn't mean you are able to know if something is or is not AI generated. How do you actually know?

Again. The client doesn't have open doors to content. If you don't follow the guidelines, you just get told "nope"

 

When you offer a page rate comparable to Marvel and DC, to do adult comics, you're not going to accept AI generate cruft, ever. We're paying YOU to draw, not outsource the work. 

 

14 hours ago, leadeater said:

It doesn't matter how much you say "We do not accept it", I as the "artist" give exactly zero F's, call me on it. I've just submitted art, it is my own human work. Up to you to figure it out, I'll deny it being AI until I die.

That's what art portfolios are for my dude. When I start seeing disfigured hands, and upside down dong's*, and too many orifaces, you're gonna get a "nope."

 

* Literately happened.

14 hours ago, leadeater said:

How do you actually know if something is or is not AI generated? I'm asking the literal exact how to figure it out. Where is the litmus paper to know if a substance is an Acid or Base? Is your "AI litmus paper" 100% accurate and precise?

Ask for the WIP. An AI is never going to generate a WIP, nor explain it's process. Hell even plagiarists can't. They can't explain anything but where they stole it from. They won't even cite where exactly in that source they stole it from to properly cite it. They just wholesale took the entire thing, cropped it, and then traced over it.

 

14 hours ago, leadeater said:

If you do not have a way to properly detect it then you do not have a way to prevent it being used where you don't want it to be used. It actually is that simple of an issue, with an impossibly complex answer to the issue.

Maybe you're misunderstanding the difference between a curated and a UGC site. A curated site, you come to the curated site and submit a pitch and show us your portfolio of what you've previously done (published or not.) I've seen plenty of these. A UGC site, operates the other way around, where moderation comes after the work is uploaded, and any payouts to UGC creators only happen after the ownership and rules are verified.

 

14 hours ago, leadeater said:

Games have anti-cheat engines right? So no online cheating exists or happens at all?

 

Most online games that have anti-cheat features are not applying them in a way that is meaningful. The game client will never be secure, so if preventing cheating must come at the expense of fun, or accessibility then you stream a read-only data stream to the client, and the only thing you accept from the client is the raw keyboard/mouse/controller input, and you throttle it on the server end. You never send anything to the client that the client doesn't need. Such as the coordinates of other players that aren't visible.

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Again. The client doesn't have open doors to content. If you don't follow the guidelines, you just get told "nope"

but that doesn't answer the question.  how do you *know* its ai or not?

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

Maybe you're misunderstanding the difference between a curated and a UGC site.

Maybe you're not understanding the literal question I am asking. Look at any piece of art like a photo or drawing etc, how do you know it's human art and not AI? Actually tell me explicitly how do you know, I'm asking for the exact painful details of how, Please tell me how to know?

 

Who are you to tell me my art is not allowed 29 fingers, it's my art and that is my vision and is part of my message my artwork is portraying. How dare you, a not artists, tell me an artists what my art is allowed to be. Be gone with you. /s obviously but you simply do not get to tell anyone anything like this ever.

 

Actual piles of garbage as been called and displayed as art, I don't think it's art but what I think doesn't matter to anyone but me. 

 

Quote

“Art is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone will have their own interpretation.”

― E.A. Bucchianeri, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly,

 

Forget platforms, ToS, blah blah. Don't care, not the question and doesn't matter.

 

 

Is this image a human drawn painting or is it AI art?

 

If you are going to have a curated site then you must have a way to curate. What is the way? How do you know? Do you just never allow any new artists ever from now on because they are new, unknown and not trusted? A current known artist is never going to submit AI art?

 

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

Most online games that have anti-cheat features are not applying them in a way that is meaningful.

And AI art detection is perfect right now with no flaws, no false positives and no false negatives? 

 

Nobody has ever gone to prison unjustly, nobody in prison is actually innocent, nobody has been given a death sentence wrongly. Every jury has gotten it right every time, no judge as made a mistake, no police officer/detective has made a mistake, miscarriage of justice never happens, life and the world is perfect.

 

 

Turn around and walk back 5 miles, you've missed the point and the question.

 

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

An AI is never going to generate a WIP

Right up until I ask it to do so or train it to do that as part of it

 

I'm sorry but you are presenting a utopia that doesn't exist and can and has been defeated. How else does an AI art work literally win an art award without getting found out until the "artist" told them it was AI.

 

Quote

Berlin-based German artist Boris Eldagsen (*1970) studied photography and visual arts at the Art Academy of Mainz, conceptual art and intermedia at the Academy of Fine Arts, Prague and fine art the Sarojini Naidu School of Arts & Communication Hyderabad, India

And he wasn't just some nobody either. His point was to give people like you a dose or reality, you aren't going to know.

 

I'm not actually asking for an answer because I know one does not currently exist, I'm not even sure one will ever exist. Deceptive artwork is most likely going to exist and it's something we'll have to accept as a possibility and just live with. We can only do so much, I know perfection is not possible so AI art is not always going to get found out if it's trying to be hidden.

[Kisai]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Maybe you're not understanding the literal question I am asking. Look at any piece of art like a photo or drawing etc, how do you know it's human art and not AI? Actually tell me explicitly how do you know, I'm asking for the exact painful details of how, Please tell me how to know?

 

Could you quit being a clown for a minute? I pay for art work. I do not want AI shit. One of my clients operates a NSFW comic site that they pay page rates for. They don't tell them what story to write, the guidelines are just there. If you don't follow the guidelines, you don't get paid. I've shown previously on this forum how easy it is to see defects in generative AI works. They are very obvious the further the work is from realistic.

 

Simple. As. That.

 

It's my prerogative to ask for a timelapse if I suspect they might be into generative AI garbage. They can either show their work, or they can not get paid. 

[leadeater]

39 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

Could you quit being a clown for a minute? I pay for art work. I do not want AI shit. One of my clients operates a NSFW comic site that they pay page rates for. They don't tell them what story to write, the guidelines are just there. If you don't follow the guidelines, you don't get paid. I've shown previously on this forum how easy it is to see defects in generative AI works. They are very obvious the further the work is from realistic.

 

Simple. As. That.

 

It's my prerogative to ask for a timelapse if I suspect they might be into generative AI garbage. They can either show their work, or they can not get paid. 

I'm literally not but yes I am also being facetious as well. Look straight up you are acting like you or anyone else can flawlessly know if something is AI or not. Are you actually that bold? Are you?.

 

The reason why I'm being facetious is because I know you cannot be, so I'm not going to treat your claims of being able to flawless detect AI art trying to be hidden as human art with any real merit because such a claim is meritless.

 

Yes you can sometimes know, sometimes. You can't know ALL the time. That's literally the point. You will get fooled, you know you can be so why pretend otherwise?

 

Listening to you is literally like listening to Turnitin claiming that can detect AI/ChatGPT and be scientifically and statistically demonstrated that they cannot. You know what Turnitin service is for right?

 

 

I am extremely serious when I say you cannot be 100% accurate and precise, don't let the levity of the delivery get in the way. If you feel your "experience" in detecting AI art is being disrespected then all I can say is you're being too over confident because many people in the art community are actually worried about this and legitimately so. 

[Kisai]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm literally not but yes I am also being facetious as well. Look straight up you are acting like you or anyone else can flawlessly know if something is AI or not. Are you actually that bold? Are you?.

 

Please talk to an artist some time. They hate generative AI, as they see it as taking their jobs away. The client has requested that no generative AI be used for multiple reasons, since it imperils the copyright of the work and it doesn't generate anything at present that would pass for a creative work.

 

It doesn't matter if the client can't tell if there is AI used, if the client requests a WIP, or a timelapse, that is something that the contracted artist has to provide, and a generative AI can not generate, because if the client requests revisions, the AI will not generate those revisions.

 

Humans drawn porn have enough trouble drawing anatomy they don't have. Believe it or not if you as an adult human, can't draw an adult human doing yoga poses, you're not going to be drawing adult's drawn consensual erotic activities. Muscles move, fat moves, hair moves. 

 

You're trying to make it seem like generative AI will eventually do good work, when it doesn't do good work now, and the kinds of "good results" you see aren't cherry picked out of thousands of bad or mediocre results.

 

Like trying Stable Diffusion XL on my own hardware, and giving a page long prompt, still doesn't give me a decent drawing after 100 tries, the amount of time someone would have to spend to avoid drawing, they could just draw the thing. No legitimate artist is going to waste their time with generative AI.

 

And believe me generative AI has ingested enough sakimichan works at some point, that's why a lot of comic and anime-styled stuff that pops out of generative AI models, partially looks like a sakimichan work.

 

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

The reason why I'm being facetious is because I know you cannot be, so I'm not going to treat your claims of being able to flawless detect AI art trying to be hidden as human art with any real merit because such a claim is meritless.

You still aren't getting it. If the contract stipulates no use of generative AI, and you turn in a work that has clearly been generated, you don't get paid. This client is not a content farm. If you don't like the guidelines , you don't even get past the portfolio check.

 

It's like any other job application. If you can't produce a credential you claim to have, then you are not getting very far in the interview. Many jobs also treat diploma mill certificates as garbage, so if all you have is a credential from some college you saw on television, you're going to be scrutinized.

 

Art jobs use portfolios for the same thing. If we don't see works in the style we want, no thank you. If there is a single generative AI work in there, you are getting passed over.

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Yes you can sometimes know, sometimes. You can't know ALL the time. That's literally the point. You will get fooled, you know you can be so why pretend otherwise?

And I keep saying, that generative AI doesn't generate consistent output. You can't put "two men fucking, drawn in my style" and get anything but garbage. It's hard enough for an actual human to put into words a sex act. Do you really think someone is going to generate a million images and cherry pick the closest thing that the "word smith" thinks is the described? No If someone is using generative AI, they are basically operating with Aphantasia. No matter how much you try, the AI will not generate the thing you are thinking of, if you can visualize it at all. 

 

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Listening to you is literally like listening to Turnitin claiming that can detect AI/ChatGPT and be scientifically and statistically demonstrated that they cannot. You know what Turnitin service is for right?

 

Turnitin, is claiming they can detect AI with another AI. 

 

You can generate a very basic version of of a text-theft algorithm by having a database of published works, wikipedia, etc and then using a statistical model on word presence. I wrote one when I worked for the auction site. You are underestimating how lazy plagiarism is.

 

https://www.polygon.com/23989686/hbomberguy-plagarism-youtube-video-james-somerton

There are youtubers who are literately word-for-word lifting material from other sources. Reading wikipedia. Reading other documentaries. Doing just enough to not get hit by youtube's contentID.

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

I am extremely serious when I say you cannot be 100% accurate and precise, don't let the levity of the delivery get in the way. If you feel your "experience" in detecting AI art is being disrespected then all I can say is you're being too over confident because many people in the art community are actually worried about this and legitimately so. 

No of course not, in a UGC site, people are going plagiarize, and do things to disguise how they stole things when money or clout is in play. In a curated site, that doesn't exist because you will not be paid without the work being reviewed, and if the human reviewers think there is something that needs to be revised, they will ask for a revision, and if that was "AI", they will be found out because an AI work can't be revised.

 

If your artist draws the hole on the phallus on the wrong part of the shaft, and doesn't know how to draw labia, do you really think they are going to get paid for porn? No. They will be told to fix it. The AI doesn't know how to fix it. If it generates a completely different thing, they will be outed as using generative AI.

 

Until generative AI can actually understand anatomy perfectly, it will always reveal itself. Otherwise you will not catch as easily because clothing or armor can be excused away.

 

You're making the same silly arguments from the thread we had back in April, that somehow generative AI produces convincing output 100% of the time, when it always generates a low-resolution output, and it won't fool anyone who is familiar with the subject. 

[Theminecraftaddict555]

On 12/20/2023 at 9:34 PM, htimsenyawed said:

 

I'm pretty sure I seen my first internet porn video boobie at the age of 10. When I turned 14, we also got DSL and I couldn't grip a doorknob for a week.

[leadeater]

On 12/24/2023 at 9:19 AM, Kisai said:

You're making the same silly arguments from the thread we had back in April, that somehow generative AI produces convincing output 100% of the time, when it always generates a low-resolution output, and it won't fool anyone who is familiar with the subject. 

Right so you're the ultimate authority beyond reproach and can always tell and are superior in every way to multiple photography judges all with years of experience? So you and only you should judge every single artistic competition because only you have 100% accuracy and precision and could never be fooled and could never falsely identify something as AI when it is not?

 

You seem to think all AI art is low effort attempts that are easy to spot and also that these low effort attempts will stay easy to spot forever. That's a really bad take, really bad.

 

First of all the photo that was AI that won the photography competition wasn't a low effort and he spent a long time training his AI model and getting the exact image he wanted for the sole purpose of fooling the competition and it worked.

 

The only silly arguments here is from you, can you stop with the I am perfect complex and actually figure out the point, you are not, nobody is and AI is only going to get better, the low effort and high effort attempts.

 

Absolutely nobody here cares how much you dislike AI art, it's utterly irrelevant to the issue. And if the world operated with your mindset and your enforced ideals then actually hundreds to thousands of artist would be unfairly and unjustly excluded for AI art when they haven't. It is worse to falsely accuse than to miss some things because benefit of the doubt does less harm.

 

Any and all utterance from you about rules not allowing AI art shall continue to be ignored, it has nothing to do with the problem and has no place in this discussion with me. None.

 

And no I never said what you are claiming, quote me exactly saying that. I know you cannot. I get it, you consistently have problems figuring out what people are saying, please for the sake of everyone here attempt to remedy that. You will enjoy discussions a lot more when you end up discussing with people about the things they have actually said.

 

On 12/24/2023 at 9:19 AM, Kisai said:

Please talk to an artist some time. They hate generative AI, as they see it as taking their jobs away. The client has requested that no generative AI be used for multiple reasons, since it imperils the copyright of the work and it doesn't generate anything at present that would pass for a creative work.

Irrelevant, and I do. Literally art courses are taught where I work. I'd bet more art students have interact with me than you since I have exclusively worked in the education, academic and research industry.

 

How much you or anyone else dislikes AI art has zero, I mean zero, bearing on the actual issue. Anybody claiming to perfectly identify it without error is at best lying to themselves, nobody is going to believe such a claim, nobody.

 

Do you actually have anything valid and worthwhile to say? If not then you are welcome to converse with somebody else.

 

On 12/24/2023 at 9:19 AM, Kisai said:

It doesn't matter if the client can't tell if there is AI used, if the client requests a WIP, or a timelapse, that is something that the contracted artist has to provide, and a generative AI can not generate, because if the client requests revisions, the AI will not generate those revisions.

Except you can make your AI tool actually do those things as part of it 

 

My goodness you are oblivious to the issue. Games with anti-cheat don't allow cheating, academic course don't allow cheating and AI, it still happens.

 

Firstly if the client can't tell then why would they be asking for anything if they are happy with and are going to accept the work, unless it is part of the original request so you'd know and be supplying that, all using AI. Again writing a rule about something not being allowed actually does nothing to prevent or stop it happening, all it does is give you grounds to do something about it when found. Speed limits don't stop speeding, all they do is define a deemed safe limit and allow punitive measure for anyone found exceeding them. Speed limits do little to nothing to those that have no intention of obeying them. No AI art rules do little to nothing to stop those from not obeying the rules. A rule does not create a way/method of enforcement.

 

On 12/24/2023 at 9:19 AM, Kisai said:

Turnitin, is claiming they can detect AI with another AI. 

So again you literally didn't read what I said. I literally said Turninit claims they can while this has actually been statistically tested by themselves and others and they are not 100%.

 

Quote

In order to maintain this low rate of 1% for false positives, there is a chance that we might miss 15% of AI written text in a document. We’re comfortable with that since we do not want to incorrectly highlight human-written text as AI-written. For example, if we identify that 50% of a document is likely written by an AI tool, it could contain as much as 65% AI writing.

https://www.turnitin.com/products/features/ai-writing-detection/#:~:text=What is the accuracy of,over 20% of AI writing.

 

Quote

Turnitin claims its tool is 98% accurate in detecting content created by AI.

https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/testing-turnitin-new-ai-detector/

 

Quote

The technology, which identifies the use of AI writing tools with 98% confidence, provides an evaluative measure of how many sentences in a written submission may have been generated by artificial intelligence, which educators can use to determine if further review, inquiry or discussion with the student is needed.

https://www.theeducatoronline.com/k12/news/new-ai-detector-spots-chatgpt-content-with-98-accuracy/282285

 

Thank you for doing absolutely zero research or information checking on this. It makes you look just so great. Also the false positive rate is the most important thing which is why Turninit talks about it the most. You seem to not care at all about false positives in any capacity.

 

On 12/24/2023 at 9:19 AM, Kisai said:

In a curated site, that doesn't exist because you will not be paid without the work being reviewed, and if the human reviewers think there is something that needs to be revised, they will ask for a revision, and if that was "AI", they will be found out because an AI work can't be revised.

I'd ask if you were joking but I know you are not. The first thing you should stop doing is saying and believing the bolded, it will exist and humans will not identify it every time. 

 

Next you'll be trying to tell me art forgery doesn't exist. I look forward to that. I had no idea anyone could get so up tight and offended by being told they aren't perfect, if you don't legitimately think you are perfect then what on earth are you even arguing about? Don't answer that to me, answer that to yourself.

 

Spoiler

Which one of these is AI?

 

 

 

[Kisai]

14 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

 

Do you actually have anything valid and worthwhile to say? If not then you are welcome to converse with somebody else.

 

You're the one beating your head against the wall and saying silly off topic things not contributing to the thread here. 

 

For some reason you've refused to believe that a curated site, that has a line of professional artists wanting to do work for it would actually review work turned in. The guidelines exist, you ignore them, you don't get paid, and you also have probably killed your career. It's absolutely clear you have never EVER spoken to an artist, or you'd know that they hate this generative AI stuff, and most will absolutely throw anyone who even dabbles in generative AI under the bus so they can get their spot in line to get paid for drawing. 

 

If you can't understand this, just walk away from the thread. You don't understand the business model. People don't want generative AI, the company won't pay for generative AI, regardless of how it's used. If you don't have a portfolio of consistent work in the style we want, you're not getting any work. Period. Understand that.

 

If you are under the impression that generative AI will fool professional artists, then you absolutely haven't been paying attention to artists voices at all, which is pretty clear from your arguments. Every time some idiot posts some cherry picked thing from stable diffusion, midjourney, etc on twitter, they are rightfully mocked for not seeing all the glaring errors.