Wow, I'm glad for everyone's participation and I love reading each of your opinions, everyone has their point and apparently most of you think that the producers of WAM will be able to continue creating real messy art (At least for a while) as long as we can differentiate between AI and the real thing. I can't deny that it scares me a little to think how far technology can advance and how long it takes to go from being fun to terrifying.

I'll say the same thing I did last time this came up- I enjoy making AI pictures, but it's no substitute for the real thing!

It's a fun way to play around with fantasies, and I see it as a way to visualise the things that I imagine in my head. But it's still no substitute for a good imagination - and DEFINITELY no substitute for someone else's imagination, coming up with a fun scene, shooting it with a model and making it reality.

Very true! No one really knows.

There's another theory that the AI has already been trained on basically the whole internet and most of digitized human history, and that training AI on AI-generated content will make the systems collapse.

For example, try uploading an AI-generated photo to a generative AI site and see if it can make something similar. Sometimes it just goes haywire. Is it fixable? Maybe. But there's no guarantees AI content will get way better since it's already been trained on basically all of the existing content, and new content isn't appearing at a fast enough rate to generate another huge leap like we just saw.

That's a theory, anyway.

The real insult was that last time it happened it was AI images of kids (since reported and taken down)

But you should bear in mind that WOTD isn't an award for producers, but something that any member of this site can get. Why shouldn't synthetic images count if people like them?

Can't beat the actual thought of the person behind all the mess. Something AI can't simulate

Because people can churn out synthetic images at a much faster rate. It's an uneven playing field, and producers of real content are at a disadvantage. Yes, WOTD isn't just for producers but I'm sure they appreciate the boost in visibility.

i have to agree with this. I know that sitting behind a computer creating images is probably time consuming, yes.
but? when i get wotd? i get more sales, i have a chance to let you all benefit from that by taking percentages off, etc.
No offense to those who create the ai images but i really dont think they should be allowed wammer of the day over those of us who have an actual overhead, models, projects we have poured our hearts and souls into...and we have to see that someone sitting at a desk, fiddling around with ai stuff, is getting the front page of the umd.
that is just my two cents. I have nothing against ai as? I have found some inspiration from people making it....
but? as a businesswoman? wammer of the day is not just a pat on the back- it is also an opportunity for people who may not have ever looked at your profile or videos? to take a look and possibly purchase on that day.

Devil's advocate: Speaking as someone who's been WOTD precisely once in the entire 26 years I've been here, 19 of them as a producer who has shared plenty of freebie content, it'd be kind of nice if that unfair playing field where a few major names get WOTD every other day and a massive publicity boost, and the rest of us never get a look in, was levelled. So yay for AI taking all the glory.

After all at least if someone's uploading AI images they are presumably their own creations and not just "download several years worth of other people's images and spam them up in enormous posts just for the likes", which ISTR used to be a thing some years ago, though I think MM adjusted things and squelched it eventually.

On a more serious note, I wonder if it'd be possible to have effectively two different WOTD counts and winners, one of which is seen by people who have AI Allowed set on their profiles, which includes everything synthetic or not, and another "Real World Only" one, which excludes clicks on synthetic images and is seen instead of the main one by people who've excluded synthetic content from their site view?

I don't subscribe to replacement theory and everything is not a competition. AI is a tool for people to make their art, not to threaten the existence of real models and content. I think there is a place for it all.

I didn't know you thought it was unfair or uneven in the first place. Everybody has the same chance to get loves and reviews, and the winners are who the community chooses. Aside from manually putting my finger on the scale, there is little that I can do to change the outcome of WOTD. The adjustments that I do make amount to changing the weighting of the love hearts as they appear in different locations. For example a photo dump on the forum was all but guaranteeing WOTD the next day from the producer who did it, so I reduced the weighting of forum pic loves and increased them within the user galleries and that seemed to help. I routinely make adjustments like these, so if anybody has ideas on other changes that could be made, chime right on in.


If we had different WOTD's for AI vs not-AI, then we might as well have separate WOTD for the different genders too, and for any of the other filter preferences people can choose. That's not practical so that's why we only have one Wammer of the Day. Also I don't want to start making decisions predicated on an assumption that AI is this monster to be feared and avoided lest it eat the whole community up. It's a new form of art and expression to be embraced and celebrated.

AI only works because it's consuming human generated things, we need to figure out a symbiotic relationship.

We are many years away from the singularity where it can create and think for itself.

It'll do what all new tech does and we'll go too far before reaching equilibrium and a working relationship, and unfortunately some people will lose out in this process.

This was the point I was trying to make. No one is stopping buying videos because of AI images, just as no one is stopping buying videos because of free 'real' images that users upload.

"One day they'll get so good that people can't tell the difference". That day has already come. It's just that most people here either don't have the skill level, time, or motivation to do it - I'm happy with the standard of what I make - which is a representation of a fantasy - users like MMAsia are on another level in terms of realism - but ultimately it's just realistic cartoons, and none of it is is stopping people buying videos. I don't think it ever will stop people buying videos.

Will AI replace the real thing?

- It will if we let it.

Corporations would replace their workers with the cheapest labor - if they could get away with it (but for unions).

Manufacturers would cut every corner to increase profits - if they could get away with it (but for safety regulations).

Labor-intensive art will be replaced by AI - if people consume it.


Give a bot an itch and it'll take a mile.

Artists have always been a vulnerable lot - and I think we can all agree that a mess done right is a work of art! For every offering produced by "real" WAM producers, what we see is just the tip of the iceberg of the time, effort, creativity, and cost that went into the work. As a community, we know that our WAM producers are AMAZING to be able to fit into their busy lives all aspects of creating WAM content, often to just barely break even to produce more. We have such a niche interest; such a particular itch to scratch.

Make no mistake, if you make AI WAM, then you are a competitor with other WAM producers. Every click AI gets is one fewer sale to support real-life producers. Every finely honed AI prompt is one fewer custom to commission. Sure, there is an art to manipulating a tool to generate results, but the knife we're sharpening cuts both ways.

As a WAM community, we must not get complacent. Just because AI doesn't look "that" real right now doesn't mean it's not getting better every day. I have no doubt that if we continue to invest time and effort into AI, it will soon be possible to produce results virtually indistinguishable from any other producer.


You can only take a pie so many ways

When you get down to it, lots of WAM content follows well-worn tropes. How many ways can you throw a pie? How many riffs on falling into a mudpit? How many setups to stumbling into a puddle of glue? Ultimately, every video and photo set is designed to scratch that very particular itch of ours.

So why not AI WAM? After all, isn't variety the spice of life? Do we really need more content that basically retreads stuff that's already been done over and over - when AI can produce such fanciful, titillating worlds of WAM content? Don't we have a large enough back-catalogue already? Why do we keep supporting WAM producers when there's already plenty of material for us to scratch that itch?

One word: community.
It's why we keep staging Shakespeare's plays instead of just reading the book or watching a film version; why we still perform Beethoven's symphonies live instead of just listening to a recording; why singers still croon about the same achy-breaky heart we humans have had for millennia (give or take an epoch or two). If we stop participating in the live arts, then all of those actors, writers, dancers, musicians, etc will be out of jobs and art will die on the vine. It is because we support the arts as a community that we have a living culture.

Likewise, the way we preserve our WAM community is by supporting the human WAM producers. The AI genie is out of the bottle. We now have a choice between labors of love and a flood of iterative AI prompts.

Sometimes a fast burger & fries fits the spot, but wouldn't we all prefer a home cooked meal? There is a place for AI in WAM - we'll surely have no choice but to make a place for it - but we, as a WAM community, have a choice to make. Do we feed AI or do we feed the human WAM producers?

Or do we say, "Let them eat cake!" - and sit on cake, and smush the cake, and frolic in the cake

Maybe you can define AI as technically being in competition to sales of real content, but I don't see it that way. More content, varied content, and additional "competition" has always led to other producers getting more sales due to a sort of honeypot effect. People don't browse sections and topics in isolation, and it seems that more good content of any type benefits us all.


I wonder what non-complacency would look like in this case? Do we ban good-looking AI?

You've edited out my "devil's advocate" comment and smilies, I wasn't being entirely serious.

It is and always has been uneven, producers with female-identified names or identities will automatically get far more attention than anyone else, and those who do nudity, xxx, or short skirts and skimpy outfits will likewise get far more attention than those of us with different tastes. Such is the nature of the beast. But while Jayce's argument works for those who benefit from the system becayse they produce lots of what the marketplace wants and so regularly benefit from WOTD, not everyone gets the boost regularly, or even at all.


All fine and dandy. But some of us will never (or almost never) get it, and even moreso for non-producer users - who have been the main beneficiaries of the AI revolution, so that is levelling the field.


In theory it'd be a fairly simple set of database queries? But fair enough.


Agree with that. The world has changed and genies like this do not go back in their bottles. Tech cannot be uninvented.

What a strange piece of hyperbole.

I don't think you understand how little attention the stuff I make gets in comparison to real actual videos. And I'm one of the more prolific AI uploaders.

No one who casually drops $15 on a video is going to stop just because they liked one of my images. No one who's happy to pay $300+ for a one-off video is suddenly going to cancel because of me.

Oh, I apologize for that


I agree that female-sounding names will probably get more clicks, and store owners do enjoy extra surface area to boost their ratings due to them having pay scenes. But the idea that UMD community is biased toward nudity and XXX is a decades-old assumption that has always been incorrect. If anything, the community is heavily biased against nudity and sex, and a quick glance at all the material across the site is proof: You'll see more clothed content than nude, and xxx / sex is comparatively extremely rare in the world of wam. Anyway, if females get more votes than guys, or if some clothing level is preferred by most on this site, that's just people expressing their prefs, not an inherent bias caused by the site's policies. So I'm not sure that's a playing field that we should be trying to tilt in any one direction.


It's a meritocracy where people who get the loves get the accolades. Highlighting the smaller accounts (even non-producer, non-AI ones) so that they get some extra recognition too would be a great idea, but maybe not a task for the WOTD system.


Sure, but I'd have to calculate and store WOTD's for each possible combination of those filters, and we'll have a dozen different WOTD's each day (plus 5 runner-ups each)! It'll cause a lot of confusion. If you don't win there's the chance you might still be one of the runner-ups. Another alternative is to just look at the Most Loved people, and adjust your filters however you want.

Yeah I mean, that would be nice.. if it were true

The first and most obvious thing is that, while not necessarily a competition, there are zero-sum elements here. For example, either machine-generated content wins WAMmer of the day on any given day or human-generated content does. Even if we all agree that no one's competing, there is only one place for each day, and if that one place goes to machine-generated content then it doesn't go to human-generated content.

But then also, I'm surprised that so little of this thread has focused on economics even though it was in the OP's very first post. The question of "what will happen to the real WAM producers" is not just a question of what turns people on or what people like. We've seen this over and over again across a bunch of fields for, like, hundreds of years: techno-economic growth doesn't always give people what they want.

(I'm about to list a bunch of examples, so if that's going to bore you, feel free to skip ahead to the next mark.)

A recent non-AI example of this is cloud "ownership." As several of you probably already know, services like Amazon[1] and PlayStation[2] have already decided that they can delete stuff that their customers "bought" and "own." Is this what movie, TV, and video game fans want? No. Very much no. But is it happening anyway? Very much yes.

Another non-AI example is printers. Most printers are buggy, hostile pieces of garbage[3], to the point where there's basically only one halfway-decent consumer-grade printer on the market and everyone who knows what they're doing just buys that one[4]. Is that what people want? Again, no. The people who end up buying the bad printers hate them. But is this what's happening anyway? Yes.

And then, of course, there's AI. Where exactly should I even begin with AI? AI tools are already being used to displace real human authors[5], human screenwriters and VFX people[6], human journalists[7], human painters[8], and who knows what all else. This isn't a theory. These are real, documented cases of living, breathing human beings whose authentic work and even whose livelihoods have been ignored or discarded in favor of machines.

Does that mean that the machines are, like, good? Not as far as anyone can tell. Machine-generated products have been pretty okay at best and extremely fucking terrible at worst. But, again, that shouldn't be a surprise. Cloud "ownership" is pretty okay at best and extremely fucking terrible at worst. Printers these days are pretty okay at best and extremely fucking terrible at worst. This is all real. You may think that techno-economic growth is designed to give you what you want, but it definitely is not.

( Okay, those of you who skipped ahead can come back now.)

So then what does that tell us about WAM producers? Well, if you've paid any attention at all to the forums here, you already know that many producers run at a loss or close to it. On the other hand, as the OP said, AI "producers" are basically getting something for nothing. (For now--more on this in a moment.) So even if it's not a competition (which it...kinda is), and even if there is no direct one-to-one replacement (which there definitely is, at least in other areas), the math here isn't good. Sooner or later, if doing X means losing a bunch of money and being increasingly unable to find a group of like-minded people and watching other people get more respect for having literally no talent, then it's going to become awfully hard to stay motivated to do X. Does it matter if X is still better than Y, the talentless alternative? It should. But will it actually? No. Or, at least, not in the absence of a very major change in the rules of the game.

So if you're concerned about this, which I think is reasonable but maybe not obligatory yet, what kinds of rule changes should you be looking for? Well, one is the possibility that machine-generated shit is going to stop being free. By now we should all be familiar with the Silicon Valley business cycle: give something away for free or near free in order to generate hype, patiently wait until the existing market collapses, then steadily inflate prices and reduce services. It happened with social media, it happened with rideshares, it happened with food delivery services, it happened with streaming services... you get the idea. Right now we're in the "free/hype" phase, but machine learning models are tremendously expensive to build and operate, so we won't be here forever. Sooner or later, these people are going to start charging money, purposefully lowering the quality of their outputs, or both. Whenever that happens, maybe organic WAM will have a resurgence.

Another possibility, as someone already said, is that the machines will plateau (or even self-sabotage) because they've run out of training material. If and when that happens, their outputs may actually become so worthless that we won't want them even if they're free.

A third possibility is that we, as consumers and a community, change the way that we support and rally around producers. (Stop laughing, Rich.) In the end, techno-economic changes only fuck things up because we let them. For example, if no one "bought" videos on Amazon's cloud, then there would be no one for Amazon to rob by subsequently deleting those videos. In our case, we can't realistically tell people to stop liking machine-generated WAM. But we can do more to support human-generated WAM, whether that means buying more stuff or giving more hearts to people or whatever. So if you're concerned about AI here and you're not even, like, telling your favorite producers that you support them, it might be time for you to come out of your shell a little.

tl;dr: What happens to WAM producers has more to do with us as a community than the quality of AI output. Maybe we should start acting like it.

[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/lawsuit-reminds-us-we-dont-own-content-purchased-on-amazon-prime-video
[2] https://www.ign.com/articles/sony-pulls-discovery-videos-playstation-users-already-own-sparking-concern-over-our-digital-future
[3] https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/11/23635168/hp-printer-update-brick-third-party-ink-dynamic-security
[4] https://www.theverge.com/23642073/best-printer-2023-brother-laser-wi-fi-its-fine
[5] https://www.npr.org/2024/03/13/1237888126/growing-number-ai-scam-books-amazon
[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilsahota/2024/03/08/the-ai-takeover-in-cinema-how-movie-studios-use-artificial-intelligence/?sh=265b9c8f4a3f
[7] https://www.dw.com/en/ai-chatbots-replace-journalists-in-news-writing/a-65988172
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-intelligence-artists.html

That's fair enough for WOTD where only one user is chosen per day, but that's true for all niches and prefs, not just AI. The day a Wetlook person wins is a day a Messy person does not, and the day a person doing full clothing wins, a person doing nude doesn't. AI is but one more criteria thrown in the mix, not something to be feared of a takeover. And in other places around the site, it's more obvious how even AI will bring more traffic and eyes on natural content and vice versa. Everybody wins IMO.


This is why I prefer to be guided by the community itself, and to let it take its own path organically. The existence of AI content won't happen because we forced it here.


Those were really corporate decisions to save money and time, not a community running itself and posting content. I think that's a big distinction that makes all the difference.


AI will always be able to be generated for free, so I don't think there is a chance that people will seek to hook you on it and then raise the price. As prices go down and ability goes through the roof, maybe one day there might even be an AI generator built into UMD


Forget the internet, there is an infinite amount of training material out in the real world, and it seems like training is moving to that. Nowadays it's like cameras in, control inputs out now. AI will continue to surprise us all.

Can't it be both? I mean, don't we have this panic every, like, eight months? "Things aren't the way they used to be, I can't find as much of this one specific thing anymore, blah blah blah"--that rings a bell, right? I think we often see niches become more or less popular over time, sometimes significantly. Why would we think that machine-generated material is not even potentially capable of becoming a dominant niche--and if that is possible, why would it not be a scary thought for people who aren't fans of AI?


Is it obvious? I mean, I guess you're the site owner, so maybe it's obvious to you--do you have, like, numbers or anything to show the effect you're describing? I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just not obvious to me based on the information I have right now.


Yeah, I mean, in theory I think I'm with you. In practice I'm not sure. The paradigm example here is the Luddites, who were English textile workers in the 1800s who destroyed knitting frames and steam-powered looms in an attempt to safeguard their own skilled labor. That's a clear example of a community attempting to run itself according to its own rules and values instead of the rules and values of external entities like corporations. The only problem is that it didn't work. British troops arrested and imprisoned Luddites en masse, thereby breaking the resistance. This is why the vast majority of communities these days don't have a choice: you either buy something machine-made or you try to figure out how to live your whole live naked.

Granted, the odds of us getting attacked by AI troops are pretty low. Last time I checked, you couldn't club someone through the internet. (Thankfully.) But journalists are fighting AI and losing, and VFX people are fighting AI and losing, and actors had to shut down Hollywood just so that AI wouldn't turn them all into paupers, so it looks very much as though the economic incentives here can be just as effective as (if more subtle than) direct physical violence.

Basically, how sure are you that you can tell the difference between a community running itself and a community slowly being stripped of its original values because those values get swamped by a cheaper alternative? Like, imagine that the next ten years are just one group of people going "I really want to keep producing WAM in person but it's too expensive" and another group of people going "hey this AI stuff is like 90% realistic and I can do it for free." If, after the end of those ten years, the first group of people have all but disappeared and the second group of people represent the majority of the site, are you going to look back and go, "Well, almost everything is AI now, but that's just what the community decided to do"? Because that wouldn't be my interpretation.


Yeah, I... I sure would like to know how that could possibly be true. Like, Google is already at the point where they're thinking of charging regular people to use their AI stuff (https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/google-gemini/google-tipped-to-start-charging-users-for-ai-search-results-heres-what-we-know) and, like I said, we're still in the hyping-up phase. I'm not real sure how we get to a point where companies are willing to just give this stuff away forever.

Until the glorious day when the executives and board members of every corporation are dragged kicking and screaming into the street and beaten to death with sticks, there's always piracy. They can't delete what you never bought.


You're just not using a big enough hammer.


That'll be the day I leave and never look back.

Artificial intelligence will be a big part of this site, from coding to moderation to security and everything else. There will probably be toys we can't even think of right now. I don't see "AI vs real" as a fight to be won by either side, but a paradigm shift that we can actually control as it happens

"AI" isn't intelligent or creative in any way. It's an algorithm that cobbles together and farts out assets that it plagiarized from work made by actual humans. Same with ChatGPT and all other large language models. Calling it "AI" is sexier than the more accurate "PlagiarismBot," but I wish people would stop making it out to be more than it actually is.

It's one thing to be apprehensive about the future. We all are. We need to talk about it and constantly adjust our thinking as things rapidly develop. But when it becomes such a paralyzing fear that we can only imagine a dystopian AI future, that's the point of negative returns. (Okay so yes, AI will eat everybody's job. But I also think that the disruption will unearth a new entertainment-based, people-based economy, which is what UMD is poised for in the long run. I believe people will be the future, as enabled and liberated by AI.)


Perfectly good question. In my experience, "surface area" means a lot. Anything that brings foot traffic to the site is ultimately good for store and site owners because people don't just stay in one place. They stumble upon your store or link from somewhere, and the AI areas are another entry point to bring people in. UMD has always stood for all things wam, and this new paradigm is just a new facet.


Wow. I try not to be cynical about the future because we all will be here while it all goes down. If the community doesn't like something, they won't pay any attention to it or won't buy the content. If the community loves it and is eating it up, then what decision do I make, cut it off? Create a separate site? Fight the good fight of AI vs humans? We're not powerless in making those decisions for ourselves.


I think that for over a year now it's been relatively trivial to grab an open-source, self-contained AI and throw it on your server. The tech has been trickling down already and it's not going to stop. The free models will just continue to improve forever. Eventually I'll have one running on UMD, scanning logs for red flags, checking pics for potential kids, and all sorts of stuff. I wish we could work toward shaping the potential of this stuff instead of just being afraid of it.

Although AI is developing wonderfully, it doesn't do anything for me. A credible belief that I have some kind of connection with a real human is part of what I find a turn-on, even if it's just enjoying watching them in a situation I'm not a part of.

Heh. I dunno that anything I said describes a dystopia, though I know some people sometimes act that way. After all, machine-generated material dominating the UMD at some theoretical future point is not exactly Mad Max.


Okay, makes sense. If I get you right, you're saying that AI stuff does (or at least can?) serve as an entry point for newcomers, who then meander around the site at large and, like, drop likes and buy stuff. Sounds plausible. Is there, like I said, some measurable evidence to show that it's happening for real?


Yeah, I mean, I guess I'm asking more about your interpretation of these hypotheticals instead of your abilities or perceived responsibilities as the demigod of the site. And, again, I'm not asking because I think this represents the end of the world or anything. It's just, for me, meaning (perspective, interpretation of events) precedes action, and so before we start talking about stocking your doomsday bunker with old Bill Shipton Polaroids I'm just wondering how you would interpret a series of events in which producers plead increasing economic hardship and AI material continues to spread until it becomes dominant.

Like, it's not a trick question. I'm not trying to back you into a corner or eventually go, "Aha! You really *don't* have the interests of the community at heart!" I know you get a lot of that already, but that's honestly not why I'm asking. (And if you think it's gonna be too annoying to answer in public, DM me, I don't care.) It's just, like I said, in my mind people's choices are often constrained by factors outside of their control, and sometimes it feels plausible to say that those external factors are coercive, and to me economics is one such plausibly coercive external factor. I'm just trying to see if you feel the same way


Ahh. So to go back to meaning and perspective, this is a very interesting thing to say. It might well be relatively trivial for you, a long-time web guy, to instantiate an image generator on a server you already control, but surely you'll agree that most people don't have either your technical background or your level of control over a content-specific domain of their own creation. In my experience, it's much easier for people not to feel afraid when they know that they have power, because it's precisely power which *does* allow people to shape the future and control their own responses to changing circumstances, as you've described.

If I had to guess, I would guess that a lot of the people who are stressing over AI (both here and elsewhere) don't have the kind of power over it that they would like to have. To go back to the Hollywood example, there's reason to believe that studios "want to scan a background performer's image, pay them for a half a day's labor and then use an individual's likeness for any purpose forever without their consent" (https://variety.com/2023/digital/features/hollywood-ai-crisis-atificial-intelligence-eliminate-acting-jobs-1235697167/). It's hard to see that, I think, as anything other than a profoundly disempowering idea for actors. (If you do see it some other way, I'd be very curious to hear more.) Now, thankfully they had a union through which they were able to push back against that idea. But striking is a stressful experience all on its own, and even then they might have to have that fight again in five or ten or twenty years--at which point they might well lose.

So, yeah, I also wish we could all just work towards shaping the future instead of being afraid. I guess I just feel like some people are going to have more leverage in that process than others, and some people are going to face much more significant changes to their lives and identities than others, and that it's incumbent upon all of us who are having this conversation (and especially those of us with relatively large amounts of power) to recognize and understand those differences in experience.

No, I do not have actual metrics that I can share with you to drive the point home. It's just that this is the way people spider through sites. They land here from a search engine, from a social media, from whatever. Once the traffic is here, they're here. If you're looking for me to prove to you that AI content will be beneficial, I can't do that, but I can say that we're not helpless in shaping our own future as AI progresses. UMD won't turn into some AI-dominated site or something like that.


I just can't agree with the premise that AI is "spreading" and will "become dominant." But if producers were pleading about anything at all, it obviously would become a big community discussion and the trajectory of the site will be molded and adjusted as always.

I love drawn wam too. And I feel when I draw wam it certainly have more meaning than ai could ever capture. I can easily get turned on by some muddy drawings but something about the soullessness of ai art doesn't do it for me.

We're in the icky unknown, but can you imagine, a few years down the road, a world where your favorite WAM models never have to retire? What if they license their image to a producer and AI becomes sophisticated enough to generate exciting, entertaining, convincing video content?

What if the custom you're saving up for really could be the scene of your dreams: Your favorite model in your favorite outfit in your favorite setting with your favorite substances? Would there be an inherent value in that specificity, especially if the model was retired or had passed away? Or would it still be lame because you (and everyone) knows it's not "real?" Of course AI introduces new identity and security problems and deepfake concerns, but we're already at the point where those issues need to be monitored and solved, anyway.

AI will never replace the human chemistry we treasure in our favorite scenes. It won't replace a genuine smile, or perfect grimace of disgust. It won't replace a director's creative spark or a model's saucy attitude. And if buying AI content becomes normalized, it will _probably_ never feel the same as purchasing your favorite producer's or model's content DAY 1 because you just like supporting them. But there still might be room for AI somewhere around here. I don't believe it will change our need for or love of "real WAM producers."

I don't think it will replace real wam, but I am concerned that it might convince real wam producers to retire for various reasons. I am concerned that potential new real wam producers decide not to produce because of synthetic content.

(For the record, the person WamBagheeraStudio is referring to is https://umd.net/piedjess who was ranked #1 and was WOTD twice last month (4/27 & 4/16). This user has 2 albums with 160 synthetic images. Another synthetic creator, https://umd.net/fortuitousoddity was WOTD one day (4/4) and made this post https://umd.net/forums/wotd-5 . This user currently has an album with 1270 synthetic images.)