AI Photos need to have their own photos section.

Isn't there already an AI Wam section?

There is: https://umd.net/groups/group/ai-wam

Plus all AI images should be tagged "synthetic" so that the site can filter them out of the feeds of people who don't want to see them, there are already preferences controls for that in each user's profile.

Thanks! Didn't know this and it was starting to kill the use of the picture archive. Even if interested in it occasionally there were sooooooo many in each post.

wish more people would use it and the mods here would move AI in the mainstream forums to it.

If you read the Moderator Guidelines (part of the ToS) we are specifically forbidden from moving forum threads into groups, unless asked to do so by the thread originator. There's no requirement to use groups, they're an additional feature and using them is optional.

I do think it's important that synthetic content is correctly labelled as such though, so that those sho dislike it can filter it out using their preference settings.

Things change! But the whole point of a forum (and also groups within a forum) is that they are defined places where people can go and look for specific content. Having a moderator rule as it is means that a post could be made anywhere and it could be inappropriate (such as, for example, a personal message appearing in the Wet or Messy forum in error. Yes, the poster could ask for it to be moved but that's not really the point. Moderators should be able use their discretion to move content. Especially as the overwhelming opinion is pointing in that direction of defined forums.

Couldn't there be a popup after somebody hit's the "Post now" button to ask if they are sure they want to post in any particular forum.

Just an idea!

The rule applies to moving threads from forums to groups, which are different things. Posts made the the wrong forums are frequently moved to the correct forum, but threads are not moved from forums to groups.

Possibly there could be an argument to replace the AI group with a Synthetic forum, and update the ToS to require all synthetic content to be posted only in that forum, but that would be for MM to decide. Bear in mind the very first AI images only appeared last year, so this is very new territory.

Many of the synthetic pictures are not labelled or tagged as such and despite my profile set to filter them out my picture archive is full of them. It's seriously annoying and really destroying my enjoyment of the site. It's too much.

Yeah you are right. The latest page is full of it.

For a while, the replies to a synthetic post also enabled the synthetic checkbox by default. Recently, that is no longer the case. Folks are forgetting to mark it synthetic.

If something isn't tagged correctly, report it. MM sees all the reports even if a different admin actually deals with it, so if there are lots of reports he'll be aware there's an issue.

I've noticed the lack of tagging on post followups, had to correct six posts in a thread in a row the other day, I've suggested to MM we could do with a quick way to edit post tags from the thread index rather than, as now, having to edit each post individually, add the tag, then save it and edit the next one.

For the past day or two there have been around 30 replies in the AI WAM, and roughly 20 of them have images and are not tagged synthetic. These are from 7-8 users who have posted synthetic images before in replies that were marked synthetic. Their latest replies for the past day or two are not being tagged synthetic. I can report these They are easy to spot because the top 5-6 posts in the group have replies with images that are not marked synthetic. I understand it will not be perfect and only reduce the images for folks that do not want to see it, but it would be better to get it from 1/3 correctly tagged replies to 9/10 or better.

An easy remedy to the lack of "synthetic" tag would be to make it automatic in the AI Wam forum. So, the flag would be set by default when posting/uploading an image and the poster would have to uncheck it before submitting.

This is something that has already been identified by mFeelzGood - It seems to have been there but not any more.

Yeah, it's set automatically on a new thread but then isn't set on the replies - I've flagged it to MM as a bug. Meanwhile please report any images you see that aren't tagged - if they're on the wall, click through to the forum post they are from and use the "Report" link, select "Wrong Tagging" and put "should be synthetic" in the text box, then submit. That way us mods can jump in and edit it, plus MM will see the reports.

A recent posting on the AI Wam group had me looking at the guidelines and, in particular, the following line:-

"Photorealistic generated and altered content is subject to the same rules as natural content: Copyright laws still apply"

There's been a whole lot of reports about this, especially the US Courts, where it has been variously reported that copyright can or cannot be owned. But, in general, the AI algorithms have been trained on real images on which copyright most definitely exists.

There's also a whole load of legal action going on regarding the training of text-based AI systems from authors. So it's not a great stretch to suggest the same will happen with image generators. And that could cause a knock-on effect with copyright complaints and take-down requests. (I would suggest there's a greater chance of generated images falling into this area rather than text.)

If this does happen, it would make more sense to have all those images in a single place rather than having to sift through the massive library of images and threads already on UMD to locate synthetic content.

Looking forward to hearing the outcome on this one as, at the moment with 16 hours to go, the voting is 130:10 in favour of AI images having their own section.

In fact, no one is actually dirty, and since it is all fake, it is nothing more than the producer's self-aggrandizement. It is also an act of desecration of the performers. I can't bear to watch it.

When this poll was 1st set up in November i voted that AI should have its own section but never commented. I was giving it time to see how it pans out and glad i did. To begin with most of the AI stuff was actually really good, but.now in my opinion its just crap. Again, only my opinion but if feels like that at the beginning they got good feedback and now they are just trying to post as much content as possible that the detailing is slipping and just looks now, completely fake. Photo section is just full of this fake crap now and completely agree with most that they should definitely have its own section.
Again just my opinion, people will agree and disagree and I really don't mean any offence to those who are trying to please us with the content.

Just to make people aware, you can filter out all synthetic content (including AI) using the filter controls (looks like a graphic equaliser symbol, top left of screen), to adjust the settings on your profile.

I get the impression the main use of AI WAM is a bit like how WAM Stories used to be used - the real thrill is writing / creating. In time, as image possibilities become more realistic, this may change, but for the time being we're still very much at the "Puffing Billy" stage of steam engine development, "Flying Scotsman" (i.e. images so realistic you can't tell they aren't real photos) is still years away.

Yes but also seeing situations that I want and rarely if ever find. I'd rather have videos and pictures of real women but I can't afford customs.

Also I like variety. In 15-30 minutes of AI work, I can see 6 or more different women in a variety of outfits. After 4 or 5 pies in the same woman's face, I'm bored. I can't see her face any more.

I agree: I can almost always tell AI from a real picture. Again, I'd rather have a real picture.