|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Would you rather see AI pics or real pics?"
Love you, too
al cooper said: to me ai is like a drawing, i can admire the skill, but the results do little for me. you can look at a photo of the grand canyon, but the "awe" is knowing it's really there. that's why i love this site, there is so much "awe"..
Well said.
It's not an analogy that I would have come to, but it really does make the point.
The Wizard of Ooze
Ive been thinking more about this, and I decided I shouldn't be so serious and over-think AI, its like a new form of art, it still requires a human to write the prompt. Ive always been amazed at the images that are created by merely typing words, and the some of the details, the beauty of the models, the expressions, the texture of the mess, the results definitely invoke a response and stimulate feelings which is what made me look at it as art. I would never be able to produce the images on my own, gotta give some 'thing' credit for that
z3n said: Here's one that a real producer would not be able to do 
But a single image doesn't really cut it, there's obviously a story here, at the very least a "before" pic is needed ... it starts to be quite a lot of work.
I've found the "showing emotions" part of AI generated images, funnily enough, works well. They are well trained on portraying human emotions ... like good actors, I guess. And like a movie, whether the result works for audiences emotionally is going to be a lot about the writing
The WAM part is harder, the AIs are not trained on a lot of WAM images but that's just an implementation detail, there is no reason they can't do good WAM images. Whether there will be good AI WAM videos is not sure yet but the field is moving crazily fast, I guess we'll know soon enough.
Edit: I'm still not "arguing for" AI images, of the two I am for sure for real WAM but I hope they can coexist in a fun way.
Edit 2: it's perfectly possible to produce AI WAM images of a real person, but I haven't experimented because I'd need a willing model before I am comfortable doing so, and of course that's also needed to publish anything. If any producer+model would like a private demo I'd be more than happy to oblige, send me a message it would be really interesting if real content ended up with AI bonuses on the side.
But a single image doesn't really cut it, there's obviously a story here, at the very least a "before" pic is needed ... it starts to be quite a lot of work.
I've found the "showing emotions" part of AI generated images, funnily enough, works well. They are well trained on portraying human emotions ... like good actors, I guess. And like a movie, whether the result works for audiences emotionally is going to be a lot about the writing
The WAM part is harder, the AIs are not trained on a lot of WAM images
but that's just an implementation detail, there is no reason they can't do good WAM images. Whether there will be good AI WAM videos is not sure yet but the field is moving crazily fast, I guess we'll know soon enough. Edit: I'm still not "arguing for" AI images, of the two I am for sure for real WAM
but I hope they can coexist in a fun way. Edit 2: it's perfectly possible to produce AI WAM images of a real person, but I haven't experimented because I'd need a willing model before I am comfortable doing so, and of course that's also needed to publish anything. If any producer+model would like a private demo I'd be more than happy to oblige, send me a message
it would be really interesting if real content ended up with AI bonuses on the side. You're not giving producers enough credit. I've made messes occur in places most people wouldn't imagine possible. These are just a few teases of what I've pulled off for the right buyer. Anything is possible. It's just a matter of whether somebody is willing to pay enough to have it happen.
CreamMeAgain said:
Please sit down sir, I have a lengthy response to this. No one held anyone "hostage" that term is bullshit and you're spinning a false narrative. No one ever said that AI can't exist in Hollywood. That isn't what those negotiations were about.
The streaming platforms were actually asking background actors to come into the studios to get scanned. Not saying why, not giving them any info, just scanning them. Then suddenly, that actor sees that they were inserted into the background of a scene that they weren't paid for and they won't be getting paid for because they weren't physically in front of a camera. THAT is why we went on strike against using AI. IN THAT MANNER. Those people were protecting their own fucking images, their own faces being used without their consent. This is no different than PIRACY. Oh yes, this is exactly where I'm going to take this conversation because that's exactly what AI will help make possible. Stealing someone's likeness against their will. This is the kind of bullshit that corporate heads try to pull all the time. Those people put their careers and incomes on the line so that everyone can keep their jobs. You obviously know nothing about the corporate accountants that run the streaming platforms and how they abuse and mistreat everyone in the industry just so THEY can turn a profit. They would also put writers out of work in a second if they could just replace them with chat gpt.
The people who went on strike deserve to have jobs and be able to make a living and you're treating them like they're criminals for wanting to stand up and try to protect their way of life. AI can put a lot of people out of work and what jobs are left for them? Nothing that can make that level of money they've been making to sustain their incomes. Those strikes helped set a precedent that is making it easier for the other unions to get the negotiations they need so that we don't have to go on strike again. Wamfan had to lose out on work, we didn't know if we were going to keep our house and we'll go on strike again if we need to set a fucking precedent with the rest of the unions as well. We're all ready to support each other like the community that we are in this industry. UNION FUCKING STRONG.
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
Hollywood was just held hostage for months by both actors and writers who went on strike over this very issue, with landslide support mind you. As long as they have a say, and they very well should, replacement isn't happening without their permission.
DungeonMasterOne said:
Over time, as TV shows and Hollywood movies gradually replace real actors with AI-generated characters, future generations may not be as fully about the division, but change always takes time to work through.
I voted real for now.
Over time, as TV shows and Hollywood movies gradually replace real actors with AI-generated characters, future generations may not be as fully about the division, but change always takes time to work through.
I voted real for now.
Hollywood was just held hostage for months by both actors and writers who went on strike over this very issue, with landslide support mind you. As long as they have a say, and they very well should, replacement isn't happening without their permission.
Please sit down sir, I have a lengthy response to this. No one held anyone "hostage" that term is bullshit and you're spinning a false narrative. No one ever said that AI can't exist in Hollywood. That isn't what those negotiations were about.
The streaming platforms were actually asking background actors to come into the studios to get scanned. Not saying why, not giving them any info, just scanning them. Then suddenly, that actor sees that they were inserted into the background of a scene that they weren't paid for and they won't be getting paid for because they weren't physically in front of a camera. THAT is why we went on strike against using AI. IN THAT MANNER. Those people were protecting their own fucking images, their own faces being used without their consent. This is no different than PIRACY. Oh yes, this is exactly where I'm going to take this conversation because that's exactly what AI will help make possible. Stealing someone's likeness against their will. This is the kind of bullshit that corporate heads try to pull all the time. Those people put their careers and incomes on the line so that everyone can keep their jobs. You obviously know nothing about the corporate accountants that run the streaming platforms and how they abuse and mistreat everyone in the industry just so THEY can turn a profit. They would also put writers out of work in a second if they could just replace them with chat gpt.
The people who went on strike deserve to have jobs and be able to make a living and you're treating them like they're criminals for wanting to stand up and try to protect their way of life. AI can put a lot of people out of work and what jobs are left for them? Nothing that can make that level of money they've been making to sustain their incomes. Those strikes helped set a precedent that is making it easier for the other unions to get the negotiations they need so that we don't have to go on strike again. Wamfan had to lose out on work, we didn't know if we were going to keep our house and we'll go on strike again if we need to set a fucking precedent with the rest of the unions as well. We're all ready to support each other like the community that we are in this industry. UNION FUCKING STRONG.
Uh, no way did I ever intend on actors and actresses or the screenwriters to come off as villains. If anything, I said they were justified in a number of posts preceding this one. They deserve to be treated fairly. I don't think I was ever in disagreement of that. I am saying that actors and screenwriters have a huge amount of public support from a number of channels from A list celebrities to small artist communities like the one I am a part of. I am simply stating that for those thinking that AI is going to magically replace these things, they better not hold their breath
Btw, "being held hostage" doesn't necessarily mean I mean it negatively. Sometimes some civil disobedience is required to get the message across.
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
messyhot said:
You're not giving producers enough credit. I've made messes occur in places most people wouldn't imagine possible. These are just a few teases of what I've pulled off for the right buyer. Anything is possible. It's just a matter of whether somebody is willing to pay enough to have it happen.
z3n said: Here's one that a real producer would not be able to do
You're not giving producers enough credit. I've made messes occur in places most people wouldn't imagine possible. These are just a few teases of what I've pulled off for the right buyer. Anything is possible. It's just a matter of whether somebody is willing to pay enough to have it happen.
Very impressive, thanks! If ever I seem to be not giving producers enough credit, that is a mistake: producers are amazing, my eternal gratitude to you all.
I think AI generated content has a nearly limitless potential. Yes, real images will always be indisputably superior - but AI generated images can create billion $ scenarios even the wealthiest of producers could never even postulate.
This is indicative of where we are failing to utilize AI algorithms to their utmost potential.
Einstein once said that imagination is more important than knowledge.
I've seen countless AI posts attempt to recreate a particular scene or circumstance.
Very few have contemplated the concept of visualizing the wildest, most ridiculous and absurdly incomprehensible possibilities.
Let's find the limits of a limitless tool.
This is indicative of where we are failing to utilize AI algorithms to their utmost potential.
Einstein once said that imagination is more important than knowledge.
I've seen countless AI posts attempt to recreate a particular scene or circumstance.
Very few have contemplated the concept of visualizing the wildest, most ridiculous and absurdly incomprehensible possibilities.
Let's find the limits of a limitless tool.
Your parents were wrong. Play with your food.
The games on my site have extremely plain images so far: white backgrounds, minimal props.
This is because the more you add to a scene the harder it gets to generate similar enough images that they form a series, as it is I already discard ~99% of images just getting the model, clothing and mess looking approximately consistent image to image.
Stretching this to more interesting scenarios is definitely the plan.
Work in progress: I want to be able to look back on the early games in a year's time and think "wow, this has come a long way"
This is because the more you add to a scene the harder it gets to generate similar enough images that they form a series, as it is I already discard ~99% of images just getting the model, clothing and mess looking approximately consistent image to image.
Stretching this to more interesting scenarios is definitely the plan.
Work in progress: I want to be able to look back on the early games in a year's time and think "wow, this has come a long way"
Pringao said: Real pics, AI is nothing to me at the moment when there is no human emotion such as shock, humiliation, fun, embarrassment, anticipation, ....
I think that at the moment, the true potential of AI for generating synthetic WAM imagery is really untapped. Being able to generate realistic, high-resolution images with varying expressions, outfits, scenarios, etc. comes with creating custom models focused specifically on WAM material.
As an example of emotion, I've prepared a set of images conveying a range of facial expressions and emotions to demonstrate the possibilities when changing a single variable and leaving everything else constant.
For reference, this is using the model I posted in my other thread with the prompt:
"a lot of hair dits, a lot of clothing dits,dripping, facing right, 8k photo of a woman at an airport [EXPRESSION] | wearing a black latex catsuit"
With the expressions being from the following list:
smiling, grinning, smirking, beaming, sneering, pursed lips, pouting, jaw dropped, frowning, horrified, wide-eyed, squinting, sideways glance, rolling eyes, winking, giving a dirty look, glazed over, nose wrinkled, grimace, wince, blank expression, resigned expression, neutral expression
skirtpie said: I thought I knew the results, but not sure anymore.
The reason I prefer real is because it allows me to learn what's been done before
Paint with play and surrender
I agree that the potential is still largely untapped with just using commercial big image generators (bing, dall-e, etc). It is largely inevitable that at some point output for photos, and eventually videos, will be pretty indistinguishable from 'real' photos. That is not the case yet but photos are getting close with specifically trained models.
This leads to a big question that the community has not really answered yet, that of copyright and training models. While the big companies just scrape the Internet and good general results, we are seeing more and easier ways to upload a load of photos and make your own trained model or adaptation. Currently the UMD terms around synthetic content focus on likeness to a real person but is it ok for someone to scrape all of a producers free photos on the forum and make a model that can produce images accurate to an original producers style of images? I would say it is not and we should be adding some sort of opt in or out option to photo uploads to specify that permission is given to use the images in AI training. I feel if we just let this one go then in no time at all someone will start making AI models that can emulate a producers hard work with no compensation. Of course a label doesn't stop someone doing it but at least it removes the gray area and makes it clear before a problem happens.
This leads to a big question that the community has not really answered yet, that of copyright and training models. While the big companies just scrape the Internet and good general results, we are seeing more and easier ways to upload a load of photos and make your own trained model or adaptation. Currently the UMD terms around synthetic content focus on likeness to a real person but is it ok for someone to scrape all of a producers free photos on the forum and make a model that can produce images accurate to an original producers style of images? I would say it is not and we should be adding some sort of opt in or out option to photo uploads to specify that permission is given to use the images in AI training. I feel if we just let this one go then in no time at all someone will start making AI models that can emulate a producers hard work with no compensation. Of course a label doesn't stop someone doing it but at least it removes the gray area and makes it clear before a problem happens.
In my mind AI has some very specific use cases. Going through and isolating different sections of audio tracks for example, nothing wrong. Assisting in cleaning up images and recordings, nothing wrong there.
The places where I have issues with it concern copyright and replication. Using someone else's copyrighted work to train AI is out of bounds to me. Using AI to create that sacrilege, fake ass piece of shit George Carlin stand up special, out of bounds. Using images and likenesses without the consent of the human, out of bounds.
I like some of the forum rules around the use of AI to create pics. I would rather see people develop artistic talent and only use the AI to help polish things up while they are learning and progressing their skills. Relying on AI for things is how humans will be replaced by computers and there is no creativity behind it. Just like with cashiers and self check out, rather than paying a decent wage and not fucking over customers, C level people would rather automate things to make them more money. I refuse to use self checkout for this reason. Most times when a human is replaced by a machine it is bad for business.
The places where I have issues with it concern copyright and replication. Using someone else's copyrighted work to train AI is out of bounds to me. Using AI to create that sacrilege, fake ass piece of shit George Carlin stand up special, out of bounds. Using images and likenesses without the consent of the human, out of bounds.
I like some of the forum rules around the use of AI to create pics. I would rather see people develop artistic talent and only use the AI to help polish things up while they are learning and progressing their skills. Relying on AI for things is how humans will be replaced by computers and there is no creativity behind it. Just like with cashiers and self check out, rather than paying a decent wage and not fucking over customers, C level people would rather automate things to make them more money. I refuse to use self checkout for this reason. Most times when a human is replaced by a machine it is bad for business.
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In