I have read the rule about AI images under the terms of service. There are two things on my mind:

1. Publishing generated images of celebrities

It seems wrong. I am worried about the reputation of this site if it becomes a place with this content.

2. Publishing generated images produced from training using a producers content

It seems wrong. I'm pretty sure most producers and models would not want people to reproduce their content.


I trained a model using over 300 images from 39 scenes I have purchased from my favorite producers store. It is fun to generate images about things I have fantasized about. I'm not into celebrities, but I was able to generate images of almost all of the celebrities mentioned here: https://umd.net/forums/celebs-that-you-like-that-have-never-bee . I want to show off how good the results I am getting are and post the image of the celebrities wearing corsets in the style of my favorite producer. It just seems wrong.

Has this came up before in moderation? I'm wondering what others think about this. I'm wonder what producers and models think about people using their content in this way.

Using the images of any real-world person, whether they are a celebrity, producer's model, or even random ordinary folk, to generate sexual, or fetish-purpose, imagery, without their consent, is wrong. Generating a fantasy person based on an AI's overall knowlege of "people" is one thing. But anything involving a specific real individual, that's crossing a line.

I would say any such AI use here should be banned. Fantasy people, and real-world models who have specifically and provably conmsented to public use of their image, fine. Any other real-world people, hard no. As with all other sexual or fetish activity, informed consent is everything.

AI will bring a whole new set of challenges, I think most related to copyright and intellectual property. I feel like the consensus right now is that most people (not all) are okay with AI training on copyrighted data, including text and images all over the internet. This is what we're all doing right now. If the AI was ultimately plagiarizing everything and just outputting a patchwork remix of text or images it had found, that would be clear copyright abuse, but it doesn't seem to be doing that. It's garnering a deeper understanding of what it's being trained on and generating new stuff. If newly generated content does not actually resemble the celebrity, the text, or the other data it has been trained on, and it's really creating a new work based on what it knows, then I figure most of us would not have a problem with it training on any publicly-available data.

If people are using AI to create altered images that actually contain the celebrity's likeness, then it's a lot like the fan-created images that have always been around. People have always taken actual pics of celebrities and then Photoshopped some slime onto them or put them in a dunk tank or whatever. We've never had an issue with that because the result was either never realistic enough to believe it was real, or it was well known that the celebrity never actually did that.

But now even Photoshop itself has AI. Times are changing, and AI content won't be distinguishable from the real thing for too much longer, plus it's so easy to do, that we can expect a large volume of this content eventually. So either we have to ban all realistic-looking illustrations and alterations of any person bar none, or we have to allow hand-drawn stuff but not AI-generated stuff (probably impossible insofar as moderation is concerned because those worlds are merging), or what'll most likely happen is that we'll require a disclaimer for any realistic generated image of a non-wam model, no matter who it is or what's happening in the picture or video.

I believe requiring a disclaimer for realistic-looking images of people could work, so long as the images are just as benign as all the past Photoshops making them look like they are getting pied or wearing corsets. But if you have a person or a celebrity fucking in slime, that might be a different story regardless of any disclaimer. So maybe the sexual depiction of a real person is where that line should be drawn?

I'll keep an eye on the overall discussion and update our terms as I learn more.
Thanks for alerting me to this DM1

Photoshop AI, also known as Neural Filters is not the AI as you might be implying. It's a set of tools, algorithms and scripts to basically skip many steps involved for a specific look. For instance Depth Map filter does most (within reason) of the heavy lifting to create a depth map or depth field blur or you can export the depth map for another purpose. It's not pulling any information outside of what you have already given it; your work or photo. Basically all the tools in the Neural filters tab is nothing you cannot accomplish on your own through traditional methods in Photoshop. It's simply saving you the few steps to get in the ballpark. It's still recommended you do the touchups traditionally as some of the filters are in beta testing.

As for the generalizing, I'm not up for anyone's likeness or work being used without their permission and that's firm and nonnegotiable. It can be nuanced or worded in any which way people feel, it still is what it is. Like I said many times before, AI can be a helpful tool but I don't see people using it responsibly enough to call it that.

I'm quite divided about this. The images created here are really great - the amazing results are self evident. What gets me is that when I'm looking at actual photos, I have more connection because I know that that very mess was running down the actual person's skin and soaking into their clothes, and I enjoy imagining being them at that moment and feeling those sensations. I tend to view the generated images as art, with great artistic merit by the creators, and they fire the imagination, but knowing that they are not a record of something that actually happened to an actual person puts them into a different category. I'm beginning to be concerned that when it becomes impossible to tell the difference I'll no longer believe anything I see.

Do keep the AI images going though - they are certainly worth the effort!

Perhaps the antidote to not believing anything I see will simply to mess myself good and proper more often. Then I'll know it's real!

Ok so it sounds like consent is important. For example, if I am a fan of Jayce and mudpuddlevisuals and generated 20 images of her in a crossover style photo set, it's probably best to ask permission before posting.

The images which I have generated from my trained model resembles the producer's photography style, their set (mud pit), background (forest), and the general style of how their models look (covered in mud). I should probably get consent from the producer as well even though it does not directly plagiarize their work. Maybe if I train on multiple producer's content so that the images are indistinguishable, then consent is not needed and crediting would be nice.

Deception does not seem like a good thing for the producers/models. If someone felt deceived or confused, maybe they would not buy content. It seems easier to deceive someone if there are 100 generated images vs a few photoshopped images. A disclaimer and clear post title seems necessary. I am noticing images on reddit r/wetandmessy that are generated but not labeled as such, and no one comments about it so they are probably deceived.

I have some images that I want to share, but I also want to do it respectfully. I want to show off the capabilities, creativeness, and use it for inspiration. I don't want to make it seem like I'm ripping off a producer's content or exploiting a model's likeliness.

Precisely the problem. Keep in mind, no one needs to pursue the individuals. They simply have to have enough case precedence to file a class action lawsuit against the software company responsible. For instance, no one sued Best Buy or another retailer simply because they sold them an HD DVD player for 1,000 bucks before Blueray dominated the format war. They sued Toshiba and they won. There is also court case precedence for an artists work (both visual and musically) and based on how similar it is to the original, the courts have easily sided (or forced an agreed settlement) in favor of the plaintiff.

It's a potential litigious quagmire that I am sure many small funded companies will fold almost immediately and the remaining few would only need to contend with everyone who feels they have something to lose in this fight including actors, production companies, agencies and of course the porn industry. Heaven forbid it hair lips to government and they get involved. We're not talking some manip that clearly looks fake. We are talking content that can do irreparable harm to industry professionals, and people alike if not used responsibly.

I think, as others have mentioned, there's a distinction between "trained on general data" and "trained on a specific human person". AI being able to greate generic women or men to our visual specifications, and involve them in WAM situations, fine, but I think we owe it to all of our human models to ban AI-created WAM scenes *of specific real models* created without their consent, here. Legally that probably needs to cover recognisable people in general but as a producer who works with models, all of whom have their own limits as to levels of nudity, sexiness, etc, in the scenes they appear in, I do think we should be moving to protect our own people from what would effectively be non-consensual abusive image making.

While lots of WAM models do full-nude with masturbation, etc, many do not. It would be wrong for someone to take the image of a model who by choice only does fully-clothed or swimsuit scenes, and have an AI draw fully photorealistic images of them taking part in a full nude toy-insertion orgy. It would also be wrong to take the images of a model who does do full on XXX hardcore, and then create fake images of them taking part in XXX scenes they didn't consent to being in.

And while possibly less hot-button, I'd even say it'd be wrong to take the images of the models from a mostly-nude site and use AI to clothe them in outfits they'd never have worn for real. Just because I might like to see say some of Messygirl's models in boilersuits, doesn't mean that I should be able to train my AI on their models and then start posting sets of them mud-wrestling in overalls.

I think we should have a rule that AI images of identifyable real people, created by training the AI on existing pictures of that specific person, can ohly be posted if the poster has full consent and a signed model release, just as if they'd hired the model and shot a real-world scene.

Generic fantasy people, fair game, anything goes. But actual real models should be protected, at least here on the world's premier WAM hub. I don't kid myself that we can stop people creating images for themselves - you can run and train your own version of Stable Diffusion on a $600 GPU - but I do think we need to be nuanced about what is allowed to be shared here.

That's my take. If the images are that of a real person's likeness, the rules still apply of having permission in the form of use of likeness or model release and all compliance standards must be adhered to. Otherwise you are opening a door to a very dangerous precedent where people may feel they are entitled to use a person's likeness regardless of whether they have permission or not and that is just attention (and behaviors) we don't need amongst our creative community. A model's or persons likeness must be protected at all times. A person's intellectual and creative property must be protected at all times. Full stop.

In most diffusion communities I've seen, the rule is generally "No deep fakes or any diffusion that have a close resemblance to celebrity/public figures".

It's a pretty broad rule but the underlying intent is that even with disclaimers and what not, any hostile individual just has to take the picture and share it alone without disclaimer and any good the disclaimer would've done is instantly nullified.

The whole drama about AI has many folks in an emotional and irrational state. These types aren't going to care about a disclaimer or really anything else, they're just going to cease upon anything they can leverage in any way or manner to further their agendas.

Of course if written informed consent is given then that is a completely different scenario.

In the past I would not have cared about Hollywood actors. I would have cared less about actors and how AI is being used. Seeing a picture of a religious figure wearing a white jacket really bothered me and changed my opinion. A convincing image of a celebrity could go viral and then next thing you know this site is flooded with maniacs when they find this was the source.

Reddit and other sites have been banning deepfake and celebfake communities. Those were explicit so it seems obvious to ban. It is clear when a generated image resembles a celebrity, but it is not clear when it crosses the line from being art to becoming too erotic, sexual, or realistic.

That being said, I have found 2 uses for celebrities:

1. When training, it is nice to use a well known face to test the model to see if it is over trained. If I test 5 celebrities and they no longer look the same, the model is over trained or the captions are bad.
2. Showcasing a result. This could either be showcasing a trained model or showcasing a prompt that gets really good results. It is much more appealing and impressive looking at a familiar face rather than a face which looks like a stock photo.

I have seen some showcasing. It seemed fine, but the more I think about it and read these comments the more it seems wrong. Its probably best to keep Hollywood out of here.

Similar to the WGA strike and their concerns of AI Cutting into their careers as well. This is to be expected and it is expected to get worse if people continue to feel threatened by AIs potential misuse. Again, everyone who has skin in the game is keeping an eye on this development, from architects to artists, from production studios to choreographers. AI won't last 5 minutes if a majority of people feel that their livelihoods are at risk.

As long as they're not perverse, I don't really have a problem with people creating AI images of famous people for their own private enjoyment, if they're not shared with anyone else.

On the other hand, I'm completely against any AI images of real people (whoever they might be) being distributed to anyone else without consent and fully support a ban of such practices here. I think that sharing such images is hugely unfair on the people featured in them.

One slight concern that I have is that one of the model mixes happens to contain an undocumented very obvious likeness of a famous woman who I don't recognise. There's little I can do about that, but if I end up inadvertently including this likeness in an image I've created and uploaded, if someone draws it to my attention I'll remove it immediately.

I see the images that I post in this group show up under the pic archive https://umd.net/picarchive

3. Would people on the main forum feel disappointed or deceived when they find out that the images were generated?

For example, someone may have thought that an image was a preview to a scene which they can purchase. I have frequently browsed this in the past to discover previews of scenes. I can imagine that someone clicks on a picture to see where it came from to see if a store is selling a video. It might be utterly disappointing to find out it is not real.

4. Would people on the main forum be disturbed by any of this content?

Some of the pictures feature disfigured fingers. Most of the people in this group would accept that and ignore it, but people discovering content on the main picture archive might be disturbed by it. Some of the images might be surreal. Some of the pictures may feature women who look identical like twins.

I'm starting to feel real bad about the images that I posted. I think I might want to delete it.

5. Would producers feel threatened that artificial content replace real content?

For the images posted of women in mud using trained data from Mud Puddle Visual photography, I don't want to take away any interest from the real photography. The real photography took years while the images that I generate could take seconds and the training took a few weeks. I have generated 66 thousand images, 38 GB. I could fill this forum with hundreds of images. I don't want generated images to replace real photography. I only want to generate images of creative scenes and fantasies that you would likely never see.

6. How do we draw the line for how young a generated image looks?

For the images of women emerging from cakes, they looked too young. I posted them anyway because they achieved a surreal look which I thought was very interesting. I did not do anything to specify an age other than using "woman" in the prompt and 3 terms in the negative prompt to exclude imagery that is not adults.


I try to generate images that conceal privates because I prefer that look. I generate images that are not sexually explicit but do contain nudity. There are stable diffusion models out there which can achieve sexually explicit content like masturbation and penetration. As this is becoming more popular, I can guarantee that people are going to try and push the limits because it is possible to do so.

I don't want this forum to become a place where people generate and post images to see how young they can get the subject to look.

(I am avoiding using c-words in this forum to avoid this being a word people can search for)

I do like some of the possibilities that this has like generating an image for a custom that you want to ask for. It can be used to express ideas. I just wish that it will only be used for good things.

Edited: I tried to make the points clearer.

I'm not sure how to bring attention to this thread, but I wanted to discuss a 7th topic because I'm starting to feel really bad about where things could go.

7. Should this site ban generated images?

Pros of banning:

* Avoids all ethical problems like deception, creating fakes of celebs or real people, using copyright material to reproduce images of producers styles, and generating images of women who look too young.
* Avoids all legal problems if laws are introduced in the future.
* Producers will not have to feel threatened that generated images and videos take over the site and that customers are getting what they want from generated content.
* Customers do not have to worry about producers leaving because of the point above.
* Customers who do not want this content will not have to see it.
* Everyone who runs this site does not need to deal with moderating the images that people start to post.

Cons of banning:

* People cannot post or sell creative generated images or videos.
* People who enjoy this content on this forum will not get to see it.

There are plenty of other sites which could host this as art or sell it as content which people can buy. There are plenty of other things (disgusting things) that are not on this site and I am glad is not on this site.

Edited: Added an extra con based on Wetmaxiskirts' response.

You're over-reacting to something that's barely been invented. We hardly know the questions yet, much less the answers.

I think it would be a great shame if AI-generated images were banned here. I understand your concerns, but I'm much less worried about them than you are. My feelings are:

- As a rule, I think customers will always prefer real images over faked ones. There are still lots of wrinkles with regard to the quality of AI images when creating images that go beyond head and shoulders type framing.

- If producers had concerns about AI images being posted here potentially being detrimental to them I'm sure they'd be raising them, but I haven't seen anything so far.

- People post links to WAM images and videos that have appeared in films, on TV, freely available online etc etc and, if anything was going to be detrimental to buying WAM producers' content, you'd have thought it would be that. Yet such images and videos have always appeard here and everyone is fine with it. To my mind, AI images are even less of an issue than those I've mentioned.

- I don't think the photos are being forced on anyone who doesn't want to see them, so if the images are required to be posted here or in another suitably titled group/thread, I don't think this will be a problem going forward. Again, people will complain if they're not interested in AI images but feel that they're having to look at them, and I haven't seen that as yet.

- If the mods have qualms about having to review AI images, I'm sure they'll raise them. Obviously they've had to keep an eye on lots of images for many years, so I suspect the only potential danger with AI images would be the potential volume of them as more people get into generating them.

- I've already stated my personal opposition to faked images of real people being posted without their consent. I don't think a decision has been taken on it yet with regard to AI, but edited non-AI images of well-known people have been allowed elsewhere here, so AI images of a similar ilk aren't really any different in that regard.

- If laws do get changed to somehow make things more awkward to share AI images, then I'm sure mods will act appropriately at the time.

I'd encourage you not to worry too much about things and to continue with what you've been doing so enthusiastically and expertly!

I was experimenting with substances. I tried oobleck. There was oobleck on her face and naked body but she was not an adult. This is because what the imagery of oobleck is trained on.

I feel really bad about myself now. Worst now than ever. I was trying really hard to avoid seeing this sort of thing. I cannot sleep and I have nausea. I cannot get the picture out of my head.

I wasn't going to mention this because I don't want to feed any ideas to sick people, but this is why I'm reacting this way.

The prompt I used couldn't even control or prevent this image. It will be used to create sick images, and I cannot even tell you when an image crosses the line and becomes sick. It is quite easy when there is a real age. It is impossible when the image is generated.

I am just continuing to feel worse and worse about this.

If a prompt takes you in a direction that you really don't want to go (as some inevitably will), just delete the corresponding images and change the prompt to try something else instead. No-one else has seen the questionable images but you, so I think there's nothing for you to worry about.

The AI engines are very far from perfect, so on lots of occasions they'll produce something that's gross in one way or another. Just discard the crap and nurture what's working.

I'm sure you're onto this already, but also make sure your main prompts and negative prompt contains everything you can to ensure you just generate images of adults. I'm sorry if I sound patronising, but I just want to help and don't want you to be in anguish about all of this.

At the end of the day there's nothing you can do about what other people generate, all you can do is do the best job you can within the parameters you've set for yourself. You can't and shouldn't take responsibility for others.

I encountered that early on as I was creating a prompt in colloquial language and used "girl" instead of "young woman". It's an easy fix. There are anime characters where I still can't tell the difference. Friend, you are taking this far too seriously.

I don't use "young" or "young woman" because I felt it was quite too close to crossing the line. The term "young woman" may be used to describe someone who is not an adult.

I don't use the term "girl". If you prompt for that with nothing else and no negative term, you will get a very young clothed girl who is very far from being adult. Go to google and do an image search for "girl". That is what you get. Don't use "girl" in the prompt. I use "woman" or "adult woman".

I use 3 terms in the negative prompt to try to exclude these images. It might be necessary to include all synonyms in the negative prompt.

You can check what images were used on the a data set used to train stable diffusion by searching for it https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/ which is a large amount of the images used to train stable diffusion. You can also do google or bing searches to get an idea of what terms are used to describe what ages.


I felt like I was already weird, and now after sitting at my desk and generating these images I feel even worse. Generating images does not seem natural, and it seems really bad for mental health (at least for me).

I don't mean to vent this out, but just as a warning to others in this forum who are interested in generating images.

Edited: removed "12M of the 2.3B images" and replaced with "large amount of images" because that was taken from a comment which was not a valid source.

For me, AI image generation has given me the opportunity to become a pseudo-producer of wetlook content. It could never happen in real-life for all sorts of reasons, so this is the only way it could happen.

By doing it, whilst admittedly pandering to my own preferences, I also feel like I'm giving something to the community that I otherwise couldn't do. After all the years I've been around, it makes me happy to be able to do that.

That assumes anyone's interested in what I'm doing of course, but the indications are there are enough people who enjoy what I'm doing to make me feel like it's worth continuing.

Does it make me feel weird? No it doesn't - IMO it's not really any different to playing a computer game, it's just a different type of game!

Try not to let the ethical doubts get to you. In my view, what you've been doing is wonderful and you have so much knowledge and ability to bring to what is something that's still ground-breaking in this genre. Just steer away from producing anything you feel uncomfortable with and hopefully you'll get your mojo back with what remains.

Thank you for the comments. I don't know what to think or say anymore.

If the points I made become significant issues, I'm sure Messmaster and the people who run and contribute to this site would address it when that time comes.

The ethical issues are very important to me. It impacts my physical and metal wellbeing. If I do something which I feel is wrong, I feel bad about it for a long time.

Reading the replies here influenced my opinion on whether or not it is ethical to post generated images of celebrities. Some of the images I was about to share featured celebrities like the pottery one featuring Anna K. instead. Another issue which occurred for me is that there are images of celebrities when they were not adults like Emma W. which results in unwanted images of younger looking faces. Again I feel sick even mentioning this and I don't know if I should.

Banning probably isn't necessary unless things go out of control. I agree that it would be a shame to do so because posting generated images might give people courage to post ideas and connect socially (like it did for me). Moderation and site changes, like an AI exclude filter, could address some issues like 3 and 4.

There is no correct answer to any of these issues so they will remain unresolved. It is especially difficult when the amount of people who think something is right or wrong is divided in half.

Joining the discussion late and catching up somewhat:

I think that if real people sue, it will be to the sites that allow such material to be posted. As noted earlier, the crooks jump around with spoofed sites and such. Most are in countries that don't give a damn about piracy. Sorry, Messmaster. (The disclaimer requirement sounds like a good idea.)

Using real people's images and video in fictional ways isn't new. Anyone remember Fred Astaire dancing with a vacuum cleaner in a TV commercial? Has to be at least 10 years ago. Or Carrie Fisher in the last "main" Star Wars movie, which started production after she died? The only difference may be that creating such fictions is now within the reach of more people. However I think talent is still an important factor. I had a friend in college with a fancy camera. His photos sucked. Mine taken with his camera were published.

Although I appreciate AI images of women getting hit with pies or emerging from a pool in a sexy dress, I get a special tingle when I know its a real woman.

Attached are two very good fakes posted on Tumblr, both with the hashtag "#make believe." I don't believe either Emma Watson or Jenna Ortega have posed in outfits like these yet. But not all AI or "photoshopped" pictures are being labeled.

It is in reach of more people and does not require that much talent. It only requires practice and experimenting with prompting. People with a GPU can create unrestricted content, and it is becoming easier to set up.

It is interesting to me what you consider is "very good". It is possible to get much better results.

For the celeb topic (1):

This has been a lot faked celeb content, especially on reddit. Reddit has been banning communities that are creating fake sexually explicit images of people like deepfakes, celebfakes, and stablediffusionnsfw. It violates their 3rd rule for requiring someone's consent to post sexually explicit content of them.

I was able to create some convincing images of celebrities in the style of MPV photography. It matches the size and figure of the celebrity. It was even capable of making a black and white image of Barbara Stanwyck. There is certainly a demand to see celebrities on this forum. But, if I used the excuse "obviously it's fake because she would never do that" or "well there is tons of this going on already", it sort of opens the door to post any image of anyone without their consent. Where would the line be drawn: celebrities, supermodels, people/models on this site, people on sites like instagram, pornstars, athletes, TV hosts, your friend or spouse?

Does anyone have any questions about the capabilities?

For the deception topic (3):

I've lurked on reddit occasionally. Some models that are on this site post more on reddit. I have noticed posts like these:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WetAndMessy/comments/13fba4c/i_love_playing_in_summer_mud/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WetAndMessy/comments/12nsiqg/come_play_with_me/

These are not labeled and they have a title written in the first person. The comments do not mention that it looks generated. It seems a little deceptive, although this is typically how a lot of people post on reddit. There are worse things that people can do with deception.

I think the disclaimer in the forum post helps if people go to the link of the post from the forum pic archive. I think most people who comment on the images here recognized that they are generated. I haven't seen negative comments, but I don't know if anyone would comment on an image to say they don't want to see more generated images like it. Maybe people are already used to ignoring content which they don't want to see.


It seems like this is a very modest forum. Maybe some of the topics in this post were not necessary to bring up.

Thank you all so far for the discussion. I started messing around with AI generated content yesterday, and was shocked at how easy it was to create fairly convincing images of celebrities as a beginner. I excitedly posted a handful of early attempts. However, upon further reflection I'm not yet sure that I'm fine with putting those images out into the world, even if the celebs were just wearing evening gowns in water, no more risque than one might find on the cover of a magazine.

I have created a few generic "beautiful woman" images; one in particular legitimately fools me despite me knowing it is AI generated. In that instance, I'm wrestling with whether it is ok to share the image, not knowing exactly how the algorithm works and how much work the AI did, and what kind of source material may have been used. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could inform me.

I must admit it is quite exciting as a longtime consumer to finally have the opportunity to create content, and with the ability to tailor your images to your own preferences. I look forward to playing with these tools, I'm still not sure where I personally stand on all of the issues involved yet, but I definitely feel the community should tread carefully until the ramifications are fully understood. Looking forward to continued discussion on the issue.

Good points Lavette. I was in the same situation. I was a long time lurker and consumer. I generated some images of celebs which I thought about sharing because posting youtube videos or images of celebs have been a recurring theme here. It was the first time I felt like I had anything worth sharing.

It didn't seem so bad to post modest images of celebrities at first.

Since a photo resembling Emma Watson was used in this thread, I am going to post another one that I generated where she is meant to be an adult. How old is Emma Watson in this photo? This is a huge problem for me because I know the data was trained on all of the photos of her. So then we need to make up rules on which celebs are acceptable and which ones are not. Also what kind of clothing could they be wearing before it becomes too sexual? For actors who have done nude scenes, is nudity of them allowed if their privates are not exposed?

Based on the celeb posts get thousands of views, like the one I mentioned with 8K views and 84 comments, there is demand for it. It seems wrong to take advantage of that though. Maybe private communities will form for generating and sharing this content.

The amount of generated content being posted could grow exponentially. Unrelated to the celeb topic (1), I wanted to add some points for reasons to not ban all AI gererated images (topic 7):

* It could encourage VIP subscriptions to download zips of large generated sets of images.
* It could gain some popularity and bring new users.
* It could allow people to create images to express what they are interested in.
* It could allow people to create a profile picture which represents their interests.
* It could be used to express ideas for customs.
* It could be used in the future for a WAM Party where it is realized with images.

On topic #6, regarding how young the character looks in the generated image:

A user posted some pictures of clothed adult Asian women holding pies, smiling, with the words "pie me" on their shirt. I saw the preview thumbnails. This was in the main messy forum. The user deleted the thread after receiving replies with a comment regarding the age of the women characters in the images. I did not see the replies. I saw this was the user's first post. The user deleted their account or went private. I will not link the thread or user in case the user wants to remain private. This is just an example of an interaction that can happen on this forum regarding topic #6.

If the user posted in this group, I probably would have noticed it from a notification sooner and given it feedback. The thumbnails looked pretty good and it incorporated text which I have not seen before.

I don't think any new rule needs to be added for #6. The approval, report, and mod system should work. I don't have much advice for how else to deal with this. Users who share generated images have to be mindful of the reactions, and aware that it can be reported. If the generated images you are sharing are meant to be 18 year old adult women, you may want to include that in the description in the post along with the keywords used in the prompt used to get the result. It is probably better for people to avoid using terms or models that target 18 or 19 and stick with target ages in 20's or 30's.