I think the AI stuff should go

The AI-generated images on this site are starting to approach a level of being creepily realistic (in terms of the girls they portray). It's a bad feeling to have hanging around on a site that's mostly dedicated to non-realistic cartoon and anime characters.

Plus, AI images are kind of a problem for boorus in that they're literally infinite; in theory someone could just upload every single generation they make and overwhelm the tags with hundreds of thousands of these creepy, authorless AI loli/shota pics. I think we should aim for a more curated selection. By all means, AI generations could have their own booru or other site, but I'm worried they could reach such a critical mass that actual artists and fandom tags are drowned out.

Additional point, there's also potential legal issues in that we have no idea what images these algorithms are being trained on. Frankly I don't trust most of these fuckers; there's a chance that's at least some of these generations are utilizing actual exploitation material. Seems best ethically and legally to cut this in the bud.

Final point: lolibooru eventually learned that allowing realistic 3D CGI loli art was a moderation nightmare and banned them entirely. With how fast the "ai_generated" tag is growing here, I think the site is bound to run into these kinds of issues, but on a potentially even larger scale because of how effortless it is to produce and share these images.

Honestly, I have no opinion on AI-generated images mostly to the fact that I do not care as much, but at least it would be interesting to debate about it if there's a majority who thinks that there should be more action taken towards those than tagging them ai_generated.

Seen way worse and actually harmful things out there, but if a consensus in which those works aren't allowed is reached, I'll roll with it.

AI images are far from infinite, it takes quite some time to make a half-decent image. Certainly more time than skilled artists take to make similar quality images.

If someone were to spam the upload with every generation, that would make them a douchebag. I don't think it makes sense to penalize an entire community just because you think some bad actors might eventually show up.

It makes more sense to set standards for what qualifies as too realistic for this site. Maybe post some guidance examples of what is allowed, so we AI "artists" can make sure we're within guidelines.

i dont think that ai should be banned. the mods here are removing to realistic content.
if you have a problem with the staying ai art: you have the option to hide/blacklist them.

namekianer said:

i dont think that ai should be banned. the mods here are removing to realistic content.
if you have a problem with the staying ai art: you have the option to hide/blacklist them.

If any of these images are discovered to be utilizing photos of actual people (ie, children), whether those images are innocent or not, the resulting legal and social backlash will draw so much attention to loli/shota content that it could result in actual laws being passed and the site going under.

@nullmatic

One solution would be to enforce the programs so the images have metadata that can notify others if the image had real people as a training tool. This way we can easily determine if an ai image has malicious background.

adirla said:

@nullmatic

One solution would be to enforce the programs so the images have metadata that can notify others if the image had real people as a training tool. This way we can easily determine if an ai image has malicious background.

Malicious background? You mean trained on actual child pornography? How would you differentiate between something trained on kiddie porn, and something trained on otherwise innocuous imagery?

The core Stable Diffusion model that the majority of models are based on, even 2.x which has had pornography removed, is trained on perfectly legitimate publicly available photos of ordinary people. This doesn't prevent it from being used to create less-than-legal imagery, especially not once you reintroduce /normal/ pornography into the model.

You don't have to train on "malicious" data to create red-flag content.

^ yes but not every one is non malicious when they make porn either. ^

ai is here to stay but if something comes up with it reguarding legal issues i would expunge it in heartbeat. but for now we will just remove the realistic content.

DontTouchMyCogs said:

^ yes but not every one is non malicious when they make porn either. ^

ai is here to stay but if something comes up with it reguarding legal issues i would expunge it in heartbeat. but for now we will just remove the realistic content.

Can someone post guidelines on what is too realistic? There doesn't seem to be any consensus among staff, given that I've had a submission denied for being "too realistic" (when its really not realistic at all IMO), but there are several other ai-generated images that are /more/ realistic and have been approved.

Doesn't the ai generated stuff cost money? at least to save in proper resolution or whatever; for novelai i know its the case
I doubt anyone would save or share a bunch of low res, low quality images, or bother paying just to flood a booru

And regarding what pictures they feed the bots is a moot point
Its an argument you could use for any artist over any art out there, besides theres millions of images out there they can use without legal issues

masterofdiffusion said:

Can someone post guidelines on what is too realistic? There doesn't seem to be any consensus among staff, given that I've had a submission denied for being "too realistic" (when its really not realistic at all IMO), but there are several other ai-generated images that are /more/ realistic and have been approved.

@masterofpuppets13 put status:deleted and ai_generated as tags searches to see whats too realistic

SpicyMarshmallow said:

Doesn't the ai generated stuff cost money? at least to save in proper resolution or whatever; for novelai i know its the case
I doubt anyone would save or share a bunch of low res, low quality images, or bother paying just to flood a booru

And regarding what pictures they feed the bots is a moot point
Its an argument you could use for any artist over any art out there, besides theres millions of images out there they can use without legal issues

Depends on how you're doing it, if you have a powerful enough GPU you can run everything locally for free using widely available models.

DontTouchMyCogs said:

@masterofpuppets13 put status:deleted and ai_generated as tags searches to see whats too realistic

This doesn't address the concern regarding inconsistency. As stated, there are ai_generated images on the site much more realistic than what I've posted, yet one of my postings was flagged as too realistic and deleted. Or at least that's the current take on it, the deletion reason was actually "too realistic for ai" which doesn't make any sense to me as-written, and I assume was misphrased.

EDIT: Dear god, all the examples I had of approved ai_generated images that were more or as realistic as mine... were deleted once I surfaced them as being such in the appeals thread.

This seems like a really poor way to moderate.

@masterofdiffusion its difficult to discern. i just go by how realistic the facial features are.

Just blacklist the ai_generated tag.

This doesn't prevent it from being used to create less-than-legal imagery, especially not once you reintroduce /normal/ pornography into the model.

Well, that certainly puts the lie to the "bad actors are going to train the AI on CP" moral panic.

I got tired of the ai generated stuff and added it to my blacklist. I only did it because it doesn't look great to me. Plus something always looks off such as the eyes, the feet, etc.

I got tired of the ai generated stuff and added it to my blacklist. I only did it because it doesn't look great to me. Plus something always looks off such as the eyes, the feet, etc.

What I want to see is programmers manually editing the mistakes out of the images. It wouldn't be that difficult to do. It would take some work, but the result would be worth it.

zx29b said:

What I want to see is programmers manually editing the mistakes out of the images. It wouldn't be that difficult to do. It would take some work, but the result would be worth it.

you can find many tutorials on aibooru. there are people you can show you how to create perfect ai-generated art without strange fingers or toes and so on.

Honestly I agree, not only does realistic AI stuff not fit the spirit of this site, it could potentially paint us in a bad light.
The line between AI trained on loli art/adults and AI trained on kids is indistinguishable. Maybe it's already been crossed. There's no way to know and there's no way to prepare for when it happens. I don't see why it's worth the potential risk.

Not to mention, and this is my opinion... it just doesn't look good. Most of the time. Once it started showing up in waves, I blacklisted it immediately.

Golden Boy said:
you can find many tutorials on aibooru. there are people you can show you how to create perfect ai-generated art without strange fingers or toes and so on.

Cool. I hope that they also have some stuff about how to make an image that depicts action. Portraits are pretty and all, but I would love to see the depicted characters actually doing things.

naroklee said:
Honestly I agree, not only does realistic AI stuff not fit the spirit of this site, it could potentially paint us in a bad light.

We're always going to be the bad guys. All we can do about that is to roll with it and not act like the furries by constantly trying to get ourselves a stripe on the rainbow flag.

The line between AI trained on loli art/adults and AI trained on kids is indistinguishable.

Then who cares? If we can't tell the difference anyway, what does it matter?

ai_jedi said:

This doesn't address the concern regarding inconsistency. As stated, there are ai_generated images on the site much more realistic than what I've posted, yet one of my postings was flagged as too realistic and deleted. Or at least that's the current take on it, the deletion reason was actually "too realistic for ai" which doesn't make any sense to me as-written, and I assume was misphrased.

EDIT: Dear god, all the examples I had of approved ai_generated images that were more or as realistic as mine... were deleted once I surfaced them as being such in the appeals thread.

This seems like a really poor way to moderate.

Joined just to chime in on this. I've noticed the same problem; moderation is very inconsistent IMO.

For example: I don't understand how this is considered '3d realistic child' when 1. Art like this is approved and 2. There's posts like this and this that seem to just fine?

As well as how this is okay but this isn't?

Like it definitely seems like it all based on who is active at the moment on what will get approved and what won't.

mysticX said:

Joined just to chime in on this. I've noticed the same problem; moderation is very inconsistent IMO.

For example: I don't understand how this is considered '3d realistic child' when 1. Art like this is approved and 2. There's posts like this and this that seem to just fine?

As well as how this is okay but this isn't?

Like it definitely seems like it all based on who is active at the moment on what will get approved and what won't.

@mysticX we dont catch every post. and we arnt perfect. you are seeing it from the user end. its a hard job to keep up with this sites content. tbh i could care less i just do what the rules state and what the owner wants. if the rules wernt there, id let it all through.

DTMC is right. we can´t see everything.
and your point mysticX is correct. your example is to realistic and it´s gone now.

If you have an issue with a post, just report it and mods will look it over. The worst that would happen is the report will be declined. Mods have a lot of stuff to keep track of, it's not just approving posts, not to mention every mod is a different person, which means there will always be different opinions on what breaks rules and what doesn't from person to person.

DontTouchMyCogs said:

@mysticX we dont catch every post. and we arnt perfect. you are seeing it from the user end. its a hard job to keep up with this sites content. tbh i could care less i just do what the rules state and what the owner wants. if the rules wernt there, id let it all through.

I mean that's fair. As a user I know that there's probably at LEAST 100 new posts a day, if not more so that is a lot. Not to mention the amount of comments and trying to delete the cp links as quickly as possible.

ThatOneGuy0 said:

If you have an issue with a post, just report it and mods will look it over. The worst that would happen is the report will be declined. Mods have a lot of stuff to keep track of, it's not just approving posts, not to mention every mod is a different person, which means there will always be different opinions on what breaks rules and what doesn't from person to person.

Completely understand there's more to it than just approving posts. I will say though, as a former admin of countless message boards in the early days of the internet, I do think that's BS IMO. I definitely feel like there should always be clear guidelines in place and things shouldn't depend on who is around at the time. I used to set rules and if my mods weren't sure they asked in private to see if a users post went against the rules, if they needed a warning, etc.

Of course, I'm not trying to start anything. I'm just stating it's probably why so many users can be confused on what's okay and what isn't, because in the case of my first example I wouldn't think for a second that would get deleted when there is other stuff that looks similar approved, and vice versa I'd understand why a post would be deleted like the one I pointed out that you deleted, but I'd also scratch my head why others like it were approved but mine wasn't, and that inconsistency can easily make users feel targeted, as I do think I saw someone called out DontTouchMyCogs thinking they were bullying them or whatever. (I don't remember if it was for upload reasons or not, tbh, just an example).

Completely understand there's more to it than just approving posts. I will say though, as a former admin of countless message boards in the early days of the internet, I do think that's BS IMO. I definitely feel like there should always be clear guidelines in place and things shouldn't depend on who is around at the time. I used to set rules and if my mods weren't sure they asked in private to see if a users post went against the rules, if they needed a warning, etc.

The bitch of it is that what exactly they want to ban ("realistic" depictions of children) is ill-defined. They are trying to ban something without definition, so a rigorous standard is impossible. It is an impossible situation.