So who flagged unfairr as AI? Ouch

Even if we assume that it is AI, does it look so bad that it deserves to be removed?

KiberPingvin said:

Even if we assume that it is AI, does it look so bad that it deserves to be removed?

If it’s fully or mostly AI, it doesn’t matter how it looks. They are against the rules.

Blank_User said:

If it’s fully or mostly AI, it doesn’t matter how it looks. They are against the rules.

This is a stupid rule. As stupid as those offended autists who downvoted me.
What's the problem with who is AI? What's wrong with that? Why did some autist decide that a good AI drawing should be deleted, but some crooked, fifth-grader-level crap can be posted?

KiberPingvin said:

This is a stupid rule. As stupid as those offended autists who downvoted me.
What's the problem with who is AI? What's wrong with that? Why did some autist decide that a good AI drawing should be deleted, but some crooked, fifth-grader-level crap can be posted?

Because AI is an algorithm that collects data from what artists make, effectively stealing from said artists without any form of credit whatsoever, while your 'fifth grade level crap' had a really person drawing what they wanted to draw, doing the work themself, instead of stealing from other artists to make less than good content.

KiberPingvin said:

This is a stupid rule. As stupid as those offended autists who downvoted me.
What's the problem with who is AI? What's wrong with that? Why did some autist decide that a good AI drawing should be deleted, but some crooked, fifth-grader-level crap can be posted?

lil bro feelin himself now that he's in the seventh grade 🥀🥀🥀

KiberPingvin said:

This is a stupid rule. As stupid as those offended autists who downvoted me.
What's the problem with who is AI? What's wrong with that? Why did some autist decide that a good AI drawing should be deleted, but some crooked, fifth-grader-level crap can be posted?

The reason is because if we didn't ban AI art then people would just flood the site with it. Especially given how garbage AI art was when that rule was created, and how garbage it still is if you're not using the best models, it made sense to not have the modqueue overflowing with AI garbage that never had a chance of being approved anyway.

If we were going to give a pass to "good looking" AI art, then we might as well not have the rule at all.

throwawa99999999 said:

lil bro feelin himself now that he's in the seventh grade 🥀🥀🥀

Translation please?

Nickle_Cradle_Colorado said:

Because AI is an algorithm that collects data from what artists make, effectively stealing from said artists without any form of credit whatsoever, while your 'fifth grade level crap' had a really person drawing what they wanted to draw, doing the work themself, instead of stealing from other artists to make less than good content.

But in this case, apparently, this is an AI picture from the original artist, in that case, what and from whom does it take? Who did it do badly to?

blindVigil said:

The reason is because if we didn't ban AI art then people would just flood the site with it. Especially given how garbage AI art was when that rule was created, and how garbage it still is if you're not using the best models, it made sense to not have the modqueue overflowing with AI garbage that never had a chance of being approved anyway.

If we were going to give a pass to "good looking" AI art, then we might as well not have the rule at all.

Yes, I know how awful and talentless the vast majority of AI images look, and I am not advocating for allowing things with extra fingers or impossible anatomy or other nonsense. Such garbage should be in the trash, but here, we clearly do not have the case where you can say that this is a piece of shit on your screen.

KiberPingvin said:

But in this case, apparently, this is an AI picture from the original artist, in that case, what and from whom does it take? Who did it do badly to?

I really dont know much about this post or anything I just got mad at how someone was defending ai so that is left to your opinions

Nickle_Cradle_Colorado said:

I really dont know much about this post or anything I just got mad at how someone was defending ai so that is left to your opinions

I didn't defend AI, I just wondered what's wrong with this art being made by AI. But a bunch of offended autists decided to give me minuses instead of giving a normal answer.

KiberPingvin said:

I didn't defend AI, I just wondered what's wrong with this art being made by AI. But a bunch of offended autists decided to give me minuses instead of giving a normal answer.

that is a good point, arguments are meant to display reasonings for your belief, merely trying to downside downvote whatever someone instead of actually giving a reply is basically polarization, feedback should be given and some people choose not to, though there is nothing wrong with autism.

KiberPingvin said:

But in this case, apparently, this is an AI picture from the original artist, in that case, what and from whom does it take? Who did it do badly to?

So you just don't have any idea how AI gen works, then.

Nickle_Cradle_Colorado said:

that is a good point, arguments are meant to display reasonings for your belief, merely trying to downside downvote whatever someone instead of actually giving a reply is basically polarization, feedback should be given and some people choose not to, though there is nothing wrong with autism.

One of the most obvious signs of autism is precisely communication problems, so I believe that those people who, upon seeing my question, instead of trying to talk and give an answer, simply put a minus, are those who are afflicted with this disease.

blindVigil said:

So you just don't have any idea how AI gen works, then.

Um, and what exactly am I wrong about now? This art is from the artist's twitter account, the art was published by his account, not retweeted. So what's the problem, explain to me where I'm wrong in your opinion and what do you disagree with?

KiberPingvin said:

Um, and what exactly am I wrong about now? This art is from the artist's twitter account, the art was published by his account, not retweeted. So what's the problem, explain to me where I'm wrong in your opinion and what do you disagree with?

You're implying that artists can't post their own ai-art on their own twitter account and that they must steal it from someone else first before posting it. An artist can post whatever they want on their profile, even art they generated from ai, but ai-art in it's nature steals from other artist's work to put together a picture that looks unnatural and often times poor, it has no real effort put into it like a human person putting their own blood, sweat and tears in their art, and that's why many people are generally against ai-art.

KiberPingvin said:

Um, and what exactly am I wrong about now? This art is from the artist's twitter account, the art was published by his account, not retweeted. So what's the problem, explain to me where I'm wrong in your opinion and what do you disagree with?

What proof do you have that they only used their own art to train AI with? You don't have any and that's the problem!
We have zero guarantee that the AI was trained only with ethically sourced data!

KiberPingvin said:

One of the most obvious signs of autism is precisely communication problems, so I believe that those people who, upon seeing my question, instead of trying to talk and give an answer, simply put a minus, are those who are afflicted with this disease.

The fact that you call autism a disease shows you have no idea what it actually is. And no, users are not obligated to explain why they downvoted your comment. Would you expect users upvoting your comments to explain why?

I think several users downvoting your comment is preferable to a bunch of comments dogpiling you with the same explanation and turning the comment thread into a train wreck.

KiberPingvin said:

Um, and what exactly am I wrong about now? This art is from the artist's twitter account, the art was published by his account, not retweeted. So what's the problem, explain to me where I'm wrong in your opinion and what do you disagree with?

You claimed this was the creator’s original work, but if AI was used in any capacity, then there’s no way it’s entirely original, unless you want to argue that the models were trained solely on that person’s work. And if the creator only used prompts, you can’t exactly call them an artist.

Myth-of-Stars said:

You're implying that artists can't post their own ai-art on their own twitter account and that they must steal it from someone else first before posting it. An artist can post whatever they want on their profile, even art they generated from ai, but ai-art in it's nature steals from other artist's work to put together a picture that looks unnatural and often times poor, it has no real effort put into it like a human person putting their own blood, sweat and tears in their art, and that's why many people are generally against ai-art.

So you're saying that an artist can't train an AI based on hundreds of HIS OWN works?

bunkhead said:

What proof do you have that they only used their own art to train AI with? You don't have any and that's the problem!
We have zero guarantee that the AI was trained only with ethically sourced data!

bunkhead said:

What proof do you have that they only used their own art to train AI with? You don't have any and that's the problem!
We have zero guarantee that the AI was trained only with ethically sourced data!

Do you have evidence that he used other people's work, from people who did not give their consent? If so, provide it. If not, do not violate the presumption of innocence.

Blank_User said:

The fact that you call autism a disease shows you have no idea what it actually is. And no, users are not obligated to explain why they downvoted your comment. Would you expect users upvoting your comments to explain why?

I think this is an issue of the translator, who does not interpret my words quite correctly. But my point is that I would rather get a dozen similar opinions in explanation to my simple question than a meaningless downvote from people with disabilities without any explanation.

You claimed this was the creator’s original work, but if AI was used in any capacity, then there’s no way it’s entirely original, unless you want to argue that the models were trained solely on that person’s work. And if the creator only used prompts, you can’t exactly call them an artist.

I suppose the artist could have taught him on his own works, since he has quite a few of them. If you claim that it is not so, then according to the presumption of innocence, you must prove guilt. So does anyone have evidence of this? Or just unfounded accusations?

You really don't know how "AI" works. Today's image generation models, the ones used for anime-style images at least, are fine-tunes of fine-tunes of a fine-tune of Stable Diffusion XL. In each step of the way, hundreds of thousands to millions of images are used as training data, and there is no guarantee that all that data is "ethically sourced". Unless unfairr built their own model from scratch, they are simply using one of those models plus a LoRA trained on their body of work, which is a drop in an ocean compared to the amount of works that make up the model. And we can be quite certain that the model in question is a fine-tune, as there is no way to make a competent image generation model today built on only a few hundred images.

KiberPingvin said:

Do you have evidence that he used other people's work, from people who did not give their consent? If so, provide it. If not, do not violate the presumption of innocence.

*facepalm*
Do you not understand that all AI is trained on stolen data? All Of Them!!!! EVERYWHERE!!! EVERY TIME!!! It is known! It is a proven fact!

So if you're going to claim that an AI image is made with an AI module trained only on the prompters previous art then you better come with receipts. Because no sane person in the universe is going to take you at your word!

bunkhead said:

*facepalm*
Do you not understand that all AI is trained on stolen data? All Of Them!!!! EVERYWHERE!!! EVERY TIME!!! It is known! It is a proven fact!

So if you're going to claim that an AI image is made with an AI module trained only on the prompters previous art then you better come with receipts. Because no sane person in the universe is going to take you at your word!

Of course I don't know how AI works, man, people aren't born knowing the entire universe. Slap yourself in the face again to make you realize you're being an asshole.

marcymal said:

You really don't know how "AI" works. Today's image generation models, the ones used for anime-style images at least, are fine-tunes of fine-tunes of a fine-tune of Stable Diffusion XL. In each step of the way, hundreds of thousands to millions of images are used as training data, and there is no guarantee that all that data is "ethically sourced". Unless unfairr built their own model from scratch, they are simply using one of those models plus a LoRA trained on their body of work, which is a drop in an ocean compared to the amount of works that make up the model. And we can be quite certain that the model in question is a fine-tune, as there is no way to make a competent image generation model today built on only a few hundred images.

Thank you for a normal and detailed answer. If everything is as you described, it turns out that the rule itself banning AI images was introduced not because of their quality, but because of theft.

[deleted]

I think this is an issue of the translator, who does not interpret my words quite correctly. But my point is that I would rather get a dozen similar opinions in explanation to my simple question than a meaningless downvote from people with disabilities without any explanation.

The problem is that you (or your translator) are assuming the reason they’re downvoting is because of a disability. That is extremely unlikely to be the case. Most users are capable of explaining why they downvote. They just choose not to.

On the other hand, I’m autistic and was the first one to give you an explanation before all those downvotes came in. I also didn’t downvote any of your comments. Many autistic people can communicate and develop social skills with proper support, even if it takes a little longer.

KiberPingvin said:

Thank you for a normal and detailed answer. If everything is as you described, it turns out that the rule itself banning AI images was introduced not because of their quality, but because of theft.

It’s neither of those things. It’s because AI art is far too easy to produce. As explained by the site owner in forum #225597:

evazion said:

AI art is banned on Danbooru for the simple practical reason that we don't want to be flooded by it.

Three reasons Generative AI is bad (and thus it is reasonable to ban it from danbooru)
1. Unethical sourcing (artists aren't compensated for their effort in making the model work)
2. Environmental impact (training and use of huge models like this takes a LOT of power)
3. Volume (too much slop to sort through)

Many artists who say that they train the model on their own art have been deceived by AI companies—being able to add your own data does not erase the training on unethically sourced data. You typically can't just toss only a thousand pictures into a black box and get good results.

The only way that one could consider generative AI art to be mostly ethical would be if the artist released an open source implementation of the machine learning algorithm they used (not weights) and a list of publicly available art used to train their model. Additionally, the art has to be creative commons, owned by the artist, or explicitly licensed for that artist to use to train a generative AI model. If you wanted to address the rest of the ethics issues, you could also train and generate using a solar farm on your roof or otherwise show that you are pushing for clean energy. To my knowledge, no artists have done this. Even if someone went through this process, there would still be a volume problem for a site like danbooru that can't go through the open source code and verify that the results of the project are reproducible and thus legitimate.

For now, it makes too much sense to keep AI off of platforms like danbooru, lest it become a pile of slop.

Blank_User said:

The problem is that you (or your translator) are assuming the reason they’re downvoting is because of a disability. That is extremely unlikely to be the case. Most users are capable of explaining why they downvote. They just choose not to.

On the other hand, I’m autistic and was the first one to give you an explanation before all those downvotes came in. I also didn’t downvote any of your comments. Many autistic people can communicate and develop social skills with proper support, even if it takes a little longer.

Then I can only tell you that you are a great guy, because you make an effort, so that no matter what, you can live and communicate normally. And I would really like more people to be as strong as you. But unfortunately, not everyone is as good as you, so they even decided to downvote my comment, where I thanked the person for his explanations. Like, I don’t believe that a normal, adequate and completely healthy person would do this.

KiberPingvin said:

I didn't defend AI, I just wondered what's wrong with this art being made by AI. But a bunch of offended autists decided to give me minuses instead of giving a normal answer.

What do you have against autistic people, dude?

KiberPingvin said:

Then I can only tell you that you are a great guy, because you make an effort, so that no matter what, you can live and communicate normally. And I would really like more people to be as strong as you. But unfortunately, not everyone is as good as you, so they even decided to downvote my comment, where I thanked the person for his explanations. Like, I don’t believe that a normal, adequate and completely healthy person would do this.

I am a normal, adequate and completely healthy person and I downvoted you because you're being an asshole.

bunkhead said:

I am a normal, adequate and completely healthy person and I downvoted you because you're being an asshole.

Did you decide this yourself or do you have a conclusion from doctors? Because I question the adequacy of those who, instead of a normal answer to the question "Even if we assume that it is AI, does it look so bad that it deserves to be removed?" put a minus and think that they acted like an adequate person.

KiberPingvin said:

Did you decide this yourself or do you have a conclusion from doctors? Because I question the adequacy of those who, instead of a normal answer to the question "Even if we assume that it is AI, does it look so bad that it deserves to be removed?" put a minus and think that they acted like an adequate person.

I just checked your account, and I'm not sure I wanna hear anything about AI being allowed when you thought non-AI art was AI.

Ashvin123 said:

I just checked your account, and I'm not sure I wanna hear anything about AI being allowed when you thought non-AI art was AI.

Your opinion is "very important" to me.

KiberPingvin said:

Your opinion is "very important" to me.

Seems so, you keep responding to others opinion of you.