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

It's required for photorealistic images, which is the topic of this discussion (material seen as a potential substitute for producer-created work)

I'm still not seeing why we wouldn't just restrict AI images and videos to an AI forum? 99% of the AI content over the past 2-3 years has been posted to the AI group. It's only handful of posts/users who are actually posting AI content to the Messy and Wet forums. My own cynicism would say that it's avoid the content getting ring fenced but I'll give the benefit of doubt and suggest the AI group doesn't exist.
Creating an AI forum rather than a group also allows better administration and resolves the issues DMO highlighted.

Ignoring the problem has been known to never work. In a free market environment all that does is give AI slop producers or fraudsters opportunity to push harder into the market to the point that it's impossible to ignore. It's happened to YouTube, to online pinboards, to art sites, to drawing circles, and to imageboards. UMD has been experiencing a similar progression, but at a much slower rate due to its smaller community population and proactive synthetic tagging.

The only solid results come from real pushback and active content regulation, but slop producers will still try to worm their way in anyway, which is why constant vigilance is still necessary. If there is money to be made, they will always be around, undermining freedom of expression by drowning it out with huge volumes of lower effort fakery.

In addition to any and all debates about the creative validity of using AI (which, in my personal view is zero), let's consider the obvious environmental and social impacts of data centers as well as the use of mass theft to "train" these slop machines too.

I would 100% be in favor of a complete ban of AI slop from this site. Let's keep our slop 100% real, and 100% literal. Fuck AI.

Actively advocating the banning of free expression, yes, even stuff you don't like, and then saying those that don't want free expression banned is "undermining free expression?"

What? This thread gets more bizarre.

And this "low effort" nonsense, why does this buzzword keep popping up? Is there a litmus test that states "you must put in this much effort or your speech is not allowed?"

The irony of people on an adult entertainment forum looking down at others and chastising them for being "low effort" is astounding. Do people not know the porn industry is often considered exactly that by those not in the circle?

"Oh, you're just gonna sell pics of your body? Yuck.

Wait, you don't even get nude, you just get hit with pies?? I guess people will buy anything nowadays."

And what demonstrably doesn't work in a free market is prohibition.

He is stating a paradox. One that has been debated by both opponents and proponents of AI as a critique of both the technology and the human condition. The issue is if AI is permitted to operate unchecked, we can only assert that sooner or later it will choke out the human aspect of many things we take for granted. We have examples we can point to now. For example "The Automation Paradox" where the more advanced and autonomous AI systems become, the more they are prone to failure without human intervention. This requires human monitoring and correction however because of the machine's efficiency, the individuals who are supposed to steer the ship are getting complacent (Lazy) and lose the very skills they require to intervene when the machine fails.

The less "doom and gloom" example of this would be an artist like a photographer. We have the tools in Photoshop to do exactly what generative remove or generative fill offer without the need for AI but because of its efficiency, people are defaulting to it for every scenario. This doesn't always work and sometimes generative AI will produce some *Interesting* results which then leaves some photographers struggling how to correct the error in their edits.



Hate to break it to ya, but it is low effort in relation to the photographer who has spent thousands of dollars on equipment, trainings, workshops in addition to the years of mastery of a craft, understanding color science, lighting, negative fill, Framing of a shot, which lenses to use, composition, posing a model, post editing workflow and beyond. The same can be applied to a musician, Cinematographer, Editor, or a number of crafts that take years to master. Sorry to say, but just because you don't like what you are hearing, doesn't make it untrue. It just doesn't work that way.


First off, calling this forum adult entertainment is a bit of a stretch. This is not Mavericks. It's (for the most part) a niche fetish community where people occasionally or regularly shoot and sell videos of their kinks or sessions. No one is dumping mainstream porn money into their shoots here and if we are lucky, we break even. That in and of itself is largely the issue and the double edge sword producers here need to face.

While yes AI MIGHT be a threat to some creators, it is only while they make no effort to bring a better product. This isn't shade at anyone but this is the direction the industry is headed. People want high quality content and thanks to social media, they know it is possible. They may need to leave behind their cellphone and buy a proper camera (or learn how to shoot better off their phone) or they may need to rent a proper studio instead of shooting in a hotel bathroom. They may need to do a deep dive on lighting and buy some proper monolights or modifiers. The resources are out there and there has been no better time to learn but the influencer age of content creation has changed a lot of the landscape. Will some producers fall off? Yeah, potentially if they cannot adapt but as the very overwhelming majority here as stated time and time again, they prefer the real deal and not some fictitious toon.

Bit of a stretch? It's literally the definition. It's literally in the site rules that this site is not for and does not feature minors. It's an adult entertainment community. In fact, the fact we're even discussing this is my exact point. Do you not think there are people out there that see this fetish/community as "low effort?" If you don't have Sasha Grey and Piper Perri in your videos then you shouldn't even be posting them in our community! That's how this sounds.


Unfortunately you don't get to gatekeep what art is. What gives you the authority or even moral audacity to tell someone else what they can view as art.

I don't see why there's so much focus on the "effort" that goes into it, to be honest. It's porn. I get that some producers are quite particular about things and like their shoots to be of a high quality, but that's not what draws people to one scene vs another. It's the model/mess/outfit/whatever, not your sick studio quality lighting setup and camera. There's a disconnect between producers and consumers with how much they care about the "effort".

No gatekeeping involved. Shall we let Webster help?
1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation
the art of making friends
2a: a branch of learning:
(1): one of the humanities
(2)arts plural :liberal arts
2b: archaic :learning, scholarship
3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill
the art of organ building
4a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
the art of painting landscapes
also :works so produced
a gallery for modern art
b(1): fine arts
(2): one of the fine arts
(3): one of the graphic arts
5a
archaic :a skillful plan
b: the quality or state of being artful (see artful sense 2a)
6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

Webster definitions include being creative and using your imagination as part of the definition. Something AI does not have. So by definition, AI cannot be art.

If we're going to be pedantic about it, it fits into those two definitions right there that speak to art as a product instead of art as a skill.

graphic arts
plural noun
: the fine and applied arts of representation, decoration, and writing or printing on flat surfaces together with the techniques and crafts associated with them

Everyone says that until they try opening their own store with whoever's willing to come to their dirty bathroom for $50. Then it's "Boo hoo nobody's buying my shitty glorified creep shots. Guess you can only make money if you're a woman " If effort didn't matter everyone would be millionaires from this--and we wouldn't currently be in a discussion on how to get LESS content polluting the forums.

ETA: Even if you accept the premise that "It's just the model" I've seen plenty of beautiful models look horrible because their photographers didn't take any effort into making them look good with lighting or composition or just hiring a damn makeup artist. I've hired beginner models who had some of the worst motel room cell phone shots in their portfolios and they show up in person looking like goddesses. It just make me that much madder at whoever was shooting them before for fumbling what should've been the easiest assignment in the world.

The key part for me: "include being creative and using your imagination"
Look at the imagination that went into creating the AI examples in this group. Creating models, creating scenarios via prompts, etc.

I have created and directed live scenarios with models and I would have liked to have been able to storyboard my ideas for the models. I asked Bing to give me a storyboard for the scenario I gave it in the prompt. I tried that for several scenarios and ended up with over 100 storyboards based on scenarios from my imagination. I have attached a sample. AI is a tool. If you do an ice sculpture with a chain saw (as in the movie Groundhog Day) does the chainsaw make it no longer art?

I mean...I don't want to bang on your work--especially if you're happy with what you did. You clearly put a lot of time into it. But look at how you're talking about your "tool." "I asked Bing to give me" = "I offloaded the work of creation to an AI." In your analogy, the tool of AI is less like a chainsaw attached to your brilliance and more like a microwave heating up whatever Sysco cooked behind the scenes.

I've worked in creative in one form or another for 20 years. There is nothing--and I mean nothing--more irritating to a creative than an "Idea Guy." The Idea Guy corners you at family gatherings telling you about his great idea for a screenplay that amounts to nothing more than "This funny thing that happened to me that should totally be a movie." The Idea Guy doesn't want to flesh out his idea, doesn't want to beat out the plot or add complexity to the characters. That's someone else's job. The Idea Guy just wants the glory and the money and the credit. Then the Idea Guy gets irrationally pissed when someone they never met on the other side of the world actually makes a movie because it was vaguely like their idea.

AI is enabling and empowering an army of Idea Guys who think they're actually accomplished creatives just because they found a mechanical slave who won't politely walk away from their unserious pitches.

Full disclosure: I have also used AI ideas to storyboard concepts for photo shoots I'd like to have. The trick is: I then go and have the photoshoots. So yeah, if you want to use this "tool" to direct your live shoots, great. But damn the AI slop, show us and be proud of the results of the actual shoot. THAT'S the creative work.

There are really two things here which are separate issues:

1. The determination of whether or not AI-created content can be considered art
2. The determination of whether or not AI-created content is Messy WAM material appropriate for this forum

I do not think the two are necessarily related to each other. Personally, I make plenty of AI-generated content for my own consumption. Generally, it's mostly story-based stuff, with some image-based creations when I get in the mood for finetuning a model.

I don't view what I make as art. It's a way to explore my desires in a more interactive and proactive way that I wouldn't have access to otherwise.

From a content perspective though, I use it the same way I'd use any material from this forum. It can serve as a substitute for producer content in some situations, but generally fills a different space in my mind. I mentioned before how sometimes you want to read a finely crafted novel and sometimes you want to play a video game. I view the producer vs AI dichotomy in the same way.

There's a reason why AI-content exists and I consume it regularly, but I still buy every video you produce.

Depressing to see how many people, including stalwarts, on this site are standing with AI.

No wonder this place has gone down the tubes steadily over the last 7, 8 years...

This place used to have a soul and an identity, a personality and a sense of community, but as there is none with AI, so follows this place.

FWIW the filter generally seems to work great, though I still see pics from time to time and it's always annoying, but like anything else of this nature in 2026 on the internet -- if you/I don't like it, you just deal with it.

But it does feel like the proliferation of it has, and will continue to, make the optics of making and selling (never mind giving it away/posting samples) messy content such that only a select few will offer it. Because that's what AI ultimately does: it steals, and uses, and ultimately there is nothing left but soulless hollow automation.

JY

Aw shucks. Appreciate you! To your points, I guess I consider AI art in the most liberal sense of the word, much like how karaoke is technically a genre of music and heating up a can of soup is technically cooking. But I think it also depends on the activities and intention of the user. To someone who just wants to use a new medium to try to create something different, maybe you can consider it art--even if the medium is inherently derivative, unoriginal, and makes profiting off outright plagiarism easier than ever. But it's also not in the spirit of art. I personally think a hurried pencil sketch of a boat that you draw during a game of Pictionary has more artistic merit than some random computer-generated interpretation of a text prompt, but that's just my opinion.

What you called out that's more important is how the end user consumes and appreciate the AI output, and on that I neither have nor want to have an opinion. Do you. That's why I haven't dipped my toes into the "art or not art" side of the debate. Whether you think it is or isn't, just don't try to place it on the same level of real work done by real craftspeople. And definitely don't try to diminish the work of real craftspeople because you like the shortcuts provided by AI. As shown by others in this thread, that line of thinking makes people look stupid and bitter about their intellectual incuriosity. I'm not gonna get huffy if Food Network slams the door in my face because I showed up to "Chopped" auditions with a Hungry Man dinner.

My personal AI use story: I tried AI to make WAM content when it was first rolled out same as everyone else. It took like three days for me to quit out of frustration for how repetitive and amateurish the stories were written, how creepy and cartoonish the women in the images were rendered, and how every time I tried to refine a prompt for better results I realized, "Wait, I'm actually talented. I can just continue creating circles around this fancy search engine with way less effort." And before you AI true believers try to argue Oh, the models have gotten better; Oh, you just need to use this prompt; Oh, you need to supplement it with this other AI tool (all arguments I've heard in the past), too late. AI had its chance and the results are still mid at best. Consider how much extra work you guys advocate doing to avoid real work and be embarrassed.

The imagination is in the head of the person who wrote the prompts and/or created the lora that the AI used to generate the image. A artist paintbrush doesn't have any imagination but no-one would claim a watercolour painting wasn't art. As long as a human directed the tool in what to produce, it's art of a sort. May not be great or fine art, but it's still a creative work. Photography counts as art after all and at core that's just using a machine to make a recording of a view.


The OP didn't say anything about opening a store or selling stuff though, he's talking from a buyer's viewpoint. From a buyer's POV, the things that matter are the model, the outfit, the scenario, they type of gunge, other content specifics - not the production values unless they are extremely poor to the extent it shows in the previews.

When I buy videos what matters to me is "can we see the model(s) lower halves getting messy" and "what outfits are being worn." I'd never buy a video with a model in low-rise jeans, as I consider them an abomination, nor one where we only see upper half. It wouldn't matter if someone paid Universal Studios however many millions it would cost to have an A-list actress do a WAM scene directed by James Cameron - low rise jeans or no lower-trunk / leg views, no sale. Fetishes are very specific.


Again, from the purchaser's POV, as long as what is presented ticks the right boxes, that is all that matters. Ok, perhaps the model could have been better made up, but if she's wearing a nicely fitted boilersuit and wellies, has a half-way reasonable figure, and is wading waist deep into a liquid mud swamp, and the camera isn't leaping about like a leaf in a storm, I will probably buy the video.

After purchase, if the production values turn out to be atrocious, then chances are I won't make a second purchase (see my previous comment about a mud scene where the camera operator appeared to have St Vitus Dance), and if they're really bad I might request a refund - I once bought a wetlook video that was so heavily compressed you literally couldn't tell if the outfits were wet or not, because they became just blocks of solid colour pixels - MM refunded me that one when I flagged the low quality, and fed back why to the seller. But when deciding what to purchase, content, not technical excellence, is king. And this is why even imperfect AI images, if they press the right mental buttons, will work for some people, and those of us who do put effort into trying to shoot the best material we can, need to be cognisant of what really motivates buyers.

Sigh. And how can we glean the buyer's POV? From the amount of business the seller is able to close. And I've seen enough fly-by-night cell phone producers flame out on the forums about lack of business before shutting down to tell that people held their work in low regard. For good reason.

Also--and I want everyone to appreciate how hard I'm trying to say this without swearing because of how often I've had to repeat it now--"the model, the outfit, the scenario, they type of gunge, other content specifics" are production values. Filmmaking enthusiasts talk about lighting and composition because those are also baseline production values without which any genre-specific details don't matter. I mean, the greatest outfit ever crafted doesn't matter if you can't see it because the producer didn't use any lights, now would it?


Yeah yeah yeah. You have preferences. Good for you. We all do. Question: If I made a video with your favorite model in your favorite outfit getting messy and I took extra care to make sure you had a dedicated lower-half-only view of the entire scene, would you buy it if the footage was so grainy from lack of light that it looked like I shot it in a snowstorm? What if I hired your dream model, but throughout the video she looked openly sad and distressed because she was in mourning over a recent death in the family that I didn't realize or disclose to you (TRUE STORY OF A PAST CUSTOM-BUYING EXPERIENCE, BY THE WAY)? You and I like clothes-filling, right? It's literally the only thing we have in common. Would you buy my clothes-filling video if everything was up to your spec but, for some reason, one of the model's back was turned to the camera the whole time because I never thought of how my angles would look (another true story)?

Look: Don't oversimplify what makes WAM content work because you think fetish material doesn't need to be held to a high standard. There are guys out there who can't wait to show you how easy it is to trip over the lowest placed bar and you've gotta be obstinate or incapable of awareness to not see them do it. Just because you (think you) have simple expectations doesn't mean you shouldn't expect them to be executed well.


Yeah, a nicely fitted outfit is a production value. I've made asking models for sizing information and buying outfits myself a part of my pre-production workflow specifically because, if care isn't taken, the model can and will look like a bag of freshly raked leaves. I've been consuming WAM content for 25 years, ask me how I know.


So yeah, after all this, it's just what I suspected: You know and understand the value of effort in WAM production. Just...for reasons that's going to make me have a stroke if I think about it too long...you don't understand what production values are even as you have strong opinions on production vales. I don't know, maybe you're so embarrassed to have closely held WAM tastes that it's easier for you to think of it as "checking off boxes" instead of genuine artistic appreciation. Maybe you're trying to silo WAM content off in its own little Box of Shame where effort and merit don't matter because it's embarrassing to think of how much real estate this kink has in your heart. It really doesn't matter. All that matters is this intellectually conflicted line of thinking among you and the rest of the "it's just porn" ilk is exhausting and not at all in alignment with reality. Figure it out and stop treating this work like secondary trash because A: You just told us how you react when you do discover WAM trash and B: You're a producer of WAM yourself! Have some pride.

The LLM producing the art is not being creative or imaginative. It is simply following a trained list of commands based on YOUR input.

Are you saying that the close attention to detail that you pay to the work you produce does not matter? If it really is to be considered art, and the tool doesn't matter, why are there awards for things like cinematography? All that person is doing is pointing a camera. No talent there.

Please tell me the craft used when telling an LLM what to do. You literally feed it instructions and it spits out the result. Based on your application of the definition, putting together a model airplane using only the materials provided with the kit, following the exact instructions in said kit should be declared art. There is a reason it isin't.

First, I am not fixing that total botch of a segmented reply.

Second, I cannot believe I am discussing the merits of AI being art with a guy who can't even understand simple HTML, much less understand the differences and nuances of perceived effort and real effort.

As for your first response, Yeah, actually there is. It is called "artistic merit" and it's been around for a while and not acknowledging it is how we wound up with dumb rich idiots willing to pay millions for a banana duct taped to a wall (look it up). Now while AI generated content might fit into one or two categories, it fails to fit into, by its very nature, the two others which is coherence & intent and technical execution. AI is not to be confused with arts like CGI or Motion graphic creation (two art forms that AI proponents falsely compares it to) because they require a refined knowledge of the tools in the editor and animation workflow. Again, You are just training a computer what you want to see with AI. In any other medium, you are still in 100% control of every aspect of the piece. Shadows, highlights, Contrast, Background bokeh, Depth of field, speed, output, etc and if you have no idea what any of these things are and why they are important, you really have no business advocating or condemning AI and it's relevance as art or "original". Once again, not liking the answer doesn't make it untrue. If you had any sort of foresight, you would be more concerned about how people use AI vs whether or not anyone actually accepts it because I am sure your largest enemy isn't someone like me but the person who abuses it. Sorry, but not sorry.

Lastly, you really need to understand the definition of gatekeeping. So far, as far as I know, there has only been 2 voices calling to ban AI content. If you had been paying any sort of attention, I am not one of those voices. Neither is Messmaster and honestly, that is really the only voice that matters in this scenario. Because you probably need catching up, I am more for education and acknowledgment of using AI responsibly and ethically vs banning (which never works imo). That is hardly gatekeeping

Say it louder for the people in the back!

Look, I know it is hard but there are angles of a shot that will flatter your subject more than others. Conversely, there are angles that will have quite the opposite effect. This is why framing and composition is important. I get we are not exactly George Lucas here but some rules are constant no matter what budget the producer is working with. Two guys who nail this is Messyhot and MPV. Those two inspire the fuck outa me, not just because they are good but because they refined their craft over time and as a result, they stand out.


Following the rules of creation defeat limitations at most levels. I have seen content shot on a cellphone that MAYBE 1% might guess was shot on a phone and not a Sony Venice. Conversely, I have seen absolute dogshit come from people shooting on 10K cinema cameras and guess what, -Raises hand- when I started out, I was one of em. We all have to make our mistakes. That is how we get better but that is not going to happen by pretending that someone, who didn't even take the effort to make sure the space they are shooting in was clean, is absolutely crushing it.

See, to me, this doesn't bug me and I want to think your particular take is what a majority of AI guys feel, which is fine. I mean, it's here and I honestly have no bones if someone likes it or not or they use it supplementary to other works or whatever. To me, it's just another section of the forum and while I don't feel AI is art, I truly don't care what someone decides to tug their boat to. That's just none of my business. People get their kicks off animation, drawings and the like and this is not really that much different as long as the disclosure is there that it is AI that someone is looking atand not something else.

My bone to pick will always fall down to the ethics of how it is used or abused, which I am just as vocal about with real producers who shoot real content. That will never change.

So, I see what you are trying to say but the two just don't compare. I'm sorry but they just don't and I will try to explain why.

First the analogy (Love the Groundhog Day reference btw), just doesn't fall in line with AI and how it is used to create full fledge works. Can AI be used as a tool? Yes. No doubt. I use it on occasion for automating my actions in Photoshop. Is it STRICTLY a tool? No. That is where the difference lies. AI is not just a brush. Ai is not just a hammer. It can be used for one thing or for all the things. It can be used to just remove a tree or person from a photo you took (which can be done in Photoshop anyways, just with more steps involved) or it can be used to make the whole fucking photo.

I am not saying using AI makes any one person less imaginative. Not saying that at all. I am not even saying that it takes no skill. I am saying that it takes significantly less skill to master using AI to create whole works than what it takes to build your level of mastery to the point where you are able either shoot, write, draw, animate it yourself with any sort of accuracy and quality, otherwise someone here would be more interested in using Maxon Cinema 4D vs Sora 2

[Other points noted, but snipped for brevity]


First off, no idea where you got the embarrassed idea from but nothing could be further from the truth, I'm very out and proud about what I do. And totally understand the importance of putting effort in if you want decent results out. It's why I shoot with a camcorder and a DSLR instead of just using my phone.

Also it seems we have two things in common, clothes filling, and providing outfits. I've always done that partly because I learned a lot from Rob Blaine who provided the outfits his models wore, and partly because it'd never occur to me to expect a model to risk her own gear in a splosh scenario, unless it had been specifically negotiated in advance and paid extra over the standard fees - we have done a few like that but only occasionally. I was genuinely shocked some years ago to realise that many wam producers and seemingly almost all wetlook producers expect the models to bring and wear their own clothes in scenes, though it does explain some of the horrendous outfit choices sometimes seen.

The main point I was getting at is that - and I've seen multiple people argue this - claiming Ai is irrelevant or can be ignored because the outputs aren't perfect, is bogus, because if any media, be it photo, video, cartoon, line drawing, text story, whatever, activates the right triggers in a viewer's mind, that media will work for them. To an extent I wish it wasn't so - would be nice to be able to not have to worry about AI competition - but as the owners of stagecoach companies learned in the 1840s, wishing these new-fangled steam contraptions would just go away didn't work then, and the same approach won't work now.

You are absolutely right that you can tell if someone is hitting the buyers' POVs by whether their media keeps selling and whether they stick around, though for solo women producers there are other factors like underestimating just how much hard work WAM is when you have to do all the cleanup yourself, plus creepy pushy customers who wouldn't know a boundary if it bit them. But yeah, over the years I've seen others try doing various specialist interest scenes, get it wrong, get few/no sales, and give up. Same I suppose as people not into WAM who discover it, think it'll be easy money, then find out how much hard work it is and quietly disappear.

Your compelling argument is misidentifying html (which does not use the square brackets of forum markup language) usage?

No arguing with that logic.


I'm typing this on my phone. Is that ok or is only an i9 14900k/Rtx 5090 gaming pc allowed to utilize the forum?

I'm just waiting for someone to get mad enough to call an AI user a "cogsucker".

I absolutely died laughing only because you are actually not too far off. Apparently the vernacular being used on twitter is "clanker lover" lol

I feel like we are missing some really good ones though