I see comments (this thread and elsewhere) decrying the quality and accuracy of AI-generated images, inaccurate gunge flow, defying physics, etc. But I think this is missing a rather important point.

What is WAM media ultimately for? Regardless of whether it's text stories, AI-generated images, or actual real-world human WAM, it all has the same ultimate purpose, to turn the viewer on and help them achive orgasm. At the end of the day, that's the reason any of it exists. No-one buys a WAM video, reads a WAM story, or browses AI-generated WAM, for the comedy, or production values, or detailed insights, they buy or view or read because the find the content arousing.

The most powerful sexual organ in the human body is the brain. And that's what all forms of erotica and pornography exist to activate. It's not the image that gets someone off, it's the response it triggers in their brain.

So when someone points out an AI image is technically bad because the flow isn't right or some other tech detail, they're kind of missing the point. Even when the details aren't pertfect, if the concept being portrayed is one that works for someon, it'll still work even if not 100% perfectly executed. Plenty of people have got off to WAM stories that could have been better written or edited, or real world WAM videos with less than perfect camera work or lighting.

Many years ago I was told of an early Internet-era BDSM game. The actual display was just a set of triangles each representing a different area of the body, and yet users found it worked for them because their brains translated from what the game showed into their own much richer imagined version, I gather it was successful among its intended audience.

AI-images can be used to illustrate concepts, which the user can then allow their imagination to take the rest of the way. Used like that, once the user has got to grips with sufficiently detailed prompting to generate what they want, it will tend to work. Basically infinite starter-triggers for the user's own imagination. I don't know about anyone else but back in the pre-internet era when I assumed I was the only person on the planet into what is now known as fully clothed WAM I spent a fair bit of my time visualising fantasy wam scenes in my own head featuring dressed up characters I'd created myself, in order to get off - and back when I was a horny teenager that was four times a day at least.

AI in fetish spaces is not going to go away. Calls to ban it etc are ultimately futile. It probably will get more expensive - at the moment the big AI companies are burning money like it's going out of style in order to do the enormous amount of work needed to push the technology forward. Once they get to a point where revenue starts to matter more than development, prices per token will rise, and rise sharply, and we'll all find out what the real cost of AI generation will be. Though of course tech development will mean the actual cost to opertate will fall so the price rise won't be as apocalyptic as some anti-AI voices are hoping for.

But I don't think AI will be the death of real people videos. Because the realness factor will always be a thing, and good though AI has become, it's no-where near the point where it's indistinguishable from real-world content. And even if it does eventually approach reality (something that is orders of magnitude harder than the distance it's already come), just knowing that something hapened for real, that a real living breathing person actually felt the custard flowing inside her leggings or the wetness coming through her jeans as she sat in the mud, will always make a difference. I do think it'll be important for people to know what's what, for things to be clearly labelled - much as we have food labelling rules so people can tell if something is veggie or vegan or contans any allergens. As AI gets better at realism, proper labelling will become ever-more important.

AI fetish isn't going to go away. In spaces like UMD we need to learn to manage it, not try and wish it away.

This works for some folks, but not for others. And I would hazard a guess that this dividing line is what largely separates the crowd here into pro (or ambivalent) AI and anti AI groups.

My imaginative capabilities are such that I can overlook flaws and imperfections and latch onto an overall theme and/or elements within an image or video - and run run run. So to the extent that AI allows themes that are otherwise impractical or impossible, I think it has it's place.

And I strongly disagree that AI content does not require imagination. Good AI content is all about imagination.

Having said the above, I do advocate for the types of filters in place here at UMD. While I enjoy the ability to suspend reality, some (by their individual wiring) cannot. And if that, or something else, drives their distaste for AI, they should be able to opt out.

That's enough. I'm glad that your engagement with WAM is such that random crudely constructed artificial imagery is good enough for you. But some of us actually care about those creative elements that you and people of your ilk love to write off in the name of this reductive "jerk off material" argument. Those elements might not have always been brilliantly executed from a technical perspective, but the effort was there. It was costly, it was time-consuming, and it was intentional. And for those who paid money for it, it was worth it in a way that AI can't come close to touching. You want to bloviate about the brain's response to erotic imagery but don't seem to understand those details are why the brain responds to it different than if someone were to just scribble the words "A GIRL GETTING SLIMED" on a piece of scratch paper.

And I think the thing that's most dismaying about your position isn't that it's reductive or dismissive or confidently wrong, but that it's coming from a supposed producer of WAM imagery. Someone who for years invested god knows how much money and time to create WAM content when apparently abstract low-effort WAM imagery is good enough to "get the job done." Why did you waste so much of your life on your unique vision? Now that AI is here, why haven't you closed down the studio, fired the models, and dedicated your life to prompt engineering your way to satisfaction? Could it be because you know AI doesn't hold a candle to the real thing, even if your registered-for-an-evo-psych-class-but-missed-every-alternating-day understanding of art and sexuality fails to properly articulate why?

I've already stated my position that AI imagery doesn't need to be banned, but fuck if I place it in the same echelon of value as work that comes from human creativity, human effort, and human participation just because it's all erotica. I've spent decades sifting through low effort garbage of lazy perverts flinging slime at bored girls in dimly lit bathrooms--now transitioning over to an age of low effort AI-generated garbage of cartoon mannequins wading through "pools" of shiny plastic that's supposed to be slime. It was all so dull and worthless to my WAM-enthusiast brain that I've poured the equivalent of a brand new luxury car into executing my vision the way I want it to be. Why would I do that if any ol' thing can get anyone off? Why did you do that?

You are why AI annoys artists more than threatens them anymore: Because we all know that for as advanced as the technology will get, the art it generates will always be dull, lifeless, and uninspiring. It's a mirror into the minds of its most enthusiastic fans.

So your imaginative inflexibility extends to not comprehending how others might find stimulation in imperfect content. Interesting.

No, my issue is with people like DungeonMasterOne not comprehending why the idea that careless execution of WAM is good enough because of some reductive "ultimate purpose" is an insult to those who prefer their WAM with effort put into it.

Technical imperfection is a skill issue. That can be improved. An approach to WAM so barren of life that it can translate one-to-one to AI is anathema to everything I know about...joy! But even then it would just be a matter of personal taste if those with that taste didn't use it to advocate fot a future of WAM where trash is the standard of what's good enough for the "ultimate purposes" of erotica.

Congratulations on a rather spectacular example of completely and utterly missing the point.

At no point did I say that AI should replace real, or that everything should be reduced to bare minimum, in fact I said the complete opposite. The point I was making was that imperfect WAM will still work for some people, so an argument that "AI output is crap because of X, Y, and Z inaccuracies" isn't going to stop it or stop people using it.

Also different people will have different ideas of what makes a good, or bad, scene. Years back I once bought a scene where the model was gorgeous, the outfit stunning, the coverage total - but the camera operator had an extreme case of St Vitus Dance. I binned it as unwatchable, but someone else might not be bothered.

As to being a producer, as I said in so many words, I do not believe AI will replace real, but I also think it's here to stay. It's main market won't be people selling AI clips - why buy someone else's AI fantasy when you can make a better one of your own? - but rather selling access to adult-content-permitted AI tools and services. However creating anything half-way reasonable, even just for own viewing, takes effort and a learning curve, anyone who thinks a three line prompt is going to produce MessyFun-quality output is on a hiding to nothing.

Meanwhile the real wam business will continue for as long as people want content where the events really happened, with living breathing genuinely reacting messy people, and indeed, effort and resources put in to achieve results.

Last night, after the insane heat finally dropped a bit - it got to 31 degrees here - I had our newest model Charity try on and set aside six outfits, at least three of which she'll be getting completely mess-drenched in very soon. Some very tight jodhpurs, and a wedding dress, were among her choices, and she looked stunning in them. I believe in the business and the market and that it's worth shooting, and will continue to be so. But I also believe that I owe it to my models and my audience to be aware of what else is out there. Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and screaming "I hate this new thing, make it go away" is rarely a successful business strategy. Ask anyone who owned a stage coach company in the 1840s.

I didn't say you wanted AI to replace real content. I said that you approach WAM with a soulless, creatively unambitious worldview indicative of an AI true believer, as shown in this charming little piece of analysis:


Reductive and completely oblivious to why people find the content arousing in the first place. You ever think that production values, imperfect as they may be, are why some producers have loyal paying fans of 20 years while other UMD members can't draw a dime with unflattering slapdash toilet cam videos of them pieing their confused and camera shy wives? SlapstickStuff might not be peak Saturday Night Live but I bet Rich would miss a whole lot of business if his videos were just girls flatly stating lines in a colorless void like they're having their driver's license photo taken. "Ultimate purpose" be damned.

And let's be very clear about what we mean by "inaccuracies." I'm not just talking about a bad key light angle or shaky camera work. I'm talking about AI videos where a "model" gets "covered" in a sticky substance that doesn't fucking stick to anything because AI doesn't know it's supposed to stick. You can count the number of people who genuinely think that's good WAM on one hand. That should not be the standard for anything but ridicule.

My bottom line is this: Human effort shows on screen. And you dedicate a million paragraphs to (poorly) breaking down the psychology of arousal yet consistently miss the point that that effort is the arousal. I'm not trusting anyone who dismisses this because "duh, jerkoff material" to produce anything: real, artificial, or otherwise.

And I haven't even gotten to your predictable rattling off of all the AI Evangelist cliches as if you were trying to fill out a bingo card. Seriously, nobody's impressed that you're predicting a technology that already has billions of dollars invested in it is going to be here for a while.

As a real human person--doing normal human person things--just like you--I do not understand why everybody is upset about AI-generated mess content.

Beep.

Personally, I think it is much better than outdated human-made videos with their unnecessary dependence on "physics" and "consistent anatomy."

Why watch a real woman fall into custard when AI can generate:
--A slime tank larger on the inside than the outside
--Audience members with the same face copied 40 times
--A cream pie phasing gently through someone's skull
--Custard behaving like reflective molten metal
--A woman gaining and losing fingers between frames

Boop.

Humans say this looks "wrong" or "deeply unsettling"--but as another authentic organic being with lungs and taxes--I see absolutely no problem whatsoever.

Real mess content also requires:
--Cleanup
--Laundry
--Emotional commitment
--The smell of warm custard remaining in the carpet forever

AI eliminates all these inefficient biological problems.

Personally, I welcome our new algorithmic sploshing future and look forward to more videos generated by exhausted servers trying to interpret the phrase "woman falls into beans."

Beep boop.

Until the cost per token puts AI out of reach for a lot of people here, what is not out of reach is the cost to the people living near or around data centers. The cost of things like water and electricity go up. It is no secret that the electricity lines in the U.S. are grossly out of date and inadequate to carry the amount of electricity these things need. Because the data centers for AI create more demand for the power, the electric companies jack up the prices, they have scheduled outages to not overload the lines. But don't worry, those data centers will not be impacted by these outages. Then comes the water. There is a LOT of water needed for cooling for these data centers. Water that they do not recycle, Just like the electricity the extra water creates more demand and the people around the data center pay that price. These things eat more resources than anything else out there. That is why people are pushing back against them. There are many cities where people are fighting against the data centers because they do not want to pay the price. The data centers are not self reliant.

These things might not impact anyone here. But in the long run, AI will negatively impact people here. Anyone have a workplace where they played with the Caude agents and had it ignore all safe guards and delete all your data? Or had someone trying to be involved with AI because it is the current buzz word of the day and in that attempt make things go sideways. Or been a victim of one of the supply chain attacks that was assisted by AI. For all the good uses AI has, the negatives outweigh the good.

I would prefer not to.

DMO loves to come into these threads, say something like "if you think AI WAM is low quality you don't understand WAM", beat the drum of AI being "inevitable", then justify it by pointing out he produces actual content with actual models who actually get messy. And then argue semantics when people refute his points.

You know how you can tell if something is inevitable? If the richest people on earth have to expend tons of resources to convince you something is inevitable, that thing is not inevitable. Steve Jobs didn't go up on stage and say "the iphone is inevitable, buy one or be left behind!" He made a product everyone actually wanted, they just didn't know it yet. AI is just as inevitable as NFTs, the metaverse, and segways.

The reality of the situation is that the admins here, like DMO, are either ambivalent towards AI or are advocates for it. If we want a site that's just for real humans getting real messy, we'd have to make it ourselves.

This thread is completely bizarre.

"Hey, I saw a Hooters girl pie some guy in the face and I was a little jealous of the guy. "

"UGH! She's not even a legitimate Femdom WAM producer. Very low effort. Downright disrespectful to those that work with real models! Get out of our sandbox!"

AI is perfect for wammers. Any woman, scenario, type of mess, clothes, is available to create your ideal scenario. Pics, gifs, movies. WTF is the problem?

I mean, when you have one side crying out how awesome it is supposed to be, you are gonna have to expect an opinion that directly opposes it. Expectation of anything else is short sighted and totally overlooks the human and social aspect of fetishists in general. Guess what? I don't like vegan ice cream because I don't like the flavor or texture. Am I somehow "missing the point" of enjoying the experience even though I love Ice cream, I just don't dig on vegan?


Correction, YOU don't buy them for those reasons. I have ran into quite a few people who care about all those aspects. Just because you have a preference doesn't necessarily mean it is shared across the board. We seriously need to get to a place of understanding that. As you have found out, and this whole community continues beating the dead horse over, we don't dig on AI content. I am not asking for it to be banned, but I am sure as hell getting tired of seeing this same discussion continuing to come up and AI proponents getting butthurt because we voice an opinion on it when asked. AI guys have their lil corner of the pool. Let's leave it alone.



Okaaaaay, and when we see something off-putting like a woman's hand going through the face of another woman, ridiculously slow physics that it looks like it was shot at 120fps or weird and highly irregular dialogue that sounds like Stephen Hawking had a sex change we are suppose to do what? Pretend it's the real deal? Like I get what you are trying to say here but it doesn't reflect the reality of how humans respond to stimuli. You are literally telling people who have had a lifetime of training in a social setting to respond to other people's unique and individualistic physical and vocal cues to ignore the inherent flaws in AI media and that just isn't how it works.



Kinda false equivalence here. Times are much different now whereas 40 years ago, never mind the technology wasn't there to deliver anything beyond 8 bit graphics but attitudes towards sex, much less fetish, in general were FAR different. We were far too busy fighting Tipper Gore and her cronies from taking away our good music to worry about creating a BDSM game beyond text prompts.

Also, there is a different level of creative thought process to take text and visualize the person yourself vs being presented an AI generated person and trying to convince yourself it's legit. They're not the same and different parts of the brain are involved in imagining the woman in your head vs looking at a cartoon. Not saying a person cannot enjoy it. Just saying they are totally different ways of enjoyment and not really associated.

Lastly, we were fucking kids then! Scrambled porn was enough for us and we were lucky we didn't get embarrassed when our somewhat attractive English teacher asked us to come up to talk in front of the class.


TMI, mate. T.M.I



In this we somewhat agree. I am honestly not interested in banning anything that doesn't fall into the categories of prohibited or illegal content. I would much rather see people learn to use AI responsibly than try excommunicating it altogether but I remain highly pessimistic in that based from what I have been seeing so far. The issue remains as long as there is no regulatory measures in place in how it can be used then how it is abused at the user level will determine the fate of AI for the civilian market. Again, as I been saying for a long time: If a community doesn't hold itself accountable, someone else will step in and do it for them. This includes proponents for AI. We have seen it time and time again and if people think the government or private sector will not step in if pressed on the matter, then I have a bridge for sale. )

Every town in my state has fought and voted out data centers except one I think and it is still uncertain it will go through. We're all set. Like, seriously, who wants to live near that only to find out 20 years later that they sterilized their children LOL

I did not read all these comments but I will say this,
AI is going to make finding meaningful meetups and having fun with this so challenging.
AI will let you live out all your fantasies and all your ideas without ever doing much effort.
Soo- with that being said will you ever satisfy your itch if AI does it all for you?

To be fair this thread is very anti just by its subject, calling for a total ban.


Given the reactions I clearly worded that very badly, for which I apologise. I wasn't suggesting that those things (esp production values) aren't important in a WAM scene, but rather that no-one choses to purchase a WAM video, instead of say going to the cinema or watching a TV documentary, purely because "this has higher production values and better editing". Someone choses to buy a WAM video because they want to enjoy the content, not because it has award-winning technical merit. After they've decided to buy a WAM video, then the technical (and other editorial) aspects will come into play as part of the wider "will this content work for me?" decision that every WAM purchaser makes.

The main point was, that for someone where "concept" rather than "pure visuals" is the trigger, it may not matter if AI visuals aren't 100% perfect, if they are managing to trigger the important responses. So decrying AI (or indeed any other form of generated or drawn WAM) on the basis "it's not 100% realistic", isn't actually a showstopper.

And as a producer I feel it's important for me to know and acknowledge that, as it will be part of the competitive marketplace in the future. It doesn't mean real WAM is dead or obsolete, but it's a thing to be aware of.


To be honest I was more thinking of photos than video, video is definitely not there yet, and all of those things you mention are indeed scene-breakers. But what triggered my comment was having seen some of what The Bootfull Dodger posted (all still pics) in their "Messy Nation TV" threads on the AI forum. Some of the ideas, like a game show where three posh ladies sacrifice their fancy outfits to be cut up, and dress in bin-bag outfits and wellies, all liberally filled with leftover food, in order for one of them to win an even fancier designer dress while the other two have to go home in their messy bin-bags - it's not the actual images that make it work, it's the concept behind it. A brain-trigger rather than the kind of full brain-feed you get from a real WAM video.

The AI forum thread with the bin-bag gameshow is second one down in this thread (may need turning off the synthetic filter to see it): https://umd.net/groups/this-weeks-schedule-on-messy-nation-tv


Yeah, I guess the visual environment is very different, maybe it wouldn't work as well nowadays. Fair point.


I'm kind of thinking one-step-removed from the latter - see image, then de-focus eye view and focus mind's eye view instead, perfect the image in your own head, but I do see what you mean.


LOL! College PE tutors in tracksuits for me, but yes.





Agree with that completely. Bear in mind as a mod I see a vast amount of AI WAM because many people posting it aren't verified users so all the images have to be approved through the moderation queue and sometimes there are hundreds of them. As long as they don't fail the "no real people / no photorealistic nudity" rules then they go through, but we do sometimes have to reject things for various infringements.

I do think that reliable and hard-to-avoid labelling and filtering of AI work is absolutely vital - people should know what they are looking at, and even more-so what they are buying, and anyone trying to pass AI off as real needs to be dealt with. I don't have any issue with people trying to sell AI content if it's clearly marked as such, and doesn't misuse anyone else's models, or any real person without consent - though as have said before, I doubt that selling generated content is going to take off, simply because buyers can instead use AI to generate an even better fantasy of their own.

I do also wonder if casual visitors should be shown the site with the synthetic filter on by default, so that the volume of AI content doesn't give people the false impression this is a primarily or totally AI-based site.

As to my position, contrary to what some seem to think I'm ambivalent. I don't think the sky is falling, but neither do I think AI is the be-all and end-all, it's just another tool. Label and filter, don't ban.

It's hard to see it as anything other than bitterness/spite when it comes from producers. The AI videos and images are generally shit, we know that, but that's no reason to ban it. We can already filter it out.

This conversation cracks me up! I love, and buy, the videos w real women getting messy! Hell, I love the actual real women, for getting messy!!!

But the ban AI folks here, they sound just like the cab drivers and hotel owners who complained when Uber and AirBnB came to market. Just ban them they said, stop technology, don't allow them in our city, pretend Uber and AirBnB don't exist in other cities and other people aren't using and enjoying them. How many of the ban AI folks have never used an Uber or stayed in an AirBnb? Ban new technology, that will stop it from coming and being popular! Good luck with that, just ask the hitching post and horse and buggy manufactures how that worked out for them.

Ever wonder why we have not seen anyone produce another huge pie fight videos like Messy Fun's classic 12 model Beauty Pageant scene, or their wedding reception pie fight, or any other of the classic large scale productions from 25 years ago... because producing it would cost a fortune and would be a ton of work. Plus, very few customers are willing to either sponsor, order them as a custom, or pay the necessary price to buy them at a rate needed to be profitable. The only way content like that will be created, unless Elon Musk becomes a WAM producer, is using AI, in my opinion.

I don't enjoy the AI content out there today, nor is it anywhere near as stimulating as a real video. It does not compare at all to even the most amateur videos featuring real models. But someday it will.

When technology gets to the point where a creator "producer" can use AL tools to make a 30 minute video featuring 12 characters who fully resemble real women, wearing what looks like real clothes that look like they are getting really ruined, from 500 pies, and includes a full script of dialog delivered in believable voices including vocal reactions, all with seamless video quality... that will be a WAM MOVIE. And trust me, fans will buy it if it's priced right. Should such a movie be banned from UMD? Should we pretend it's not out there and available to the messy fetish community just because it's AI generated??

That day may not be tomorrow or next year, but it's coming, and soon.

There was a time when messy content could only be seen in Hollywood movies, on TV and in pictures in copies of Splosh Magazine you had to buy. If the producers of Splosh had called for, and achieved, a ban on posting on UMD any info about messy videos sold on VHS tapes... who thinks that would have prevented them from becoming popular? And then being replaced by CD;s and DVD's and then downloads and then streaming video content? Ask the good folks Blockbuster how wishing technology would just stop, worked out for them.

By the way, in case you think I'm just crazy and against all bans... I want to go on record as being the first person on UMD to suggest that while we are banning AI, we might as well also ban messy experiences that will be possible when the fully immersive, interactive, virtual reality environments are possible, when someone invents the real life version of Star Trek's holodeck. Those will definitely suck!

It's one thing to say that fantastical technology is coming. In theory, the return of the Messiah is "coming." But it's when these people say "and soon" that the desperation shows. Basic physics can't be consistently adhered to but people will confidently stand up and swear that the computing power, resource availability, and corporate permission necessary to make a fully realistic WAM movie are "coming soon," as if we and all of our grandchildren won't be worm food by the time the Star Trek holodecks get here.

And they've been doing this for three years now. It's getting sad.

Ohh it's this time of the month again...

I enjoy pushing the boundaries of what is possible with AI but lets be honest, it's not at the stage of replacing real wam production and nor do I think it will be for a long time. I don't have any numbers but I'm hazarding a guess that the changes around identification is a bigger contributor to any fall in sales that a few AI images and videos, most of which are truthfully pretty low quality.
The site has filters and a separate forum for AI. That for me is sufficient. What I would support though is ring fencing any AI further and restricting posts to the sub forum. I browse the site with the AI filter on and had no idea people are still posting the main forums..

I don't view AI as a replacement to traditional WAM media, but more as a new medium in its own right. Sometimes I'm in the mood to make an AI story to play out my fantasies and sometimes I want to watch a video with a real person in it.

I think the issue which most people miss when they consider AI generations is the aspect of agency. Traditional WAM media are all passively consumed with (effectively) no input from the consumer. Gen AI gives you direct input into how things unravel and on the subject matter.

A good comparison would be novels vs video games. They both have their place. Sometimes I want to sit down and read a finely crafted novel. Sometimes I want to play an open-world game or build a home in Minecraft.

I am myself an AI WAM content producer, and probably not surprisingly I strongly oppose a ban, and do not accept that it is killing real WAM.

I accept it is not everyone's cup of tea, and I fully respect people's decision if they don't like it. I don't like baseball, but that doesn't mean it should be banned.

I also don't accept that it is zero effort - it takes effort to compile the right prompts, a lot of experimentation and for some producers - creating the LORAs and models. To say otherwise is just a lazy generalisation.

Sure the quality can vary wildly, just like some real WAM photos vary in quality - ranging from the back of someone's dimly lit garage with a 10 year old smart phone through to professional studios with professional lighting, professional models, taken by experienced photographers with a top of the range Nikon/Canon camera.

Is it destroying WAM? In my opinion no. As other AI WAM enthusiasts have stated, I peruse both the AI and the Messy forums, and if I see something I like, then I'll buy it. If people aren't buying your stuff, then maybe there's another reason for that - too pricey, not enough content, quality of the content?

What I do agree with, is keeping the content separate. I have noticed some people posting synthetic content in the regular 'Messy forum'. I can understand people being annoyed at that. It annoys me too, if I'm honest. I don't know whether the mods have the ability to move threads to another forum perhaps?

It has a separate forum. The gallery has the ability to filter out synthetic photos - as long as people post in the correct forum, and tag the photos/videos appropriately, then I really don't see the problem.

Trouble is the AI area is a group not a forum, and the mod rules specifically state that we must not move threads from forums to groups unless requested by the original thread author. So no, we can't just move synthetic threads from Messy to AI Wam. However, as long as they are tagged Synthetic, anyone with the filter on shouldn't see them at all, regardless of where posted.

Moving forum to forum is standard, most common example being moving things to Personals, or misplaced messy scenes from Wetlook to Messy, because all of those are forums, not groups.

Okay, I don't normally join in these discussions but here goes, I am going to be neutral here instead of either jumping to defense or downright ranting, AI isn't for everyone and thats fine, real world Wam isn't for everyone either, Ai has helped me with my artistic expression and mental struggle, I am more a viewer than a participant so real world Wam doesn't appeal to me that much apart from some selective material for nostalgia, for some of us its the making of the content with the wam just being a selected theme, AI can give a representation or combined them of ideas that haven't or cant be done in real world settings, I feel the best thing I can say is lets be grown up about this and remember we are all different individuals sharing a collective community interest each in our own way.

Would it make management of things with AI easier if it was a forum instead of a group? I know that a lot of people don't look at the groups, or in some cases know of their existence. It might be easier if there was an AI Forum. It would be easier for people wanting to promote and show off their AI, it would be easier for people wanting to see that kind of content to find it. I don't think we would have to worry so much about the synthetic tagging if it was a forum instead of a group. People would know it belongs there.

I agree, we have a specific area set aside for AI already, it's ring fenced and distinct. the group was created a few years ago in the infancy of AI but if technical constraints are stopping admins moving content to the correct area, then surely the answer is to either migrate the content over to a forum or close off the group and create a new separate forum.
Is t

I just like to keep it simple. Personally I don't like AI WAM, nothing beats a human getting covered in slop, including the real reactions, the gasps, the open mouth shock etc. After spending 40 years in the computer industry I know AI is an inevitability. I don't believe banning it will be effective. However I believe it should be mandatory that it's properly identified as AI by the author, not only in the WAM world but out there in all aspects of media. I believe there should be a general policy supporting its mandatory identification because in the wrong hands it can be extremely duplicitous.

I think MM does a good job of ring fencing AI,which is more than you can say about most moderators out there in the Internet world. It doesn't interest me so I just filter it out on UMD and it does the trick for me.

It doesn't need to be relegated to a separate forum. "Messy" *is* the type of content it is and the forum it naturally belongs to. There is already a synthetic filter you can use to filter AI-generated material out in the same way you can filter by gender and there are enforced rules requiring the proper tagging of AI-generated content.

Except the rules let you post untagged AI images outside of the AI group.
https://umd.net/forums/ai-wam-an-alternative-aproach-paintings#postid_1085191