As AI technology continues to evolve, it has found its way into various creative fields, including video production. One area that has sparked discussion is the use of AI to generate videos for niche content, such as wet and messy (WAM) themes.

While some may see AI as a shortcut to producing full-fledged content, I believe its true potential lies in its ability to act as a source of inspiration and idea generation rather than as a substitute for human creativity. AI can help brainstorm new concepts, explore unique scenarios, or even provide storyboarding assistance--but the heart and soul of WAM content, in my opinion, comes from the creators themselves, who bring personal passion and artistic vision to the table.

Using AI in this way doesn't detract from the authenticity of the art but instead enhances it by offering fresh perspectives and expanding the creative possibilities for producers. Think of it as a collaborative partner that aids in the brainstorming process without taking over the entire production.

Please take a moment to answer the survey below and share your thoughts!

Candycustard used chat gpt to generate questions for quizzes. That seemed like a good use for it, and I liked how she stated it was from chat gpt in the title of the scene.

Let's say there was a scene where the models act and all of the dialouge is scripted. If the dialouge was really good, I would compliment the producer for good writing. If they replied saying it was written by AI, then I would be disappointed. So it would be better to disclose that the dialouge was generated in the description rather than trying to pass it as genuine.

If a scene featured 5 activities and all 5 ideas came from chatgpt, I would not call that inspiration.

I think this is worth posting again. Thinking that where AI videos are now is as good as they'll ever get it a bit like playing Pong in an arcade in 1982 and saying "it'll never be better than this." In time (no one knows how long) you will not be able to tell the different between a real and AI video.

Yes, in the following circumstances:

- not sure if this has been brought up before, but I think it would be a great tool if you're having a custom done and want something very specific done.

- not sure how to approach this as someone who's posted AI stuff in the past, but going to give it my best shot. Obviously posting a deepfake of a model as a "I want to see so-so do something like this, but for one reason or another it's probably never going to happen so here's my best shot at emulating it" should be a no-no.

- in terms of my previous point, as someone who *has* posted AI images that are inspired by certain models, but A) obviously aren't them (like a redhead as opposed to Bri) and aren't posted as a scene to make a profit, what do we think about that?

I think there are still a few good use cases so long as they don't rely on generating the final product. Models have appreciated AI image "beat sheets" and mood boards so they know how to pose or what wardrobe to bring to the shoot. AI has helped me generate trivia questions--even though at a certain point, despite the VAST VAST UNIVERSE of topics out there, you'll see AI prefer asking variations of the same 10 or so questions. And, of course, the generative AI features on editing software like Lightroom, Photoshop, and Davinci Resolve helps me with editing and retouching processes that used to take forever just a few years ago.

Just don't expect AI to generate a good photo or video of a girl getting slimed and call it done.

You might want to have a look at the two surveys on AI in WAM I did over the last three weeks:

https://umd.net/forums/ai-attitudes-survey-2025

https://umd.net/forums/ai-wam-an-alternative-aproach-paintings

Using AI to brainstorm is possible, but bear in mind the purpose of WAM videos is to get people aroused, and as AI can't get aroused it may not be that effective at working out what works for humans. It'll have ideas, but it's the difference between someone who's read about WAM but doesn't have any interest in it at all planning scenes based purely on statistics, vs someone who's actually into it and getting turned on by it.

I suspect with an AI approach to planning you might end up trying to "chase the market" rather than follow your own niche, which has always been advised against for producers in the past - better to make what you really like. Certainly be interesting to see what comes out if it.

That's the fundamental problem, isn't it? Claiming it will get better is almost like a tautology...I'm certain it will improve, but like self-driving cars, nuclear fusion, supersonic air travel, and humans on Mars, it's not clear how to get it there even if we know what we want. And that's just the science, nevermind the political, economic, infrastructure, or social pressures and limitations.

With current AI tools, more and more scientists and developers are coming forward and saying scaling (more data) and compute (more horsepower) aren't going to get us as far as we originally thought.

A breakthrough in neurosymbolic reasoning could happen tomorrow and jumpstart the industry again, or it could be decades away. We've had nuclear fission since the late 1930s, but that doesn't mean reliable nuclear fusion is coming tomorrow.

It's gonna get so bad that at least they're being a bit ethical about it. Google is using SynthID to "watermark" all videos that are not visible to the human eye but can be detected by specialized software to confirm that it's indeed AI. Again, that's how bad this will get.

The arousal thing is a *fantastic* point.

Back when I had my little AI image thread, the stuff Google was giving me was making all of my dreams come true, even if that attractive brunette woman in her early 40s climbing out of the pool in a soaking wet dress didn't look anything like my friend's hot mom.

But, and maybe this is just my tastes changing because I also haven't gotten off to a WAM video in who knows how long, it didn't do anything for me whatsoever outside of acknowledging that it was hot.

I think there are some great places for AI. I wouldn't trust it for a film idea. As was pointed out it cannot be aroused. I think humans, but more likely sales are the best indicator of which ideas are best. AI though is great for helping enhance video quality and to fix situations in video. I think it can be helpful to producers that way.

The only thing proliferating more than AI WAM on the UMD is polls about AI WAM on the UMD.

Since there's so many threads about it recently, I feel compelled to add my two cents about it. Allow me to use my diplomatic tone;

It's all shit. Everywhere I look is overrun by poorly generated AI images and video. It's always women with cold dead eyes reacting in the most robotic, generic ways possible. Their 'shocked' faces betray the robot behind them, creating the most candid and obvious response to the idea no matter what input is given or what mess is involved. As for the mess, it's always stuff that make no logical sense and lacks any coherence. I've not seen a single splatter that resembles anything real.

"It's only getting better!" is the cry, often made with eager anticipation, and that makes me sad. Too many people in a rush to suck the humanity out the fetish. It's seemingly a desire to rapidly erase the human reaction of giggles and yelps you can never predict, remove the satisfying splat of a pie or dribble of gunge, and replace it with soulless and endless amounts of slop (In the bad sense of the word).

Never mind the effort hundreds of producers put in. Never mind the human side, all the hidden little emotions and feelings that make this fetish a joy. If a robot can make you get it off, all that is apparently worth shit.

Is there a place for AI in idea generation? Yeah, sure, I can see that. But seems even that is being used as a stepping stone to bigger and worser things, and I don't see that changing.

I know. It's pretty awful. But we also can't forget "It's only getting better" is both wishful thinking and an obvious thing to say about any technology. Everything gets better--so long as money keeps getting pumped into it--so saying "AI is only getting better" is neither insightful nor all that intimidating. It's a rallying cry for tech dorks who are obsessed with being "right" about everything first. We don't care what AI is going to be 5 years from now, we're throughly unimpressed at its inability to simulate slime physics today.

I'm just going to say it: It's not an accident that some of the UMD's biggest AI evangelists also happen to have the least creative, most robotic view of WAM. I've yet to see a producer I actually respect--who highlights the joy and humanity in WAM--pound the table for AI WAM. It's always those who write the most uninspired cliched stories, the ones who share the most dull and joyless clips, the ones who can't extract anything resembling life from their real-life models. These are the people who say shit like "It's not that deep" or "It's just jerkoff material" when people dare explore a deeper appreciation of WAM. For them, of course AI is a hero! It creates generic dead-eyed pablum now and only promises to create even more generic, even more dead-eyed pablum in the future. They don't care about the real world because the computers were always the true drivers of their fetish. Enjoy all that. I'll always be pursuing real women.

Here's another funny paradox with the "It's only getting better" mantra: the fact it's mostly used to quickly churn out slop (in the metaphorical sense, since I'm not just talking about with WAM here) and quality assurance rarely seems to be a priority for its users means that it's kind of stunted in its ability to get better, especially now that we're at the point that AI content is being used as examples for AIs to learn from. It's crap begetting crap begetting crap.

Then again, providing AI with real examples of content to replicate is a whole bunch of ethical issues in and of itself, and one where I'm on the side of real content creators anyway.

These AI surveys are a bit like EU referendums in Europe, keep doing them until you get the result you want.

To have been part of the WAM fandom since the 1980s pre Internet days when the desire was to see it mainstream and real everyday girls participating, it all seems a bit self defeating to look towards AI to move it on to the next level.

AI is no better than using your own imagination, which requires less hands!!!

Preach!

Perhaps we should have a poll about whether there should be any more AI WAM polls?


To be fair, they've been on different aspects of it:
My two were:
Would people pay for AI WAM, or only pay for the tools to create their own AI WAM?
TBH I was suprrised by the results of this, I'd expected an overwhelming win for "Access to the tools", I was genuinely surprised people would pay for "generarated by others" AI WAM. Definitely a point worth noting from a "potential impact on future sales of real human WAM" perspective.
Would a better use of AI be to produces fantasy art - not photo-real scenes.
Disappointingly that one came out more in favour of photo-real, despite the shortcomings.
Then this one by JohnWam was was on the use of AI to storyboard or brainstorm plans for real world scenes, as opposed to generating actual imagery or videos.


Now that is a good point, and ties in to the idea that however realistic AI imagery may become, from a WAM POV it's basically the same as WAM stories or WAM cartoons, ways of sharing arousing ideas using the reader or viewer's imagination, rather than a record of an event that really happened.


I do hope I'm not being counted as an AI evangelist in that last paragraph. I believe it's important to be aware of and keep up with the developements, heads-in-the-sand is not a sensible approach to anything this major, but that doesn't mean I want AI to eclipse real, and so far at least I don't think it's ready to do so. But hoping it'll all go away isn't realistic.

I'm old enough to remember the dawn of digital music. Initally there were wav files - digital recordings of the analogue waveforms of music. Any decent level of fidelity meant enormous files, in an era when a 1GB hard disk was thought gargantuan - so a record collection as wavs was unthinkable unless you were a millionaire.

Then compression appeared, first jpegs for images, then mp3s for audio. Long-established audio people insisted it was rubbish, crap quality, useless. Yeah right. Drives got steadily larger. MPEG compression got steadily better. Napster happened - everyone on the planet could suddenly share their entire digital music collection with everyone else for free. I remember a Sony exec ranting that he'd firewall music all the way to people's speakers. Yeah, right (again). The world changed. Sony still exists, and no-one needs to install licence keys on their hi-fi systems. Bands still exist and play to huge audiences. Just abouit every song ever is available free on YouTube, and yet the music industry still exists, and makes money.

And a very important point to consider: There is no "right" or "wrong" way to react to, or enjoy, WAM. Think of the endless variety of reactions people like to see models do, from utterly delighted to utterly horrified. Some people are all about pies in the face and couldn't care less what the model is wearing or whether they get anything on their outfit or not. Some people are only into watching full nude messy sex. Or messy masturbation - some nude, some thought messy clothes. Some people only like to see clothes filling and couldn't care less if the model's head and face stay completelty clean as long as their outfit gets propperly drenched in mess. Some people are only interested in feet getting messy. Some are into humiliation, some are into happiness and joy. For some people it only really works if the model is wearing a wristwatch. Or wellies. Or high heels. Or jeans. Or a really fancy formal outfit with all the correct fancy underwear. Or waterproofs. Or sportswear. Some like bare legs and butch outfits, some like lingerie and hosiery.

Everyone's fetish is unique to them, and as long as whatever they are into is safe, sane, consensual, and of legal age, it's all valid. And in particular, while lots of us (and I definitely count myself in this, as someone who's personal form of WAM very much involves the recipients of the mess genuinely enjoying getting messy) are very much into human reactions and emotions, if someone's personal thing is just about the actual mess or wetness, without any emotional input, that is also fine, we can't and shouldn't try to force them to be into the human side any more than they should force us not to be. And AI wam clearly will work for someone who is less about the human side and more about the pure WAM side. The original definition of fetish after all is "worship of an object". As a young teenager I was given a copy of "Boys and Sex". It had a section on fetishes where it basically said "if someone has a fetish for leather shorts, they'll be turned on by almost anyone wearing leather shorts, and this is natural." If AI can produce a sufficiently realistic image of a person in leather shorts, that is going to work for some people.

AI isn't going away. The companies may (probably will) change. Ther'll be spectacular bankruptcies and whole tech branches that crash and burn. But you can't un-invent technology, nor does Moore's law show any sign of going away any time soon. People have been confidently predicting we'd reached the end of what was possible from that for at least the last quarter century and have all of them have been manifestly wrong. So anyone claiming that AI tech is about to hit a dead end is fighting the entire weight of tech history this far.

So, AI will improve and though it's a way off yet, it will get to the point where you can't tell the difference between human acted and AI generated scenes, and the kinds of state of the art GPUs that currently cost $$$$$ that it needs to run on will eventually be in every smartphone. The real question is how do those of us who want to go on shooting real human WAM adapt to that future world. And yes, "shoot and release as much as possible before it happens, and then retire" is a perfectly valid answer, but not the only one.

Well your take on the music industry is 100% wrong. Artists have been slaughtered. But I digress. A bit older than you, I was buying records, then cassettes, then CD's, then platforms like Apple were selling songs at $1.99, then 99 cents and of course now all songs are basically free. If you're comparing this to AI progression here's what you're missing:

It was near impossible for artists back in the day to get any distribution unless signed to a major label. They'd have to produce their own records and somehow get air play. Now, due to current technology, anyone can be an artist and create their own distribution. No one needs to pay for songs so in general artists made shit. What will happen eventually is AI will do the same - AI WAM vids will flood the market and no one will have to pay for a WAM video just like no one needs to pay for a song.

So the end the music analogy, anyone here thinking that AI videos won't progress to the point where no one will be able to sell the difference are the same people who would buy an 8-track in 1970's and say "it'll never get better than this."

Well...in response to me calling out the shallow, obvious cliches of AI evangelists, you said:





Do you think people in 2025 on a website that lets you upload, share, sell, and download 4K videos and high resolution photos in a matter of minutes need be lectured over paragraphs on the enduring nature of tech evolution? Who are the above quotes for? What unique insight is being shared? It's warmed over thoughtslop that says nothing and overstates its usefulness to the real world.

...sort of like what ChatGPT produces.



I'm not here to tell anyone how to appreciate WAM or what's right and wrong. My point is that AI WAM is only useful for people who have no use for the humanity involved in WAM scenes--people who could enjoy stick figures and department store mannequins if they got messy their preferred way. I'm also proving this theory out by noticing similarities in what AI WAM's biggest evangelists have put out in the world and the lack of soul that AI only knows how to produce. It's not a value judgement and, as someone who is all about the women participating in the WAM scene, the activities of AI evangelists have no bearing on my existence as a WAMmer--except for needing to sift through more bullshit than ever.

My conclusion was that if anyone is worried about an AI takeover in WAM then they need only consider that the "takeover" is being driven by those whose work they probably hold in low regard anyway. If so, then they have nothing to worry about except the aforementioned nuance of filtering. If anyone sees themselves in what I said, well, a hit dog will holler...

I've already put my 2 cents in on AI content relating to the piracy issues we already face in this community, DungeonMasterOne linked to the thread in a previous comment. Because that's what everything turns into with new technology, you're building better tools for scammers and criminals. The amount of catfishers and pig butchers and cons and schemes that are getting harder and harder to detect is growing as rapidly as the technology itself.

It's great that we're advancing in technology, but for what purpose? Making content creation easier for people who have zero resources for making what they want? No one here has explained how this is better than what is already being made by real people. What is it AI is actually doing that's better than or equal to what is on here right now? The only argument that keeps coming up is that people who have such specific niche fantasies in an already niche genre of fetish are dissatisfied with the content that isn't specified for their lone desire. It's only a way to cheapen the cost of custom videos.

This has absolutely nothing to do with technology enhancing the quality of content or elevating the WAM experience for the viewer, it's entirely about a very, very small group of people who cannot afford to pay for custom videos for their specific needs. If AI WAM were more prevalent, it would absolutely cheapen the price. Why would anyone pay more than $2 for some fake graphics that look real? It costs nothing to make, why would anyone value that? And, for that matter, in what way is it worth it to pay someone else for something you can create yourself? You don't need a producer to make AI for you, that's the whole point of AI. It gives people with zero talent and resources a tool to do anything they normally can't. It's worthless to anyone else but the content creator.

Great point. I feel like this argument is also summarized in the broader context of AI and society, where now people can, theoretically, allegedly, do MORE work in the same hours but not see more pay or more time off, while we outsource art, music, and literature to the robots.

What you're talking about is happening to the music industry right now. AI created songs, artists and even bands. To what end? To make corporations rich while never having to ever pay another dime to an artist. So the ethical discussion is if AI can create music without anyone being able to tell it's AI, then it's game on. Ethics be damned. When video creation becomes easy (it's not now) and to the point where no one will be able to tell the difference between reality and AI generated vids, it's not that WAM will be flooded with AI vids....Wammers will create their own fantasy vids, you'll never hear about it, know about it, but one by one studios will go under.