Back in late '94 I discovered the web and was so blown away I stayed awake for the next three days trying to take it all in. After the first hour I realized the world was about to undergo a huge change on the level of inventing fire and wheels. Not long ago I took my first look at AI and had a similar experience only now I can stay awake for about three hours. In a few years we are going to be cranking out our own custom creations with every kink we can possibly imagine. There will be few if any limits and we'll be incessantly tweaking our favorite self made scenes to get it all just right.
Two possible scenarios - Everyone becomes a producer buying, trading, swapping their creations or nobody is a producer because everybody is.
If you are currently in WAM video production you probably won't have much to do in the relatively near future. At least not in the sense we've become accustomed to. You may be better off at a trade school learning how to make buggy whips.
DuncanEdwards said: If you are currently in WAM video production you probably won't have much to do in the relatively near future. At least not in the sense we've become accustomed to. You may be better off at a trade school learning how to make buggy whips.
I don't think it's quite that dire. While the images that AI can produce are amazing, as yet it can't do "sequences" - you can't get a set of images of a specific model in a specific outfit walking down a flight of steps into the sea, or lowering herself into a mudbath. I'm sure eventually that will be possible but it's not there yet.
Also it's not actually as "intelligent" as the acronym makes out. When you generte at AI image of a scene, it still doesn't actually have any concept of who an actual person is, each image is a unique and one-off creation, much like how a painting is one-off. A painter could paint the same girl in multiple images but she won't be identical in each one, it's not like computer game graphics where your avatar is a specific set of data that will always render into the same character when fed to the game engine.
So, yes, the ability is there to produce lots of high quality images of people in WAM situations, in just about any form of clothing or nudity you like - gunged people in space-suits on Mars anyone? - but it's still a long way from being able to do all the imaging of say someone having her trousers filled with custard and then sitting down and feeling it all go "squelch" and her gasp and facial reactions to that as she sits down. For that to be possible first it needs to be able to understand concepts like who and what a person actually is (as opposed to just what one more or less looks like), so that it can the put that same "person" into multiple images, without her leg morphing into her boot or her hands having 8 fingers each.
So I'm still happily planning and shooting scenes, adding to my existing stockpile of future-releases, and fully expecting to still be selling real-human scenes in ten years from now.
AI almost certainly will revolutionise this industry and many others - I've already included a subroutine written by ChatGPT in commercial web code - but it's not going to entirely replace human-made scenes.
I wonder how long it takes to generate a set of really good WAM images versus how long it takes to produce a photoset. There's also the creativity factor: Ideas have to come from somewhere. And spontaneity/collaboration: Some of the sexiest sequences in SlapstickStuff's videos have come when the models go off-script, IMO.
We're already seeing something similar with amazing PhotoShop fakes: Full frontal nudity of Emma Watson, for example, that the guy posting admits is a fake. Full AI images are just another step.
DuncanEdwards said: If you are currently in WAM video production you probably won't have much to do in the relatively near future. At least not in the sense we've become accustomed to. You may be better off at a trade school learning how to make buggy whips.
" ...as yet it can't do "sequences" - you can't get a set of images of a specific model in a specific outfit walking down a flight of steps into the sea, or lowering herself into a mudbath. I'm sure eventually that will be possible but it's not there yet.
For the moment I may be stretching the point to make one but the rate of improvement on this is on a pretty steep curve. It's already well on the way to eliminate the stock photo business. I don't know if we are talking about three years or six but "porn" video is set to undergo some dramatic changes. Remember how the adult "film" industry went from theaters to home video to on demand to anything you want on a device in your shirt pocket? This change will happen faster than that for certain.
Below is a photo of a fantasy location at Camp MPV. It's a combination of photos put together in about 30 seconds. It looks like Camp MPV but if you try to find any detail in there in any of the original photos, there's not any. It won't be long before original video content is being used in the same manner. It won't be long after that before it's all at least as real as Hollywood CGI, on demand.
DungeonMasterOne said: So, yes, the ability is there to produce lots of high quality images of people in WAM situations, in just about any form of clothing or nudity you like - gunged people in space-suits on Mars anyone?
DungeonMasterOne said: So, yes, the ability is there to produce lots of high quality images of people in WAM situations, in just about any form of clothing or nudity you like - gunged people in space-suits on Mars anyone?
I'm definitely here for this future
Nice. How long did it take you to create those? What tool did you use?
Sleazoid44 said: I wonder how long it takes to generate a set of really good WAM images versus how long it takes to produce a photoset. There's also the creativity factor: Ideas have to come from somewhere. And spontaneity/collaboration: Some of the sexiest sequences in SlapstickStuff's videos have come when the models go off-script, IMO.
If money weren't an object (and in this case, I'm only talking about a few hundred bucks), I could call up a model, have her come over while I set up some lights and slime, knock out a few shots, and have them edited and uploaded in a few hours where it would take a couple of days of scouring tutorials and refining my programming to have a decent AI image that still looks like a video game NPC.
Maybe if you've invested as much time and money into AI art as I have to photography you could generate stunning images in a matter of hours too. It just depends on what skills you've developed.
...and, if we're keeping it 100, if you know how to talk to and form professional relationships with real human models, which is really the cause of most people turning to AI art.
I like women and I like photographing them, which is why even if images of real people go the way of the BuGgYwHiP I'm still gonna shoot and produce faster with more personal satisfaction than if I fell into trends.
If money weren't an object (and in this case, I'm only talking about a few hundred bucks), I could call up a model, have her come over while I set up some lights and slime, knock out a few shots, and have them edited and uploaded in a few hours where it would take a couple of days of scouring tutorials and refining my programming to have a decent AI image that still looks like a video game NPC.
Maybe if you've invested as much time and money into AI art as I have to photography you could generate stunning images in a matter of hours too. It just depends on what skills you've developed.
...and, if we're keeping it 100, if you know how to talk to and form professional relationships with real human models, which is really the cause of most people turning to AI art.
I like women and I like photographing them, which is why even if images of real people go the way of the BuGgYwHiP I'm still gonna shoot and produce faster with more personal satisfaction than if I fell into trends.
I'm not sure it needs to be as binary as this. I believe that in many jobs and workplaces (including photography) those that are able to use new AI tools to enhance the work they already do and enable new things or efficiencies will thrive. I don't think AI is the end of photography. Although it may drastically change some things within it such as the stock image industry. Where it helps within WAM is to enable the easier creation of certain niche styles (within a quite niche fetish). As much as you say how easy it is to do a WAM shoot, I would disagree. I shot WAM for 10 years and it is always a lot of work with locations, materials, models, clean up, showering facilities.
While we are on niche styles. Here is some more of 'gunged spacesuit wearing model on Mars'. Loving this new sub-fetish haha
Sleazoid44 said: I wonder how long it takes to generate a set of really good WAM images versus how long it takes to produce a photoset. There's also the creativity factor: Ideas have to come from somewhere. And spontaneity/collaboration: Some of the sexiest sequences in SlapstickStuff's videos have come when the models go off-script, IMO.
If money weren't an object (and in this case, I'm only talking about a few hundred bucks), I could call up a model, have her come over while I set up some lights and slime, knock out a few shots, and have them edited and uploaded in a few hours where it would take a couple of days of scouring tutorials and refining my programming to have a decent AI image that still looks like a video game NPC.
Maybe if you've invested as much time and money into AI art as I have to photography you could generate stunning images in a matter of hours too. It just depends on what skills you've developed.
...and, if we're keeping it 100, if you know how to talk to and form professional relationships with real human models, which is really the cause of most people turning to AI art.
I like women and I like photographing them, which is why even if images of real people go the way of the BuGgYwHiP I'm still gonna shoot and produce faster with more personal satisfaction than if I fell into trends.
^This. The pattern I have been seeing is while everyone wants to make content, not everyone is able to be professional on set with a model and any photographer or producer worth their weight in gold knows all about the nightmare stories we hear from the ladies (yesthey talk). AI is just an easy way to remove the interaction and emotional context part which to me is critical part of what AI will never replicate.
I also still laugh because I also see this conversation occurring regularly "Excuse me? Do you have the model releases for the following models? No? Ok, we'll need you to take these down". While manips flew under the radar, it was never encouraged as a way to supplant live action footage outside a few one offs. Now imagine if word gets to someone important that an AI video of them is floating out there without their consent. The rabbit hole gets deeper than that.
Is AI cool? Sure. AI is used in many of the tools I use for editing and workflow management as well as some motion template designs. Do I see it being used responsibly? Absolutely not and that is typically when regulation comes into play.
I'm not sure it needs to be as binary as this. I believe that in many jobs and workplaces (including photography) those that are able to use new AI tools to enhance the work they already do and enable new things or efficiencies will thrive.
To be clear, I love using AI tools in photography when they're limited to a specific task that eliminates dull, repetitive work like subject separation and smart masking. I believe AI is best when it's not given tremendous responsibility like creating a whole-ass human being, environment, lighting setup, etc. all with true-to-life photorealism.
Where it helps within WAM is to enable the easier creation of certain niche styles (within a quite niche fetish). As much as you say how easy it is to do a WAM shoot, I would disagree. I shot WAM for 10 years and it is always a lot of work with locations, materials, models, clean up, showering facilities.
Creating is hard. But is setting up a photoshoot really that much harder than needing to learn a new program with a new programming language and AI models that, despite how "rapidly evolving" they are, are still so new to people that even experts are guessing at how to maximize their use? I don't think it is.
What I lose in having a WAM shoot set on mars--not that AI art is actually on mars either--I gain in not needing to fight with computers over making sure the girl has the right outfit (human models bring their own clothes and there's always Poshmark), that the slime provides realistic coverage (gravity takes care of that), or that I'm not greeted by pure nightmare fuel because I forgot to tell the program not to give me nightmare fuel. The girls shower themselves and I've systemized the cleanup process so much that I don't even care about it anymore.
And, not for nothing, I gain the benefit of capturing a real human's interaction with slime. Genuine facial expressions > CGI dead eyes every day of the week.
I don't want to yuck anyone's yum. AI vs. real photography may be the ultimate apples-to-oranges comparison. But when AI and the artists who use them drift outside their lane, reality is going to put them back real quick.
Is AI cool? Sure. AI is used in many of the tools I use for editing and workflow management as well as some motion template designs. Do I see it being used responsibly? Absolutely not and that is typically when regulation comes into play.
Exactly. The utopian potential of any new technology will always be blunted by humans' crappy behavior.
Sleazoid44 said: I wonder how long it takes to generate a set of really good WAM images versus how long it takes to produce a photoset. There's also the creativity factor: Ideas have to come from somewhere. And spontaneity/collaboration: Some of the sexiest sequences in SlapstickStuff's videos have come when the models go off-script, IMO.
If money weren't an object (and in this case, I'm only talking about a few hundred bucks), I could call up a model, have her come over while I set up some lights and slime, knock out a few shots, and have them edited and uploaded in a few hours where it would take a couple of days of scouring tutorials and refining my programming to have a decent AI image that still looks like a video game NPC.
Maybe if you've invested as much time and money into AI art as I have to photography you could generate stunning images in a matter of hours too. It just depends on what skills you've developed.
...and, if we're keeping it 100, if you know how to talk to and form professional relationships with real human models, which is really the cause of most people turning to AI art.
I like women and I like photographing them, which is why even if images of real people go the way of the BuGgYwHiP I'm still gonna shoot and produce faster with more personal satisfaction than if I fell into trends.
Money is an object. An expensive one. So is age and many other things. The unique nature of my participation in our fetish world here doesn't happen without money. Quite a bit of it. As for the investment I've made in photography and my particular kink, let's just say it's more than most. What I've been part of isn't done in a spare room on a lazy afternoon. Working with the ladies and their contribution has always been the best part. I know what it's like to work with them, travel with them, live with them, and contribute to their kids fund raising drives at school. I'd rather do it than eat.
But you're missing the point here. What I enjoy doing is irrelevant because so much more will be available to each individual customer in a few years that they won't be buying stuff. They're just gonna tell the ol' digital studio what they want and out it comes. Just the way they want it. If they want spontaneity, they can leave some of the details out. And they will be able to do this on the "Make Your Own Movie" app on their iPhone or their 80" Samsung at home. That day will be here in the next few years. And it will come at minimal expense without model releases, concerns for safety, logistics, or compromises.
But you're missing the point here. What I enjoy doing is irrelevant because so much more will be available to each individual customer in a few years that they won't be buying stuff. They're just gonna tell the ol' digital studio what they want and out it comes. Just the way they want it. If they want spontaneity, they can leave some of the details out. And they will be able to do this on the "Make Your Own Movie" app on their iPhone or their 80" Samsung at home. That day will be here in the next few years. And it will come at minimal expense without model releases, concerns for safety, logistics, or compromises.
You're handwaving past the human element a bit too much, though. The appeal of an actual woman in a WAM situation wasn't just for the photographer taking the image. People, by and large, like interacting with people. After all, illustrated porn has always existed while the real thing dominates the market. And even as the AI niche gets louder and more overbearing in their hard sells, most people still pay for...real people.
The utopia of the digital "Make Your Own Movie" studio comes with significant compromises. And for many, the negotiations will fall apart as soon as they type "I want a real woman" into the magical AI and the computer can't comply.
But you're missing the point here. What I enjoy doing is irrelevant because so much more will be available to each individual customer in a few years that they won't be buying stuff. They're just gonna tell the ol' digital studio what they want and out it comes. Just the way they want it. If they want spontaneity, they can leave some of the details out. And they will be able to do this on the "Make Your Own Movie" app on their iPhone or their 80" Samsung at home. That day will be here in the next few years. And it will come at minimal expense without model releases, concerns for safety, logistics, or compromises.
You're handwaving past the human element a bit too much, though. The appeal of an actual woman in a WAM situation wasn't just for the photographer taking the image. People, by and large, like interacting with people. After all, illustrated porn has always existed while the real thing dominates the market. And even as the AI niche gets louder and more overbearing in their hard sells, most people still pay for...real people.
The utopia of the digital "Make Your Own Movie" studio comes with significant compromises. And for many, the negotiations will fall apart as soon as they type "I want a real woman" into the magical AI and the computer can't comply.
We do a lot of things with situations that require considerable suspension of belief already. I don't think it will be that great a step to include the woman as well. Someday, and again it's not as far off as many might think, you won't be able to tell. And some won't want to know.
But you're missing the point here. What I enjoy doing is irrelevant because so much more will be available to each individual customer in a few years that they won't be buying stuff. They're just gonna tell the ol' digital studio what they want and out it comes. Just the way they want it. If they want spontaneity, they can leave some of the details out. And they will be able to do this on the "Make Your Own Movie" app on their iPhone or their 80" Samsung at home. That day will be here in the next few years. And it will come at minimal expense without model releases, concerns for safety, logistics, or compromises.
You're handwaving past the human element a bit too much, though. The appeal of an actual woman in a WAM situation wasn't just for the photographer taking the image. People, by and large, like interacting with people. After all, illustrated porn has always existed while the real thing dominates the market. And even as the AI niche gets louder and more overbearing in their hard sells, most people still pay for...real people.
The utopia of the digital "Make Your Own Movie" studio comes with significant compromises. And for many, the negotiations will fall apart as soon as they type "I want a real woman" into the magical AI and the computer can't comply.
We do a lot of things with situations that require considerable suspension of belief already. I don't think it will be that great a step to include the woman as well. Someday, and again it's not as far off as many might think, you won't be able to tell. And some won't want to know.
Fantasy and roleplay is one thing, but you're talking about generations of humans today who have evolved from the first human to be attracted to other humans just turning on a dime and saying, "Nope! Cartoons are good enough for me now!"
Futurists have bugged the general public for a year now about their AI toy's ability to replace humans in all aspects of life: the workplace, the entertainment industry, customer service, blah blah blah. And every time the general public calls them on it, they respond with, "Give it a few years, you'll see." But now we're talking about AI wholesale replacing humans in sexual desire. Here, as a human who has only and will only sexually desire humans, I'm going to need a lot more than "Give it a few years."
TheSpecialist said:Futurists have bugged the general public for a year now about their AI toy's ability to replace humans in all aspects of life: the workplace, the entertainment industry, customer service, blah blah blah. And every time the general public calls them on it, they respond with, "Give it a few years, you'll see." But now we're talking about AI wholesale replacing humans in sexual desire. Here, as a human who has only and will only sexually desire humans, I'm going to need a lot more than "Give it a few years."
We're talking about entertainment. Not making babies. How many guys fall for a Hollywood actress they know they'll never touch?
TheSpecialist said:Futurists have bugged the general public for a year now about their AI toy's ability to replace humans in all aspects of life: the workplace, the entertainment industry, customer service, blah blah blah. And every time the general public calls them on it, they respond with, "Give it a few years, you'll see." But now we're talking about AI wholesale replacing humans in sexual desire. Here, as a human who has only and will only sexually desire humans, I'm going to need a lot more than "Give it a few years."
We're talking about entertainment. Not making babies. How many guys fall for a Hollywood actress they know they'll never touch?
Yeah, I doubt highly with all the money in the industry and what it possibly stands at losing (as well as models, actresses, agencies, advocacy groups etc) I doubt it will likely happen without a fight (and an ugly one at that). Stock photography is one thing because large entities like adobe, Artlist, Motionarry can hire the models and sell the licenses to use their images. Using a models likeness, AI or not is still using their likeness without their consent. Using another producer's intellectual property is still theft. None of this changes simply because you fed text into a machine, and this is what it made and you decided to sell it or share it.
This whole fantasy is one good lawsuit away from being nothing more than a hobby or asset tool in an editing suite vs anything relevant in the industry and we still haven't touched upon the legal ramifications of using photography into fap material for models who never agreed to have their material used in that format.
DuncanEdwards said: We're talking about entertainment. Not making babies. How many guys fall for a Hollywood actress they know they'll never touch?
Oh I've been attracted to women I could never touch since I've been attracted to women. It's not about the prospect of actually getting with her, it's about the fact that she's a hot woman. Or in Stable Diffusion-speak, it's about the fact that she's a hot (((((woman:1.9)))))+++++
Never been attracted to a cartoon. No shade to those who are.
And as for someone who I think is pretty close to me on this - https://youtu.be/L_Gowh5paPo
Hey, the images are cool, can't deny that. Still not moving the needle for me.
Okay, I'll meet you halfway here: AI porn is going to be a godsend for those who have no money, no social skills, or those whose sexual preferences are physically impossible or literally illegal. And to them, mazel tov. This is your golden age. Be happy that you now have this outlet and no need for it to "take over" anything but your personal hard drives.
I would like futurists to ask themselves why they need their kink to dominate the mainstream. I'm resigned to never getting a straight answer to how it'll take over the mainstream, so I'm hoping to at least know why it must be so in their minds. Because in all my decades of being a WAMmer I've never felt the need to convince others that "any day now" the sight of girls getting messy in pie and slime will replace all other mainstream kinks. Is it because AI bros need an eager public to create content for them because they don't want to do it themselves? Are they dreaming of revenge against the OnlyFans girls who rejected them in real life? Do they hate humans so much that they want all of humanity to self-isolate into their AI pods? Have they made too much kool-aid and are afraid it's going to waste?
To reiterate my answer to Sleazoid44's question: I can hit ModelMayhem, Instagram, and my own model network to find a girl as hot as the ones at the end of that video. Then I just need to go to any lingerie shop to find an outfit matching the ones they're wearing. Then it's just a matter of lights, camera, action: you've got a hot human in a hot outfit wearing pie. Will it be expensive? Maybe. Will it be time consuming? Definitely. Will it be more appealing than whatever CGI drawing comes from typing in an AI prompt? For me and many many others: 1000%
Okay, we're repeating ourselves here. I don't prefer AI, yet. It's just what's going to happen the same way it always has when you give people more for less. Let's get back to this spot in a year or three or five and see where we are.
Reading this thread is to me actually touching some farly deep questions about how and why we actually react to fetish erotica.
is it "the image is a turn on" or is it "the concept of the event(s) that the image portrays is/are a turn on"?
If it's just the image - how wet of messy fabric drapes on a figure or how custard looks flowing over skin, etc, then all AI art has to do is overcome the uncanny valley problem and it's competing dead level with modelled work.
If on the other hand it's more about empathising with how the people portrayed actually experienced the events, then for at least some people, that will only work if actual people did experience the event.
Though then again it's quite possible to empathise massively with entirely fictional characters, I've cried my eyes out many times reading fantasy fiction where someone makes an insane sacrifice to save others, even though everyone involved is a creation of the author. The scene where Eowyn and Merry between them take out the Witch King of Angmar in Lord of the Rings (book) reduces me to tears every time I read it.
So, is it the pixels on the screen, the meaning and feeling behind them, a combination of both, or something else, that makes us react to WAM imagery?
I've just released a scene shot with three stuning real models, Friday, Honeysuckle, and Maude, last year, all dressed in white and featuring lots of clothes filling with syrup, chocolate sauce, and custard. And yes, that scene totally works for me personally, it's not just "work". A big part of the appeal is how gorgeous all three look in their outfits, but another big attractor is the way each of them first just allows each section of clothes-filling to happen, and then totally ignores the state of her own outfit while merrily setting about one of the others. So at one point Friday, who has very noticable syrup and sauce seeping through the front of her own jeans, is happily pouring a tin of custard into Maude's jeans, while Honeysuckle, who's satin shirt is also well filled with leaking sweet sauce, looks on and helps by holding the waistband of Maude's jeans open. Meanwhile Maude herself just accepts what's being done to her with no resistance.
It's the whole "willing and happy victim accepting her messy fate, and then getting her own back shortly afterwards" that really is a massive turn on, that and imagining how it must feel to walk about the dungeon with ever increasing amounts of gloop squelching about inside their clothes.
Can an AI image recreate that sense of feeling? The true answer to that is probably going to vary by individual viewers. Some will get exactly the same reaction regardless of modelled or AI. Others will definitely get more from knowing it was being modelled by real people who really felt the cold wetness flowing inside as the pourings happened.
Plus to use my steam age analogy again, AI art is still very much at the "Puffing Billy" stage of development, hauling little four-wheel coal-wagons back and forth at walking pace. A4 pacifics thundering down Stoke Bank at a hundred and twenty six miles an hour with a rake of bogie carriages in tow are still 100 years away in that timeline, so probably at least ten years away in this one.
Gonna throw my 2 into this discussion. So...yeah AI will definitely become very prolific for WAM. No doubt about that. I doubt it will ever stop live-action/ IRL WAM content from being preferred and made though. Personally, one of the factors that I enjoy and seek out with WAM besides just watching a video of a sexy girl getting pied/ slimed is thinking about and relishing in the thought of how this girl in real life, got all dolled up, with nice clothes and makeup and got completely messy. This cute girl got super drenched in slime and cream, and now her clothes are wet and sticky. And how all of this humiliation and silliness is now on camera for everyone to see. AI WAM is just not gonna have this "realness" factor for me. I'm not gonna be turned by a bunch of pixels that don't actually exist getting "messy". It's basically just an elaborate cartoon. Super realistic looking, but still a cartoon.
I have to imagine that this aspect is popular with other people in this community besides me. I could be wrong though.
Years from now this will end up in the Supreme court where it will be shot down. It's no more a copyright infringement than the work of any single artist or creator. Even an original work is still the product of learning by the artist. AI is no different. This is just lawyers doing their work of making money no matter who wins or loses.