Question for you all. What's the definitive stance on this site about generative AI? As far as I'm aware AI art is prohibited on this site and AI art should be posted to E6AI.

Reason I ask is; I've recently noticed a couple artists (and while writing this have gone down a veritable rabbit hole of finding AI art) who, upon scrupulous inspection, appear to have galleries consisting entirely of generative AI, or have switched from traditional art to AI art, dating as far back as 7-8 years ago, and are still posting new (AI generated and slightly edited) art to this day (remember folks, generative AI has been around since 2014, that's 10 years ago!). Granted it's very good decent AI generation, but look close enough and you can spot the mistakes that only an AI will make (and in some cases the blatant editing that makes it obvious they were trying to cover up an AI mistake).

Is this allowed? Should I report these galleries/artists? If so what should I report them as? There's no "This is AI art" option.

Based on your comment history, and your estimate of 7-8 years ago, I do not trust your scrupulous inspection even slightly.

There is no "This is AI art" option because we already have an option to flag posts that shouldn't pass approval based on quality, relevancy, origin, so on and so forth. Do it the intended way and janitors will either delete the post or remove the flag.

lafcadio said:
Based on your comment history, and your estimate of 7-8 years ago, I do not trust your scrupulous inspection even slightly.

There is no "This is AI art" option because we already have an option to flag posts that shouldn't pass approval based on quality, relevancy, so on and so forth. Do it the intended way and janitors will either delete the post or remove the flag.

What has my comment history got to do with anything? I'm going by the dates of the images that were uploaded that look to be AI generated. Happy to send you the galleries I've found to review yourself should you wish.

I'll concede I missed the "flag" option so fair enough, guess I didn't look hard enough, just saw the "report" option and thought "huh, there's nothing here for reporting AI stuff". Following on from that though, do I flag one just one image from the gallery so the mods look into it? Do I flag all of them? Cuz that could end up being near 1000 images flagged, and tbh, I aint got time for that.

I'm VERY curious to see these 7-10 year old posts made by AI.

just because generative ai existed in 2014 doesn't mean it was anywhere near as "passable" as it is now.

paintschainer/petalica paint came out in i think 2016, but it's nowhere near what we see coming out of stable diffusion or the like.

muppet said:
What has my comment history got to do with anything? I'm going by the dates of the images that were uploaded that look to be AI generated. Happy to send you the galleries I've found to review yourself should you wish.

I'll concede I missed the "flag" option so fair enough, guess I didn't look hard enough, just saw the "report" option and thought "huh, there's nothing here for reporting AI stuff". Following on from that though, do I flag one just one image from the gallery so the mods look into it? Do I flag all of them? Cuz that could end up being near 1000 images flagged, and tbh, I aint got time for that.

You have a comment from yesterday where you suggest that a post is AI-generated based solely on the teeth. It's yet another datum in a series of vague, vibes-based AI-generation accusations, the rough equivalent of a Twitter user with N7-level Japanese proficiency deciding they don't like a translation because it's too metaphor-laden. I also sincerely doubt that you, individually, can correctly identify 1,000 generative images on a site that has 4,465,852 active posts.

I think you may have forgotten what generative images actually looked like during 2017, it would be nigh-impossible for a furry artist to falsify a portfolio using 2017-level tech. It simply wasn't good and wasn't accessible.

Nevertheless, if a user does want to present an artist's entire gallery for review, flagging a couple of posts is sufficient; past a certain point, a janitor will generally volunteer to look at much older posts to see when, exactly, an artist started using generative images.

calydor said:
I'm VERY curious to see these 7-10 year old posts made by AI.

manitka said:
just because generative ai existed in 2014 doesn't mean it was anywhere near as "passable" as it is now.

paintschainer/petalica paint came out in i think 2016, but it's nowhere near what we see coming out of stable diffusion or the like.

I'm not sure that the 7-10 year thing meant that the artist had been using generative AI for that long, just that artists that have been around for 7-10 years have been seen using AI.

I... think? the sentence is kinda hard to parse but that's what I'm thinking was meant. mostly because saying that anyone's been using gen AI to make anything even half-passible for more than half a dozen years is absurd.

I think people have forgotten how bad AI images were a measly three years ago in the age of thisfursonadoesnotexist and Craiyon, let alone seven.

I'm with Lafcadio; no matter what one's stance on AI is, the growing number of people making accusations of "this looks AI" when what they really mean is "this art sucks" helps nobody.

lafcadio said:

There is no "This is AI art" option because we already have an option to flag posts that shouldn't pass approval based on quality, relevancy, origin, so on and so forth. Do it the intended way and janitors will either delete the post or remove the flag.

Wait, we can flag things as not meeting uploading guidelines after approval now? (Besides grandfathered content)

snpthecat said:
Wait, we can flag things as not meeting uploading guidelines after approval now? (Besides grandfathered content)

It's like how in some places you can sue for someone having the wrong color shirt. Doesn't mean anyone will take it seriously (including the clerk and judges), heh.

snpthecat said:
Wait, we can flag things as not meeting uploading guidelines after approval now? (Besides grandfathered content)

Yes, as of last month any post uploaded after 2015-01-01 that does not have the grandfathered content tag can be flagged for not meeting uploading guidelines.
That includes posts that have already been approved by a staff member, or ones that had been uploaded by users with unlimited uploads.

People are people, and people make mistakes.
It had been decided that letting people report such mistakes was worth the potential misuse of the flag.

I started using such AI image generation tool locally in previous 2023 year and that looks mostly garbage. But 7-10 year ago? Even if it possible, you need to do a lot of work anyway. Really AI image generation became decent only at that 2024 year.

lafcadio said:
You have a comment from yesterday where you suggest that a post is AI-generated based solely on the teeth. It's yet another datum in a series of vague, vibes-based AI-generation accusations, the rough equivalent of a Twitter user with N7-level Japanese proficiency deciding they don't like a translation because it's too metaphor-laden. I also sincerely doubt that you, individually, can correctly identify 1,000 generative images on a site that has 4,465,852 active posts.

I think you may have forgotten what generative images actually looked like during 2017, it would be nigh-impossible for a furry artist to falsify a portfolio using 2017-level tech. It simply wasn't good and wasn't accessible.

Nevertheless, if a user does want to present an artist's entire gallery for review, flagging a couple of posts is sufficient; past a certain point, a janitor will generally volunteer to look at much older posts to see when, exactly, an artist started using generative images.

Wasn't based solely on the teeth, that just the most obvious and easiest to point out. Drawing the teeth outside the mouth isn't generally a mistake you see with traditional art. I mean it could just be an error, but I'm not sure, as I said in the comment I could be (and probably am) wrong. And going through the rest of their gallery there are some other odd details mainly to do with hands and feet, but that could just be because of the style of art.

As for the artist with AI dating back years; it's possible I mis-read a date and my drunk brain didn't think to double check. However, that gallery I remember had about 3 or 4 pages of content dating back several years, the earliest were hand drawn but quickly became pretty obviously AI. Unfortunately their most recent post has been removed, presumably flagged by someone else, and I can't remember the name of the artist. The pic in question was of, I believe, Red Xiii pounding some random furry. So on the off-chance the mod that removed that post sees this, go back and check the rest of that artist's gallery if you can, most of it was blatantly AI. If I can find their gallery again I will link it here.

lendrimujina said:
the growing number of people making accusations of "this looks AI" when what they really mean is "this art sucks" helps nobody.

Unfortunately I'm also seeing it at the other end of the spectrum when stuff looks too good, because heaven forbid you're a professional photographer who's worked for National Geographic for three decades and have camera equipment with the price tag of a nice mansion. Nope, that picture looks too good, definitely AI.

I am in no way a fan of replacing artistic imagination with AI, but there's an outright paranoia sweeping the net and people are REALLY quick to be the white knight who discovers the latest scoundrel.

It's better to avoid pointing fingers until you have actual proof, and by "proof" I mean something more substantial than literally pointing a finger at a specific spot on the image and saying "this thing right here has AI vibes". The means to generate minimally convincing AI furries objectively did not exist before 2022.

Additionally, many legit artists have been falsely accused by people who were as certain and confident as you were, until said artists provided .psd files documenting their entire drawing process. Let's be reasonable, folks.

calydor said:
Unfortunately I'm also seeing it at the other end of the spectrum when stuff looks too good, because heaven forbid you're a professional photographer who's worked for National Geographic for three decades and have camera equipment with the price tag of a nice mansion. Nope, that picture looks too good, definitely AI.

I am in no way a fan of replacing artistic imagination with AI, but there's an outright paranoia sweeping the net and people are REALLY quick to be the white knight who discovers the latest scoundrel.

I love that one report of an incident where someone won an AI image generation contest using a real photograph.

https://petapixel.com/2024/06/12/photographer-disqualified-from-ai-image-contest-after-winning-with-real-photo/

NOBODY can tell with absolute certainty.

muppet said:
Wasn't based solely on the teeth, that just the most obvious and easiest to point out. Drawing the teeth outside the mouth isn't generally a mistake you see with traditional art. I mean it could just be an error, but I'm not sure, as I said in the comment I could be (and probably am) wrong. And going through the rest of their gallery there are some other odd details mainly to do with hands and feet, but that could just be because of the style of art.

As for the artist with AI dating back years; it's possible I mis-read a date and my drunk brain didn't think to double check. However, that gallery I remember had about 3 or 4 pages of content dating back several years, the earliest were hand drawn but quickly became pretty obviously AI. Unfortunately their most recent post has been removed, presumably flagged by someone else, and I can't remember the name of the artist. The pic in question was of, I believe, Red Xiii pounding some random furry. So on the off-chance the mod that removed that post sees this, go back and check the rest of that artist's gallery if you can, most of it was blatantly AI. If I can find their gallery again I will link it here.

The only Red XIII-related deletions this year are:

• one image deleted for including a young human in an explicit context.
• three commercial leaks.
• three inferior versions of currently-active posts.
• seven captures of a Flash animation (the animation itself is from 2008, so the technology to falsify this artistic content literally did not exist.)

All of these occurred over a span of 3 to 8 months ago, which would mean that you've either been sitting on this for a minimum of 3 months (and may thus be misremembering the details), or the image/artist you are imagining simply will never be found under the Red XIII tag. Of these fourteen posts, there is one artist that matches the estimate of 3 or 4 pages, but each and every one of them displays a range of styles, characters, and poses that are consistent with normal artistic development, not generative fraud.

I'm not interested in humoring this wild goose chase any longer; If you want to play the part of art detective, do some serious detective work. Otherwise, this will be my final reply on this topic.