|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"AI Attitudes Survey 2025"
messg said:
There are 2 areas that I think will have different levels of impact in the near term.
The quality of Deepfaking is getting better and will continue to do so. For imaging, you would previously need to train a local model lora to produce something convincing, it takes time, effort and knowledge to this well but once trained can be applied to any number of images. The quality of this done right is astounding with new models like Qwen, HiDream and Wan2.2 and I've no reason to think this won't continue to get better.
What has happened in the last 6 months is image-edit models have become available that makes it almost trivial for anyone to upload a starting image and ask the model to add mess, change poses, undress etc. Nano banana was the first but qwen-edit is arguably far more powerful from a deepfaking point of view as it is also trainable on any concept or person. By the end of the month, I expect nano banana pro to be released running on gemini 3 pro and this will be be far more powerful than the current model and will support much higher resolution/detail.
This for me is the immediate and most concerning aspect of AI and where we as community need to establish strong guidelines of what is acceptable.
From a general content production point of view and the impact on producers and/or whether one person or another enjoys it.. well I think we've a way to go at least for quality long form video.
I've spent a lot of time training image models over the last year or 2. The quality of trained open source models surpasses commercial models but even if the quality of a single image is indistinguishable from "real material" it is a oneshot affair. There is no temporal progression and consistency, I can't create an image set that is consistently and progressively messy. Edit models may help that as they improve but i have my doubts this is the correct solution.
Video, I disagree that any wam video produced by AI is "good enough" yet. I've mentioned the constraints and limitations of commercial models already elsewhere but they've just not been trained on enough messy content to be good. Grok and VEO3 are quite woeful even outside the guardrail constraints. Sora2 pro is probably the best model for wam content generation but even that struggled with artifacts and inconsistencies even before the guardrails were raised.
I'm not naive enough to say video won't get better but the cost and resources needed are still massive constraints and these models are only producing 8-15sec clips.
Opensource models have the same strengths as open image models in that they are trainable but the resources and skills to train a good model, let alone generate a short 5-8 sec clip without audio is beyond most people. Wan2.5 is so far beyond consumer resources it's laughable and good luck training that on cloud without massive bills.
The nature of technology is that hardware becomes cheaper over time but the models also need to become bigger and better which negates any hardware benefits. There may be a paradigm shift in transformer AI which flattens this out but I would be genuinely surprised to see anything like 1-2min clips in a long time and even then so constrained by guardrails or quality they should have little to no impact on producer Wam content.
johnnypie said: I agree with most everything said. Just realize we're getting into unchartered waters. Up to now we've mainly had to deal with posting one girl's face on another's body; cue in deep fake porn. But to actually produce WAM videos you need to hire models.
Coming shortly, anyone with a modest amount of money (a mere fraction of what it would cost to hire models) will be able to type in their dream script and prompt "turn this into a video" - then sell it to anyone willing to buy.
Coming shortly, anyone with a modest amount of money (a mere fraction of what it would cost to hire models) will be able to type in their dream script and prompt "turn this into a video" - then sell it to anyone willing to buy.
There are 2 areas that I think will have different levels of impact in the near term.
The quality of Deepfaking is getting better and will continue to do so. For imaging, you would previously need to train a local model lora to produce something convincing, it takes time, effort and knowledge to this well but once trained can be applied to any number of images. The quality of this done right is astounding with new models like Qwen, HiDream and Wan2.2 and I've no reason to think this won't continue to get better.
What has happened in the last 6 months is image-edit models have become available that makes it almost trivial for anyone to upload a starting image and ask the model to add mess, change poses, undress etc. Nano banana was the first but qwen-edit is arguably far more powerful from a deepfaking point of view as it is also trainable on any concept or person. By the end of the month, I expect nano banana pro to be released running on gemini 3 pro and this will be be far more powerful than the current model and will support much higher resolution/detail.
This for me is the immediate and most concerning aspect of AI and where we as community need to establish strong guidelines of what is acceptable.
From a general content production point of view and the impact on producers and/or whether one person or another enjoys it.. well I think we've a way to go at least for quality long form video.
I've spent a lot of time training image models over the last year or 2. The quality of trained open source models surpasses commercial models but even if the quality of a single image is indistinguishable from "real material" it is a oneshot affair. There is no temporal progression and consistency, I can't create an image set that is consistently and progressively messy. Edit models may help that as they improve but i have my doubts this is the correct solution.
Video, I disagree that any wam video produced by AI is "good enough" yet. I've mentioned the constraints and limitations of commercial models already elsewhere but they've just not been trained on enough messy content to be good. Grok and VEO3 are quite woeful even outside the guardrail constraints. Sora2 pro is probably the best model for wam content generation but even that struggled with artifacts and inconsistencies even before the guardrails were raised.
I'm not naive enough to say video won't get better but the cost and resources needed are still massive constraints and these models are only producing 8-15sec clips.
Opensource models have the same strengths as open image models in that they are trainable but the resources and skills to train a good model, let alone generate a short 5-8 sec clip without audio is beyond most people. Wan2.5 is so far beyond consumer resources it's laughable and good luck training that on cloud without massive bills.
The nature of technology is that hardware becomes cheaper over time but the models also need to become bigger and better which negates any hardware benefits. There may be a paradigm shift in transformer AI which flattens this out but I would be genuinely surprised to see anything like 1-2min clips in a long time and even then so constrained by guardrails or quality they should have little to no impact on producer Wam content.
I'm also playing around with AI and certainly one thing that will keep the community and producers safe for a while is indeed the guardrails. The more "porn'ish" you try to make the video, the more the guardrails go up. So if you want a "vanilla" pie fight, that's gonna be fine. A topless pie fight? Nope, now you're off to adult AI platforms where it would cost a small fortune to produce videos like that.
PiedVictim said: Truth be told, AI lacks that Human touch.
Sure folk can (and have) always say "its the new normal", "its cheaper and better", "its quicker and easier" or whatever reason to try to validate their justification of using it in any form.
But really, in my view, I see them excuses of not doing the arts yourself. Because anyone can do this (in our case, be it self pie-ing or going out there and interacting with others interested in the same fetish and like pie each other or whatever).
Feels like using AI is a refusal to get better at said thing that is generated by a machine. Want to draw? Then draw. Want to write a story? Then write it. Want to make a video? Then make a video. Want a cute dom woman to smash a pie in your face? Then go out there, make connections/relationships and fulfill that.
It doesn't matter if the works aren't perfect (no one is at the beginning honestly), the point is that there was actual effort to making it, learn your mistakes and that you keep going at it again. With patience, eventually you'll improve and be the ideal artist you wanted to be.
But that's only actually possible if you don't waste your time on using AI Slop.
Sure folk can (and have) always say "its the new normal", "its cheaper and better", "its quicker and easier" or whatever reason to try to validate their justification of using it in any form.
But really, in my view, I see them excuses of not doing the arts yourself. Because anyone can do this (in our case, be it self pie-ing or going out there and interacting with others interested in the same fetish and like pie each other or whatever).
Feels like using AI is a refusal to get better at said thing that is generated by a machine. Want to draw? Then draw. Want to write a story? Then write it. Want to make a video? Then make a video. Want a cute dom woman to smash a pie in your face? Then go out there, make connections/relationships and fulfill that.
It doesn't matter if the works aren't perfect (no one is at the beginning honestly), the point is that there was actual effort to making it, learn your mistakes and that you keep going at it again. With patience, eventually you'll improve and be the ideal artist you wanted to be.
But that's only actually possible if you don't waste your time on using AI Slop.
The thing is, using AI can free up time that you'd rather spend on your other hobbies.
I play D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade, Pathfinder, and some other tabletop RPGs. I run longterm D&D campaigns and oneshots. I write the backstories and lore, plan the sessions, create NPCs and monsters, come up with the encounters my players will face, create the battle maps, and all the other stuff that goes into planning a session. I homebrew (create myself instead of using a pre-written module) 75+% of everything I use in my games. Then I use AI for the tokens, scenery, and NPC pictures since we play online and I can't use the miniatures I've collected or painted myself.
If I had to sit down and create all the art myself, I wouldn't have time to do all the other session prep. And as I've mentioned previously, I don't have money to commission art, especially not for things that will only be seen for a half hour or so and then never seen again.
I'm a very creative person, but my talents lie in writing and imagination, not in creating visual art. There are still some art things I do myself that I won't use AI for (using Inkarnate to create maps, doing hand-drawn sketches for immersive handouts, etc).
The AI WAM images I've shared on here are only a portion of the AI images I've made, and it's all for fun to spend some down time on. Fashion is a passion of mine (not so much keeping up with current trends or designer monstrosities, but with my own style and the styles I like to see), so I spend a lot of time using AI to create the looks I like. Often I'll transition from the style itself to getting it wet or messy, but I usually start with clean, dry images. I also create character concept images for NPCs or characters I might someday play, create dumb pun images, and turn my lame jokes into images.
Calling AI users lazy is disengenious. Yes, it's a stereotype and stereotypes often have a strong base in reality, but a lot of people are like me and use AI for fun or to fill in the gaps, not to do all the work for us. Others, like messg, get really in-depth with the inner workings of the more complicated generators, making learning and practice a hobby in itself.
larryniven said: By "assume," what do you mean? Because what I did was more like "conclude on the basis of evidence." As I said before, I'm going off of the poll results, which are empirical evidence and not, like, some kind of sinister bias of mine. Again, I really need you to read carefully and respond to what I'm actually saying instead of doing whatever this is.
That "empirical evidence" says that 21% of the respondents are willing to buy AI content or pay to create it themselves. That's one out of every five respondents, which is a significant percentage to disregard in favor of the majority. I don't think anyone's advocating for AI to replace real WAM, but there are a lot who are advocating for this site to take a hardline stance against AI.
Kabe22 said:
That "empirical evidence" says that 21% of the respondents are willing to buy AI content or pay to create it themselves. That's one out of every five respondents, which is a significant percentage to disregard in favor of the majority. I don't think anyone's advocating for AI to replace real WAM, but there are a lot who are advocating for this site to take a hardline stance against AI.
larryniven said: By "assume," what do you mean? Because what I did was more like "conclude on the basis of evidence." As I said before, I'm going off of the poll results, which are empirical evidence and not, like, some kind of sinister bias of mine. Again, I really need you to read carefully and respond to what I'm actually saying instead of doing whatever this is.
That "empirical evidence" says that 21% of the respondents are willing to buy AI content or pay to create it themselves. That's one out of every five respondents, which is a significant percentage to disregard in favor of the majority. I don't think anyone's advocating for AI to replace real WAM, but there are a lot who are advocating for this site to take a hardline stance against AI.
So first, to reiterate: nobody needs to specifically try to have AI overrun natural material in order for that to be the result. As I explained earlier, AI-generated material has already proven that it can crowd out natural material simply by virtue of being easier to produce. This gives us a reason to put some protective measures in place even in the absence of, like, a specific intention to have AI replace or out-compete natural material.
Second, whether or not people are advocating for it, people are predicting that AI will radically reshape the economics of WAM production. The second post in this thread, for example, says this:
johnnypie said: When AI get advanced enough, and it will get there, no one will have to pay anyone for anything. They'll create their own WAM dream videos themselves with simple prompts.
Does this count as advocacy? Probably not, but I don't think it matters. What matters is that we're discussing an economic threat to an activity that most of us value. So, again, the economics of the situation give us a reason to put protections in place regardless of whether or not anyone is intending or advocating for AI to replace natural WAM material.
We can talk about how realistic these scenarios are. We can talk about the types of protections that are useful or appropriate. But we cannot, if we are trying to be rational, just say, "Well no one is specifically trying to cause a problem" and then change the subject. That's not a reasonable way to approach this conversation.
As for the question of whether or not UMD should take a "hardline stance," I myself have not seen, like, a huge groundswell of support for banning AI, either from users or from site admins. If you can quote me some people who've said that, that'd be helpful.
larryniven said:
So first, to reiterate: nobody needs to specifically try to have AI overrun natural material in order for that to be the result. As I explained earlier, AI-generated material has already proven that it can crowd out natural material simply by virtue of being easier to produce. This gives us a reason to put some protective measures in place even in the absence of, like, a specific intention to have AI replace or out-compete natural material.
Second, whether or not people are advocating for it, people are predicting that AI will radically reshape the economics of WAM production. The second post in this thread, for example, says this:
Does this count as advocacy? Probably not, but I don't think it matters. What matters is that we're discussing an economic threat to an activity that most of us value. So, again, the economics of the situation give us a reason to put protections in place regardless of whether or not anyone is intending or advocating for AI to replace natural WAM material.
We can talk about how realistic these scenarios are. We can talk about the types of protections that are useful or appropriate. But we cannot, if we are trying to be rational, just say, "Well no one is specifically trying to cause a problem" and then change the subject. That's not a reasonable way to approach this conversation.
As for the question of whether or not UMD should take a "hardline stance," I myself have not seen, like, a huge groundswell of support for banning AI, either from users or from site admins. If you can quote me some people who've said that, that'd be helpful.
Kabe22 said:
That "empirical evidence" says that 21% of the respondents are willing to buy AI content or pay to create it themselves. That's one out of every five respondents, which is a significant percentage to disregard in favor of the majority. I don't think anyone's advocating for AI to replace real WAM, but there are a lot who are advocating for this site to take a hardline stance against AI.
larryniven said: By "assume," what do you mean? Because what I did was more like "conclude on the basis of evidence." As I said before, I'm going off of the poll results, which are empirical evidence and not, like, some kind of sinister bias of mine. Again, I really need you to read carefully and respond to what I'm actually saying instead of doing whatever this is.
That "empirical evidence" says that 21% of the respondents are willing to buy AI content or pay to create it themselves. That's one out of every five respondents, which is a significant percentage to disregard in favor of the majority. I don't think anyone's advocating for AI to replace real WAM, but there are a lot who are advocating for this site to take a hardline stance against AI.
So first, to reiterate: nobody needs to specifically try to have AI overrun natural material in order for that to be the result. As I explained earlier, AI-generated material has already proven that it can crowd out natural material simply by virtue of being easier to produce. This gives us a reason to put some protective measures in place even in the absence of, like, a specific intention to have AI replace or out-compete natural material.
Second, whether or not people are advocating for it, people are predicting that AI will radically reshape the economics of WAM production. The second post in this thread, for example, says this:
johnnypie said: When AI get advanced enough, and it will get there, no one will have to pay anyone for anything. They'll create their own WAM dream videos themselves with simple prompts.
Does this count as advocacy? Probably not, but I don't think it matters. What matters is that we're discussing an economic threat to an activity that most of us value. So, again, the economics of the situation give us a reason to put protections in place regardless of whether or not anyone is intending or advocating for AI to replace natural WAM material.
We can talk about how realistic these scenarios are. We can talk about the types of protections that are useful or appropriate. But we cannot, if we are trying to be rational, just say, "Well no one is specifically trying to cause a problem" and then change the subject. That's not a reasonable way to approach this conversation.
As for the question of whether or not UMD should take a "hardline stance," I myself have not seen, like, a huge groundswell of support for banning AI, either from users or from site admins. If you can quote me some people who've said that, that'd be helpful.
I'm not suggesting changing the subject. I'm actually in favor of:
Requiring all AI content to be tagged as such (with the exception AI used in the editing of real videos/photosets, within reason) The AI filter, so those who don't want to see it don't have to AI content in the forums being limited to the AI WAM group or maybe a more dedicated subforum if AI gains more traction on this site. A complete ban on AI images/video/etc of real people without the subject's consent A complete ban of copyright-infringing AI A ban on links to off-site media that violate either of those other bans. As someone who posts exclusively AI images/gifs, I have yet to have site admin/mods block/deny anything I've posted, so I'm not concerned about them trying to ban AI.
After re-reading both this thread and the one about Robby/Photoslop, I didn't find as many supporting a general ban as I remembered (most were talking about banning non-consentual AI, which I agree with). There were these, though:
PotatomanK said: AI is going to be a problem for years to come. It's entirely trained off of other images. You could put in general prompts and end up with an image that looks close enough to someone without actually specifying in the prompt.
So unless people want to check every images for what prompts where used, we should probably just ban AI content outright.
So unless people want to check every images for what prompts where used, we should probably just ban AI content outright.
This was from the thread about RobbyWLP: https://umd.net/forums/producer-caught-selling-nonconsensual-ai?start=0#postid_1082859
dalamar666 said: We should not be using AI for anything related to this. AI being allowed on here in my mind is insulting to producers and models.
He's not outright saying to ban AI here, but the implication sounds pretty clear.
CreamMeAgain said: There's nothing wrong with creating a fantasy if AI is used respectfully. But that's the biggest glaring problem with AI, the technology itself isn't as dangerous as the people using it. And that's where I oppose the use of it here on this website. There is an epidemic in this community of piracy, and it's those same people who are looking at AI to make stealing easier for them.
To be honest, I'm not sure if she opposes AI in general on here, or just its use for piracy and using real people's likenesses. To be clear, I agree with her comment except for the opposition of it on this website.
Kabe22 said: I'm actually in favor of:
Requiring all AI content to be tagged as such (with the exception AI used in the editing of real videos/photosets, within reason)
The AI filter, so those who don't want to see it don't have to
AI content in the forums being limited to the AI WAM group or maybe a more dedicated subforum if AI gains more traction on this site.
A complete ban on AI images/video/etc of real people without the subject's consent
A complete ban of copyright-infringing AI
A ban on links to off-site media that violate either of those other bans.
As someone who posts exclusively AI images/gifs, I have yet to have site admin/mods block/deny anything I've posted, so I'm not concerned about them trying to ban AI.
Requiring all AI content to be tagged as such (with the exception AI used in the editing of real videos/photosets, within reason) The AI filter, so those who don't want to see it don't have to AI content in the forums being limited to the AI WAM group or maybe a more dedicated subforum if AI gains more traction on this site. A complete ban on AI images/video/etc of real people without the subject's consent A complete ban of copyright-infringing AI A ban on links to off-site media that violate either of those other bans. As someone who posts exclusively AI images/gifs, I have yet to have site admin/mods block/deny anything I've posted, so I'm not concerned about them trying to ban AI.
Okay - I'm with you so far.
After re-reading both this thread and the one about Robby/Photoslop, I didn't find as many supporting a general ban as I remembered (most were talking about banning non-consentual AI, which I agree with). There were these, though (examples follow)
Good! So then let's look at these one at a time.
dalamar sure does seem to be against AI being allowed, although it's interesting that they don't come right out and say that the admins should ban it. I'd be curious to see if that's actually what they want or if they're just, like, venting or being hyperbolic or something. (As I said earlier, I usually don't like trying to read strangers' minds over the internet, no matter how obvious the implications may seem.)
Potato's point is a curious one, because it goes right back to something that you just said:
A complete ban on AI images/video/etc of real people without the subject's consent A complete ban of copyright-infringing AI Potato's stated view errs on the side of caution here (perhaps in an extreme way), and maybe some part of his background reasoning is off in some way, but it seems to me that he's using the same starting premise that you are (namely, no unconstenting real people or copyrighted stuff). So if you're going to cite him as someone who's, like, unfairly endangering the future of AI WAM or something, then it seems to me that it's important for you to say precisely where he went wrong. To me, his values seem to be the same as your values, so it's not immediately obvious to me how you two are reaching opposite conclusions on the subject.
The same, I think, goes with CreamMe. It's a little puzzling to me to see you say that you agree with what she says except for the part where she draws a conclusion that's different from yours. Like, I come into these conversations with the assumption that people who have (roughly) the same values and the same evidence should reach (roughly) the same conclusion. But it seems like that's not happening for you and these other people, and I'm not sure why.
(And, again, probably all of this is academic for the time being? Like you said, there's no real indication that anybody actually will ban AI here any time soon, so maybe we're just counting angels on pin-heads. It's just weird to me that so many people in this thread seem to be either talking past each other or saying similar things but in an antagonistic way.)
larryniven said: And, again, probably all of this is academic for the time being? Like you said, there's no real indication that anybody actually will ban AI here any time soon, so maybe we're just counting angels on pin-heads. It's just weird to me that so many people in this thread seem to be either talking past each other or saying similar things but in an antagonistic way.
There we are then
I feel a lot of people here are simply not getting it. You're not going to be able to ban AI when no one can tell if it's AI. So it's a matter of time before we get a new member here, a "girl" posting videos of herself pieing herself, gunging herself, and no one....no one will be able to tell if it's real or not. And if you don't think it's coming, then oh well.
johnnypie said: I feel a lot of people here are simply not getting it. You're not going to be able to ban AI when no one can tell if it's AI.
So, but, why is that relevant to the decisions we make right now? Or the values or preferences we're discussing right now? In other words, how do you want us to change in response to this future you're describing?
Or, if you don't want any particular change to occur, then why is this an important thing for you to keep trying to tell us?
larryniven said: Potato's point is a curious one, because it goes right back to something that you just said:
A complete ban on AI images/video/etc of real people without the subject's consent
A complete ban of copyright-infringing AI
Potato's stated view errs on the side of caution here (perhaps in an extreme way), and maybe some part of his background reasoning is off in some way, but it seems to me that he's using the same starting premise that you are (namely, no unconstenting real people or copyrighted stuff). So if you're going to cite him as someone who's, like, unfairly endangering the future of AI WAM or something, then it seems to me that it's important for you to say precisely where he went wrong. To me, his values seem to be the same as your values, so it's not immediately obvious to me how you two are reaching opposite conclusions on the subject.
The same, I think, goes with CreamMe. It's a little puzzling to me to see you say that you agree with what she says except for the part where she draws a conclusion that's different from yours. Like, I come into these conversations with the assumption that people who have (roughly) the same values and the same evidence should reach (roughly) the same conclusion. But it seems like that's not happening for you and these other people, and I'm not sure why.
(And, again, probably all of this is academic for the time being? Like you said, there's no real indication that anybody actually will ban AI here any time soon, so maybe we're just counting angels on pin-heads. It's just weird to me that so many people in this thread seem to be either talking past each other or saying similar things but in an antagonistic way.)
A complete ban on AI images/video/etc of real people without the subject's consent A complete ban of copyright-infringing AI Potato's stated view errs on the side of caution here (perhaps in an extreme way), and maybe some part of his background reasoning is off in some way, but it seems to me that he's using the same starting premise that you are (namely, no unconstenting real people or copyrighted stuff). So if you're going to cite him as someone who's, like, unfairly endangering the future of AI WAM or something, then it seems to me that it's important for you to say precisely where he went wrong. To me, his values seem to be the same as your values, so it's not immediately obvious to me how you two are reaching opposite conclusions on the subject.
The same, I think, goes with CreamMe. It's a little puzzling to me to see you say that you agree with what she says except for the part where she draws a conclusion that's different from yours. Like, I come into these conversations with the assumption that people who have (roughly) the same values and the same evidence should reach (roughly) the same conclusion. But it seems like that's not happening for you and these other people, and I'm not sure why.
(And, again, probably all of this is academic for the time being? Like you said, there's no real indication that anybody actually will ban AI here any time soon, so maybe we're just counting angels on pin-heads. It's just weird to me that so many people in this thread seem to be either talking past each other or saying similar things but in an antagonistic way.)
The difference is that we have different lived experiences and different perspectives on the evidence presented. I use AI regularly and have been following it in the news in regards to both potential regulation and new technology. Despite my jaded views on humanity in general, I believe that AI can be a good thing when the proper guardrails are in place. The guardrails should be to protect AI from us, not us from AI. AI is a tool; humans are the problem. We can't exactly ban humans outright (at least not until the singularity, right?
), and banning AI won't fix humanity, so we need to put limits on what humanity can produce. I figure applying the site's current rules to AI and implementing stricter enforcement across the board (human-produced and AI-produced) would solve a lot of the issues. We already have rules against piracy, deepfakes, and non-consensual content, so stricter enforcement - including user reporting both on here and on whatever external hosting services the offenders upload to - should help solve the issue, probably in combination with a posting limit to prevent spam (maybe limit only AI-tagged uploads to a reasonable amount, and remove any untagged AI content as soon as it's discovered?).
People always expect the authorities (admin/mods) to keep the sites clean, but we, the users, can make increased enforcement a lot more effective by reporting the offending content/users as we encounter it rather than waiting for the mods to find it.
johnnypie said: I feel a lot of people here are simply not getting it. You're not going to be able to ban AI when no one can tell if it's AI. So it's a matter of time before we get a new member here, a "girl" posting videos of herself pieing herself, gunging herself, and no one....no one will be able to tell if it's real or not. And if you don't think it's coming, then oh well.
If we can't ban it because we can't identify it, then there's really nothing this site can do about it. But even as someone with high hopes for AI realism, I don't see unidentifiable AI being anywhere in our near future. Images... maybe. But not video. Especially not long videos.
Trying to raise the panic meter does nothing here, because the site won't be able to do anything if someone uploads completely real-looking AI content until it's discovered to be AI, and then at that point it's breaking the rule about tagging AI, making it removable by the mods.
johnnypie said: I feel a lot of people here are simply not getting it. You're not going to be able to ban AI when no one can tell if it's AI. So it's a matter of time before we get a new member here, a "girl" posting videos of herself pieing herself, gunging herself, and no one....no one will be able to tell if it's real or not. And if you don't think it's coming, then oh well.
Put a time estimate on this. 1yr, 5yrs, 10yrs? At the minute I hear a lot of "sky is falling" fear mongering.
Now, playing devil's advocate IF you were instead talking about about fake profiles with a handful of AI images, well I think that ship has already sailed. Whether it is through custom trained loras or the new nano banana pro model I think we've reached that point already.
I think though it's important to differentiate the potential impact on 2 areas. potential catfishing and fake profiles and the other no less serious issue of non consensual AI, fetish and non fetish.
as far as producing anything comparable to most producer wam content, I think we're still a long long way from that.
Kabe22 said:
If we can't ban it because we can't identify it, then there's really nothing this site can do about it. But even as someone with high hopes for AI realism, I don't see unidentifiable AI being anywhere in our near future. Images... maybe. But not video. Especially not long videos.
Trying to raise the panic meter does nothing here, because the site won't be able to do anything if someone uploads completely real-looking AI content until it's discovered to be AI, and then at that point it's breaking the rule about tagging AI, making it removable by the mods.
johnnypie said: I feel a lot of people here are simply not getting it. You're not going to be able to ban AI when no one can tell if it's AI. So it's a matter of time before we get a new member here, a "girl" posting videos of herself pieing herself, gunging herself, and no one....no one will be able to tell if it's real or not. And if you don't think it's coming, then oh well.
If we can't ban it because we can't identify it, then there's really nothing this site can do about it. But even as someone with high hopes for AI realism, I don't see unidentifiable AI being anywhere in our near future. Images... maybe. But not video. Especially not long videos.
Trying to raise the panic meter does nothing here, because the site won't be able to do anything if someone uploads completely real-looking AI content until it's discovered to be AI, and then at that point it's breaking the rule about tagging AI, making it removable by the mods.
Get out of my head
 Love you, too |
I'm against AI wam, it's not for me. I like watching real women, do real messy things, having actual real human reactions. I know some people on the forum are able to disassociate, but I can't. I don't care how realistic the technology will get, the second I find out something is not real, it will do nothing for me. I don't have the ability to disassociate, once I find out it's not an actual person, it's meaningless. This is why the current YouTube search engine irritates me, because it's currently over flooded with fake AI wam lol.
Kabe22 said: I figure applying the site's current rules to AI and implementing stricter enforcement across the board (human-produced and AI-produced) would solve a lot of the issues. We already have rules against piracy, deepfakes, and non-consensual content, so stricter enforcement - including user reporting both on here and on whatever external hosting services the offenders upload to - should help solve the issue, probably in combination with a posting limit to prevent spam (maybe limit only AI-tagged uploads to a reasonable amount, and remove any untagged AI content as soon as it's discovered?).
People always expect the authorities (admin/mods) to keep the sites clean, but we, the users, can make increased enforcement a lot more effective by reporting the offending content/users as we encounter it rather than waiting for the mods to find it.
People always expect the authorities (admin/mods) to keep the sites clean, but we, the users, can make increased enforcement a lot more effective by reporting the offending content/users as we encounter it rather than waiting for the mods to find it.
Reporting and hoping for the best leaves the mods playing whack a mole with A.I. abusers forever. We need a repeat offenders policy around abusing A.I.
dalamar666 said: Reporting and hoping for the best leaves the mods playing whack a mole with A.I. abusers forever. We need a repeat offenders policy around abusing A.I.
In terms of enforcement, I think part of the problem is that there's no middle ground between "Please don't do that" and "Banned for life!" I've seen other forums where people can get banned for a day, or a week, or a month, etc. E.g. if 2 people are having a heated argument, they might both get a 1-day ban to cool down. If someone keeps doing the same thing wrong, there can be an escalating level of response while still giving them a chance to correct their behaviour.
flank said:
In terms of enforcement, I think part of the problem is that there's no middle ground between "Please don't do that" and "Banned for life!" I've seen other forums where people can get banned for a day, or a week, or a month, etc. E.g. if 2 people are having a heated argument, they might both get a 1-day ban to cool down. If someone keeps doing the same thing wrong, there can be an escalating level of response while still giving them a chance to correct their behaviour.
dalamar666 said: Reporting and hoping for the best leaves the mods playing whack a mole with A.I. abusers forever. We need a repeat offenders policy around abusing A.I.
In terms of enforcement, I think part of the problem is that there's no middle ground between "Please don't do that" and "Banned for life!" I've seen other forums where people can get banned for a day, or a week, or a month, etc. E.g. if 2 people are having a heated argument, they might both get a 1-day ban to cool down. If someone keeps doing the same thing wrong, there can be an escalating level of response while still giving them a chance to correct their behaviour.
There is a bit of a middle ground. Accounts can be restricted. For example a user repeatedly got AI images removed that were pictures of kids, and after a few different reports, eventually got restricted from uploading any images without getting their account deleted. I think they then deleted their account themselves later on. There were dozens if not hundreds of AI images of kids in albums called things like "The dad gets the kids" and "The kids get it". They even got WOTD by doing it. Hardly anyone seemed to notice because this all happened at around the same time as "Kelsey Roses isn't real", and if they did notice, there was more of a furore that it was AI than that it was kids.
But anyway, I digress. There are some options in between "nothing" and "ban".
Kabe22 said:
The difference is that we have different lived experiences and different perspectives on the evidence presented. I use AI regularly and have been following it in the news in regards to both potential regulation and new technology. Despite my jaded views on humanity in general, I believe that AI can be a good thing when the proper guardrails are in place.
The difference is that we have different lived experiences and different perspectives on the evidence presented. I use AI regularly and have been following it in the news in regards to both potential regulation and new technology. Despite my jaded views on humanity in general, I believe that AI can be a good thing when the proper guardrails are in place.
I think you're burying the lede here, no? Like, I grant that the following two statements are different:
"I believe that AI can be a good thing when the proper guardrails are in place." "I believe that AI can be an acceptable thing when the proper guardrails are in place." That's a smallish difference, but I understand why people are getting hung up on it. But even so, the first halves there don't seem to be the crux of most of what we're disagreeing or worrying about. It's the second half. (For example, it's the question of whether "the proper guardrails" should include bans, or what types of bans, or how they're enforced, etc.) Moreover, to me the first clause seems like something that's almost not even amenable to debate at all. You think it's a way to enhance your creativity because that aligns with your experience; PiedVictim thinks it's a way to evade the burdens of creativity because that aligns with their experience; so the two of you can debate all day but the debate is unlikely to give you a new lived experience and so it probably won't change your mind.
So to me the thing that's most worth talking about is the second clause - which, again, it sure sounds like (almost?) everyone agrees on, at least on a surface level. In other words, it seems like almost everyone is willing in theory to accept the presence of AI materials here given "the proper guardrails." So, again, if there's superficial agreement, why does the flavor of disagreement linger? Personal experience is not an answer here, because a single person's lived experience is no more relevant to AI regulation than it would be to the regulation of insert-political-topic-here (guns, vaccines, immigration, whatever).
AI is a tool; humans are the problem.
Yeah, I mean, this is almost verbatim what CreamMe said.
We can't exactly ban humans outright (at least not until the singularity, right? ), and banning AI won't fix humanity, so we need to put limits on what humanity can produce.
), and banning AI won't fix humanity, so we need to put limits on what humanity can produce.I might be very wrong here, but I don't think the point of banning AI would be to fix humanity (any more than, again, people think that they're going to fix humanity by banning guns or vaccines). I think the point of a ban would be precisely "to put limits on what humanity can produce" (or, maybe more accurately, disseminate).
I figure applying the site's current rules to AI and implementing stricter enforcement across the board (human-produced and AI-produced) would solve a lot of the issues. We already have rules against piracy, deepfakes, and non-consensual content, so stricter enforcement - including user reporting both on here and on whatever external hosting services the offenders upload to - should help solve the issue, probably in combination with a posting limit to prevent spam (maybe limit only AI-tagged uploads to a reasonable amount, and remove any untagged AI content as soon as it's discovered?).
People always expect the authorities (admin/mods) to keep the sites clean, but we, the users, can make increased enforcement a lot more effective by reporting the offending content/users as we encounter it rather than waiting for the mods to find it.
People always expect the authorities (admin/mods) to keep the sites clean, but we, the users, can make increased enforcement a lot more effective by reporting the offending content/users as we encounter it rather than waiting for the mods to find it.
To me this feels like the thing that is closest to reaching the substance of the disagreement (such as it is) over a total ban. Like, I don't know how personal experience is supposed to help that disagreement, I don't know how the idea of fixing humanity is supposed to help, but I do think that the people who've talked about banning AI should be able to respond to this idea in a substantive, non-irrelevant way. (Oh, and upon closer inspection, it seems dalamar already has
)What really isn't being addressed, if we're talking about AI's potential harm to producers, will be how easy it will become to create AI images/videos and the expense. Right now it's difficult, tons of correct prompts and token expenses. But like anything tech related, the wider the adoption the more the price drops. I bought my first big screen TV for $3,000. Now I can throw one in my cart at Walmart for $300.
What I'm getting at this this; if AI tools become so easy to use that anyone can create images/videos and the cost becomes negligible, wammers will be creating their own content, won't be posting it here, and all of a sudden producers will see their sales fall off a cliff. And no one will have to worry about ethics, because you'll have no faint clue what people are creating privately.
What I'm getting at this this; if AI tools become so easy to use that anyone can create images/videos and the cost becomes negligible, wammers will be creating their own content, won't be posting it here, and all of a sudden producers will see their sales fall off a cliff. And no one will have to worry about ethics, because you'll have no faint clue what people are creating privately.
johnnypie said: What really isn't being addressed, if we're talking about AI's potential harm to producers, will be how easy it will become to create AI images/videos and the expense. Right now it's difficult, tons of correct prompts and token expenses. But like anything tech related, the wider the adoption the more the price drops. I bought my first big screen TV for $3,000. Now I can throw one in my cart at Walmart for $300.
What I'm getting at this this; if AI tools become so easy to use that anyone can create images/videos and the cost becomes negligible, wammers will be creating their own content, won't be posting it here, and all of a sudden producers will see their sales fall off a cliff. And no one will have to worry about ethics, because you'll have no faint clue what people are creating privately.
What I'm getting at this this; if AI tools become so easy to use that anyone can create images/videos and the cost becomes negligible, wammers will be creating their own content, won't be posting it here, and all of a sudden producers will see their sales fall off a cliff. And no one will have to worry about ethics, because you'll have no faint clue what people are creating privately.
I'll ask again. What time scale do you think you will comparable to the producer content we have here. Pick a producer.. let say a 15min clip. Similar quality, high degree of mess etc.
I genuinely can't see it in the next 5 years, perhaps more
messg said:
I'll ask again. What time scale do you think you will comparable to the producer content we have here. Pick a producer.. let say a 15min clip. Similar quality, high degree of mess etc.
I genuinely can't see it in the next 5 years, perhaps more
johnnypie said: What really isn't being addressed, if we're talking about AI's potential harm to producers, will be how easy it will become to create AI images/videos and the expense. Right now it's difficult, tons of correct prompts and token expenses. But like anything tech related, the wider the adoption the more the price drops. I bought my first big screen TV for $3,000. Now I can throw one in my cart at Walmart for $300.
What I'm getting at this this; if AI tools become so easy to use that anyone can create images/videos and the cost becomes negligible, wammers will be creating their own content, won't be posting it here, and all of a sudden producers will see their sales fall off a cliff. And no one will have to worry about ethics, because you'll have no faint clue what people are creating privately.
What I'm getting at this this; if AI tools become so easy to use that anyone can create images/videos and the cost becomes negligible, wammers will be creating their own content, won't be posting it here, and all of a sudden producers will see their sales fall off a cliff. And no one will have to worry about ethics, because you'll have no faint clue what people are creating privately.
I'll ask again. What time scale do you think you will comparable to the producer content we have here. Pick a producer.. let say a 15min clip. Similar quality, high degree of mess etc.
I genuinely can't see it in the next 5 years, perhaps more
I've got to edit my reply because larryniven said it was disrespectful, and god knows you don't want to get on the wrong side of larryniven. Sorry johnnypie
I play around with AI a lot and based on what I see, I'll agree with your 5 year timeline. Also, and I stated this before, "vanilla" scenes will be easy to create, but hard guardrails go up as soon as any open source AI platform determines that it's porn'ish. So producers creating videos with nudity will be safe for quite a while. Then you have to run off to porn AI platforms which charge an arm and a leg and I don't see those costs coming down anytime soon.
johnnypie said: Then you have to run off to porn AI platforms which charge an arm and a leg...
No, you don't. I use an open source model to produce nude clips and they cost a few cents each. The limitation isn't nudity, it's continuity. This is a non-trivial technical problem.
thereald said: Oh come on messg. don't you get it? AI will magically and inevitably get so much better and cheaper and then people will only use AI and not spend money on producers. Our wonderful producers will then starve and (etc.)
Can you please try to say this without the mockery and the laughing emojis and all that stuff? Like, I'm skeptical about the technology too, but there's no need to be this disrespectful to someone who's trying to engage in a serious conversation.
larryniven said:
Can you please try to say this without the mockery and the laughing emojis and all that stuff? Like, I'm skeptical about the technology too, but there's no need to be this disrespectful to someone who's trying to engage in a serious conversation.
thereald said: Oh come on messg. don't you get it? AI will magically and inevitably get so much better and cheaper and then people will only use AI and not spend money on producers. Our wonderful producers will then starve and (etc.)
Can you please try to say this without the mockery and the laughing emojis and all that stuff? Like, I'm skeptical about the technology too, but there's no need to be this disrespectful to someone who's trying to engage in a serious conversation.
OK then, I'll edit my reply
larryniven said: I think you're burying the lede here, no? Like, I grant that the following two statements are different:
"I believe that AI can be a good thing when the proper guardrails are in place."
"I believe that AI can be an acceptable thing when the proper guardrails are in place."
That's a smallish difference, but I understand why people are getting hung up on it. But even so, the first halves there don't seem to be the crux of most of what we're disagreeing or worrying about. It's the second half. (For example, it's the question of whether "the proper guardrails" should include bans, or what types of bans, or how they're enforced, etc.) Moreover, to me the first clause seems like something that's almost not even amenable to debate at all. You think it's a way to enhance your creativity because that aligns with your experience; PiedVictim thinks it's a way to evade the burdens of creativity because that aligns with their experience; so the two of you can debate all day but the debate is unlikely to give you a new lived experience and so it probably won't change your mind.
"I believe that AI can be a good thing when the proper guardrails are in place." "I believe that AI can be an acceptable thing when the proper guardrails are in place." That's a smallish difference, but I understand why people are getting hung up on it. But even so, the first halves there don't seem to be the crux of most of what we're disagreeing or worrying about. It's the second half. (For example, it's the question of whether "the proper guardrails" should include bans, or what types of bans, or how they're enforced, etc.) Moreover, to me the first clause seems like something that's almost not even amenable to debate at all. You think it's a way to enhance your creativity because that aligns with your experience; PiedVictim thinks it's a way to evade the burdens of creativity because that aligns with their experience; so the two of you can debate all day but the debate is unlikely to give you a new lived experience and so it probably won't change your mind.
He and I disagree because we see AI fundamentally differently. He sees it as a be-all, end-all of creativity, a replacement for creativity. I see it as a tool to do the things I consider unimportant to my prepwork, so I can focus on the aspects that I genuinely enjoy, the world-building, the lore, the NPCs, the maps, the things my players will encounter, and how my world reacts to the things the players do. In my prep, art is something nice to have that I worry about at the end, after I've done the rest of the work. If I run out of time prepping, then not having art won't hurt anything.
larryniven said: So, again, if there's superficial agreement, why does the flavor of disagreement linger?
Because the "flavor of disagreement" is a debate over banning AI vs limiting it vs a Wild West where anything goes. Each of those has very different outcomes.
larryniven said:
Yeah, I mean, this is almost verbatim what CreamMe said.
AI is a tool; humans are the problem.
Yeah, I mean, this is almost verbatim what CreamMe said.
Hence why I agreed with her comment.
larryniven said:
I might be very wrong here, but I don't think the point of banning AI would be to fix humanity (any more than, again, people think that they're going to fix humanity by banning guns or vaccines). I think the point of a ban would be precisely "to put limits on what humanity can produce" (or, maybe more accurately, disseminate).
We can't exactly ban humans outright (at least not until the singularity, right? ), and banning AI won't fix humanity, so we need to put limits on what humanity can produce.
), and banning AI won't fix humanity, so we need to put limits on what humanity can produce.I might be very wrong here, but I don't think the point of banning AI would be to fix humanity (any more than, again, people think that they're going to fix humanity by banning guns or vaccines). I think the point of a ban would be precisely "to put limits on what humanity can produce" (or, maybe more accurately, disseminate).
I think you're getting lost in the words and missing my point: AI is a tool; humans are the problem. Banning AI would be just another bandaid on the problem, when the solution would involve putting our thousands of years of psychological knowledge to work on a massive scale, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
A ban prevents its use, whereas allowing it with restrictions doesn't penalize people for using it unless they choose to violate those restrictions.
larryniven said:
To me this feels like the thing that is closest to reaching the substance of the disagreement (such as it is) over a total ban. Like, I don't know how personal experience is supposed to help that disagreement, I don't know how the idea of fixing humanity is supposed to help, but I do think that the people who've talked about banning AI should be able to respond to this idea in a substantive, non-irrelevant way. (Oh, and upon closer inspection, it seems dalamar already has)
I figure applying the site's current rules to AI and implementing stricter enforcement across the board (human-produced and AI-produced) would solve a lot of the issues. We already have rules against piracy, deepfakes, and non-consensual content, so stricter enforcement - including user reporting both on here and on whatever external hosting services the offenders upload to - should help solve the issue, probably in combination with a posting limit to prevent spam (maybe limit only AI-tagged uploads to a reasonable amount, and remove any untagged AI content as soon as it's discovered?).
People always expect the authorities (admin/mods) to keep the sites clean, but we, the users, can make increased enforcement a lot more effective by reporting the offending content/users as we encounter it rather than waiting for the mods to find it.
People always expect the authorities (admin/mods) to keep the sites clean, but we, the users, can make increased enforcement a lot more effective by reporting the offending content/users as we encounter it rather than waiting for the mods to find it.
To me this feels like the thing that is closest to reaching the substance of the disagreement (such as it is) over a total ban. Like, I don't know how personal experience is supposed to help that disagreement, I don't know how the idea of fixing humanity is supposed to help, but I do think that the people who've talked about banning AI should be able to respond to this idea in a substantive, non-irrelevant way. (Oh, and upon closer inspection, it seems dalamar already has
) Personal experience has nothing to do with banning AI. I'm not the only one who uses AI as a tool to supplement my creativity rather than do the creative work for me. That's a common way AI is used by the general public.
"Fixing humanity" was a tongue-in-cheek statement, not meant to be taken literally, nor was it meant to be applied to the discussion as a whole.
dalamar666 said: Reporting and hoping for the best leaves the mods playing whack a mole with A.I. abusers forever. We need a repeat offenders policy around abusing A.I.
That was why I said to report "content/users." Reporting the content and getting it deleted is just the first step in the process. Repeat offenders can get restricted, and offenders who don't fix themselves after that get banned.
flank said: In terms of enforcement, I think part of the problem is that there's no middle ground between "Please don't do that" and "Banned for life!" I've seen other forums where people can get banned for a day, or a week, or a month, etc. E.g. if 2 people are having a heated argument, they might both get a 1-day ban to cool down. If someone keeps doing the same thing wrong, there can be an escalating level of response while still giving them a chance to correct their behaviour.
Repeat offender means they have been caught posting what we all agree is bad A.I. Caught posting non-consensual content. This isin't about two people going back and forth or anything else. This is about helping the mods not having to constantly play whack a mole with the same accounts. These accounts could post a new A.I. block of pictures every day for a year. The mods would have to remove the pictures from this account 365 times. Does that sound like a productive use of their time?
Kabe22 said:
The thing is, using AI can free up time that you'd rather spend on your other hobbies.
I play D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade, Pathfinder, and some other tabletop RPGs. I run longterm D&D campaigns and oneshots. I write the backstories and lore, plan the sessions, create NPCs and monsters, come up with the encounters my players will face, create the battle maps, and all the other stuff that goes into planning a session. I homebrew (create myself instead of using a pre-written module) 75+% of everything I use in my games. Then I use AI for the tokens, scenery, and NPC pictures since we play online and I can't use the miniatures I've collected or painted myself.
If I had to sit down and create all the art myself, I wouldn't have time to do all the other session prep. And as I've mentioned previously, I don't have money to commission art, especially not for things that will only be seen for a half hour or so and then never seen again.
I'm a very creative person, but my talents lie in writing and imagination, not in creating visual art. There are still some art things I do myself that I won't use AI for (using Inkarnate to create maps, doing hand-drawn sketches for immersive handouts, etc).
The AI WAM images I've shared on here are only a portion of the AI images I've made, and it's all for fun to spend some down time on. Fashion is a passion of mine (not so much keeping up with current trends or designer monstrosities, but with my own style and the styles I like to see), so I spend a lot of time using AI to create the looks I like. Often I'll transition from the style itself to getting it wet or messy, but I usually start with clean, dry images. I also create character concept images for NPCs or characters I might someday play, create dumb pun images, and turn my lame jokes into images.
Calling AI users lazy is disengenious. Yes, it's a stereotype and stereotypes often have a strong base in reality, but a lot of people are like me and use AI for fun or to fill in the gaps, not to do all the work for us. Others, like messg, get really in-depth with the inner workings of the more complicated generators, making learning and practice a hobby in itself.
That "empirical evidence" says that 21% of the respondents are willing to buy AI content or pay to create it themselves. That's one out of every five respondents, which is a significant percentage to disregard in favor of the majority. I don't think anyone's advocating for AI to replace real WAM, but there are a lot who are advocating for this site to take a hardline stance against AI.
PiedVictim said: Truth be told, AI lacks that Human touch.
Sure folk can (and have) always say "its the new normal", "its cheaper and better", "its quicker and easier" or whatever reason to try to validate their justification of using it in any form.
But really, in my view, I see them excuses of not doing the arts yourself. Because anyone can do this (in our case, be it self pie-ing or going out there and interacting with others interested in the same fetish and like pie each other or whatever).
Feels like using AI is a refusal to get better at said thing that is generated by a machine. Want to draw? Then draw. Want to write a story? Then write it. Want to make a video? Then make a video. Want a cute dom woman to smash a pie in your face? Then go out there, make connections/relationships and fulfill that.
It doesn't matter if the works aren't perfect (no one is at the beginning honestly), the point is that there was actual effort to making it, learn your mistakes and that you keep going at it again. With patience, eventually you'll improve and be the ideal artist you wanted to be.
But that's only actually possible if you don't waste your time on using AI Slop.
Sure folk can (and have) always say "its the new normal", "its cheaper and better", "its quicker and easier" or whatever reason to try to validate their justification of using it in any form.
But really, in my view, I see them excuses of not doing the arts yourself. Because anyone can do this (in our case, be it self pie-ing or going out there and interacting with others interested in the same fetish and like pie each other or whatever).
Feels like using AI is a refusal to get better at said thing that is generated by a machine. Want to draw? Then draw. Want to write a story? Then write it. Want to make a video? Then make a video. Want a cute dom woman to smash a pie in your face? Then go out there, make connections/relationships and fulfill that.
It doesn't matter if the works aren't perfect (no one is at the beginning honestly), the point is that there was actual effort to making it, learn your mistakes and that you keep going at it again. With patience, eventually you'll improve and be the ideal artist you wanted to be.
But that's only actually possible if you don't waste your time on using AI Slop.
The thing is, using AI can free up time that you'd rather spend on your other hobbies.
I play D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade, Pathfinder, and some other tabletop RPGs. I run longterm D&D campaigns and oneshots. I write the backstories and lore, plan the sessions, create NPCs and monsters, come up with the encounters my players will face, create the battle maps, and all the other stuff that goes into planning a session. I homebrew (create myself instead of using a pre-written module) 75+% of everything I use in my games. Then I use AI for the tokens, scenery, and NPC pictures since we play online and I can't use the miniatures I've collected or painted myself.
If I had to sit down and create all the art myself, I wouldn't have time to do all the other session prep. And as I've mentioned previously, I don't have money to commission art, especially not for things that will only be seen for a half hour or so and then never seen again.
I'm a very creative person, but my talents lie in writing and imagination, not in creating visual art. There are still some art things I do myself that I won't use AI for (using Inkarnate to create maps, doing hand-drawn sketches for immersive handouts, etc).
The AI WAM images I've shared on here are only a portion of the AI images I've made, and it's all for fun to spend some down time on. Fashion is a passion of mine (not so much keeping up with current trends or designer monstrosities, but with my own style and the styles I like to see), so I spend a lot of time using AI to create the looks I like. Often I'll transition from the style itself to getting it wet or messy, but I usually start with clean, dry images. I also create character concept images for NPCs or characters I might someday play, create dumb pun images, and turn my lame jokes into images.
Calling AI users lazy is disengenious. Yes, it's a stereotype and stereotypes often have a strong base in reality, but a lot of people are like me and use AI for fun or to fill in the gaps, not to do all the work for us. Others, like messg, get really in-depth with the inner workings of the more complicated generators, making learning and practice a hobby in itself.
larryniven said: By "assume," what do you mean? Because what I did was more like "conclude on the basis of evidence." As I said before, I'm going off of the poll results, which are empirical evidence and not, like, some kind of sinister bias of mine. Again, I really need you to read carefully and respond to what I'm actually saying instead of doing whatever this is.
That "empirical evidence" says that 21% of the respondents are willing to buy AI content or pay to create it themselves. That's one out of every five respondents, which is a significant percentage to disregard in favor of the majority. I don't think anyone's advocating for AI to replace real WAM, but there are a lot who are advocating for this site to take a hardline stance against AI.
I'm gonna be continued to be real about this, if using AI frees more time for other hobbies, I wouldn't want to do other hobbies if that's the case. Because at that point, regardless if I am a creative person or not, whats the point of doing other hobbies if they too cost time to do them. I can just have a AI do that experience for me instead. Like you said yourself with Tabletops, you create that lore, the story and map-making, but that is time consuming too, so why wouldn't you want to use an AI for that?
As I stated before, the art doesn't have to be perfect (hell, I would be content that, in your case of making npcs/enemies in your campaigns, if they were just hand drawn stick figures. Not the best, not perfect but I know its from a person that put in MINIMAL effort put in. Still don't want to draw, that's fine too but I rather take pre-existing character tokens created by other people, free to use by anyone, then AI generated amalgamations pretending to be art).
Alongside that, if a hobby is too expensive (like making commissions to fulfill WAM kink/fantasies), then I just wouldn't participate in it and focused elsewhere. Sure that cost me a hobby but saves time to do other works, and certainly doesn't disrespect people who put effort in ALL of it (not some with AI filled in gaps but all of it genuinely).
Yes, you can say using AI is just being used fun, to each their own I suppose. However, its disturbing (and not saying you) that other folk will believe that AI will replace the genuine real deal. I'm sorry but I refuse to acknowledge nor accept that brain rot.
Sponsors
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In