Good initiative anon
Not a big fan of sloppa

>>3022836
The problem is that AI posters are like militant vegans, they go where they're not wanted, refuse to listen when you explain why they're not wanted there, push their fake shit in your face, call you bad for liking the real shit, brag that they're going to take the real shit away from you, then have the nerve to get upset when they face consequences.

Proompters need to be rounded up and gathered in one place, then we need to dust off and nuke the site from orbit.

>>3022854
Good points and I think there needs to be actual consequences for posting AI art outside the AI treads. Right now perhaps we can use rules against shitposting, spamming or trolling to convince janitors or moderators to remove AI posts from all non AI threads until and unless an actual rule is in place about AI generated images on /e/

desu it should probably be up to each thread whether they want to allow AI or not, but the default should be no AI allowed

>>3022858
if the threads ask for no AI, it can be reported as off-topic, no?

>>3022858
I agree with this, its one thing if its just someone posting a single image and maybe not understanding but the people who come into other threads and spam dozens in a row really need some sort of slap on the wrist at best.

I think report function should have something like "posting AI content outside of dedicated thread" as an option.

In the time it takes to cook one steak, a proomter can fry up two hundred or more hamburgers. and there's only so much room on the dining table.

"You brought good steak? Sorry, table's already full with cheap textured tofu; try again tomorrow."

>>3022836
I'm sorry, where is that rule regarding AI art posted at in /e/? I didn't see it in the 1st sticky post, but I find it strange you referred to the lower quality AI work while ignoring the obvious ones
https://i.4cdn.org/e/1757754949018547.png
https://i.4cdn.org/e/1756948905972000.png
https://i.4cdn.org/e/1757065776323720.png

I know those to be AI as I am the one that posted them. I don't make them, I just save them

>>3023067
>We should not allow the posting of AI generated art outside the AI threads, not because we're trying to be gatekeepers, but because the AI threads are the best places where those images can be posted, to receive feedback and improve the quality of the entire board.

>>3023070
That is your statement in the beginning of this post. It does not appear any where else in /e/. If you want to make it a rule it should be clearly posted in the rules

>> 6. The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments. Please refrain from posting the following:
Irrelevant catchphrases or copypasta
Example: "What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch?..."
Indecipherable text
Example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"
Irrelevant ASCII macros
Ironic shitposting
Example: "upboads for le funy maymay trollololololoxdxdxdxd~~!"
Gibberish text
Example: "l;kjdsfioasoiupwajnasdfa"

Rules for /e/
>> 1.All images and discussion should pertain to ecchi artwork. Only suggestive artwork or softcore female nudity of Japanese/"Eastern" origin and style is permitted. Hardcore, alternative, yuri, and yaoi content belong on their respective boards.

2. Ecchi material is suggestive and often times cute, however, it should not be mistaken for the cute board.

Rules against AI art should be clearly posted, but we are now in discussion of this topic. So let's talk about it's pros and cons. Because right now pixiv is getting littered with AI art.

The only issues I have with AI for anime-style art are the errors (which are less common on less detailed pictures - e.g. breast/ass-focus pictures - but always present on images that have any amount of detail) and the fact that 99% of anime-style art has the same bright, vivid colouring scheme that is immediately identifiable as AI because it's off-putting and not actually anime-style aesthetic.
If AI art had a proper anime-style colouring scheme and wasn't fraught with errors, I wouldn't give a shit about it.
Using >>3023067 as an example, all three have glaring anatomy errors. The first and third ones just have entirely fucked up breasts (look at both sides of where the arms are placed if it isn't immediately obvious), the second one has issues with the fingers. I'm not going to go into a detailed analysis of every error in each picture, those errors alone disqualify them for me.
I don't even know how this should be treated in terms of rules except for just "follow individual thread rules" and put the burden on OPs to specify "no AI" I guess.

>>3023067
Friend you are trying to defend "Lum with a blurry background and ribs sticking out with detailed pubes but watercolor body but with a flat face that looks like a sticker placed over a painting" "Lum with a black hole, 6 toes on one foot, one foot with painted nails and one without and vomit colored hair that she's sitting on for some reason" and "Lum with mismatched highlighted eyes with one fat ankle and one pencil ankle with detailed but nonsense symbols on the chalkboard."

These images cannot be defended and yet you posted them.

>>3023134
The thing is AI is a tool, and like a starting artist it's going to make mistakes. Even professional artists make mistakes. And if you haven't noticed there has been AI art all over /e/ and /h/ already, it's getting better whether you like it or not. The difference is a really good artist would fix the mistakes AI makes before releasing it.

>>3023267
Tools don't make mistake, people make mistakes. Especially when using a tool they're not qualified for, which is 99.9% of all proompters.

They're bad artists, and they can't even tell that they're bad. So even if they wanted to fix their mistakes, they wouldn't be able to detect them let alone know how to fix them. Same goes for most people posting AI, which is why so much bad slop gets all over everything.

There's just no point trying to find the one good kernel of corn in the heap of dung. Until the sloppers agree on implementing some mandatory and effective quality control (and the slop posters too), you'll never get the majority to accept AI here. Don't just go "oooh bobs and vagene on something that looks vaguely like a certain character, must post"!

>>3023267
Could you describe how you think AI is "getting better"?
I have over the years seen people rejoice that some fetish they have can now be generated where it previously couldn't, but the problem is that it's still making the same basic errors (particularly, the same anatomy errors).
So I'd describe it as more expanding the scope of things it can generate than getting better. Unless I'm missing something here.
>The difference is a really good artist would fix the mistakes AI makes before releasing it.
This is another problem for a couple main reasons:
1) Prompters often don't even look for errors (whether it's because they're fine with them or because they just don't care to search for them), and
2) A human artist, good or bad, can act on criticism. You tell an artist he's drawing too many fingers on his characters and unless he's being spiteful, that isn't going to happen ever again.

File: denki shogun style.png (1.23 MB, 1332x1332)

1.23 MB PNG

>>3023271
nta but as recent as 2024 we were still at the mercy of the Pony model for local generation which couldn't imitate artist styles for shit, had EXTREME trouble separating characters without i2i, had a mild sepia filter over every image and was deliberately devoid of character/artist knowledge because its creator was a knobhead who claimed he was being morally righteous by not letting people "infringe". only for people to find out that he lied and just kept them encrypted for his own personal use as well as possibly his furry discord. it was so bad that people opted to pay a monthly subscription for NAI instead which also had its limitations but was still better overall.

nowadays we have illustrious-based models for local which are infinitely more artist-accurate, can separate characters better and have way more innate knowledge based on danbooru/e621 tags. obviously still not perfect but even stuff like extra fingers can be impainted out. so yes even prompters can fix mistakes if they want to.

and of course we have porn video gens which are a recent development, I'm sure you've noticed them here and there. grok-made videos are choppy slop but local models like wan 2.2 can generate some very nice-looking stuff with the right setup.

>>3023682
and for the record I do agree that AI stuff should be kept in their designated containment threads and not posted anywhere else, just saying.

>>3023067
anon, that's what this entire thread is about. currently /e/ allows AI but it's clearly a point of friction for many as the quality is very low. many many sites have already incorporated similar rules
and even when the quality is good, they're very often mass-produced and mass-posted. when people go into a thread about something, they don't generally wish to see 50 outputs from the same prompt, they wish to see many artists' takes as well as some artists that really like the subject work
one thing that's really important to understand IMO is that "art" is generally not made for consumption. the artists that make stuff just for likes or to goon to are generally lower quality. AI as a whole is only trained to create content that can be consumed like art, but is not art.people who like AI outputs like the pictures for what they "contain", not what they "mean".
or in words perhaps more simple but radical, ai outputs are only made to goon to and stop there. it's slop by definition, not just as a derogatory term slapped onto it

>>3023067
Those are bad. Well the second one is nice. But the other two are very bad especially the last

>>3022861
That would be like saying it should be up to each thread whether to allow pony posting. Part of why we need a rule is because the fans of the topic have demonstrated contempt for the site's rules, etiquette, standards, spoken and unspoken, etc.

AI images should only be posted in dedicated AI threads it should be simple as that for everyone to understand. Its not like we are limiting the number of AI threads compared to Authentic-Human ones.

>>3023271
A few years ago, you could tell it was AI because the fingers would look fucked up. They're getting better.

It's like how the first Terminators had rubber skin. We're now at the T-800 level, where they can imitate humans on a superficial level but if you look close enough you can tell it's a machine. Good enough to fool the average person, but not people into art.

Practically speaking, this is all you really need. There are always more tasteless people than tasteful ones.

The ultimate conclusion of all this is we'll reach the point where the fakes become indistinguishable from the real. Good luck tagging AI art then!

File: twitter-artist-gets-backl(...).png (197 KB, 640x669)

197 KB PNG

It feels like the real issue here is people spamming low quality variations of the same thing. We don't like that in /edg/ either.

A blanket ban on AI will probably catch the obvious slop, but it could also lead to witch hunts and enable schizos. You see people on other sites falsely accusing each other of using AI all the time, pic related.

>>3024059
>The ultimate conclusion of all this is we'll reach the point where the fakes become indistinguishable from the real. Good luck tagging AI art then!
That would be a good thing, though? If it actually got better, to the point it's indistinguishable, I would have no issue with it. (I understand some people have some moral qualm about image theft but I don't actually believe that's the reason people dislike AI - more of a crutch to lean on because it's an easier thing to argue.)

Even with the improvements people have talked about, I don't see it getting to the point of being error-free without some sort of new breakthrough in AI technology though (like a more general AI that actually understands what it's generating). Which means you will have to rely on people who are generating it to filter out or fix the garbage with errors...which probably isn't going to happen because (from what I've seen) the majority of prompters don't seem to care about filtering out even the most obvious errors like fucked up hands/feet...which means for the foreseeable future, sifting through AI art will always be like searching for a speck of gold in a pile of shit.

>>3024110
pretty much. but it's hard to write a rule around "don't post similar things of low quality" because well, what is quality, and what is similar (if you're posting in a specific thread all your posts will be similar...) so some sort of rule is required that is more easy to enforce for staff

Good to see containment faggots are still trying to drag the site even deeper down. This reddit-tier attempt to ban anything you don't like is why /tg/ is nothing but bait and generals now.

People are posting AI everywhere because they like it. You're in a minority, trying to self-righteously foist yourself upon everyone else. Fuck off.

>We should not allow the posting of AI generated art outside the AI threads, not because we're trying to be gatekeepers, but because the AI threads are the best places where those images can be posted, to receive feedback and improve the quality of the entire board.
Disingenuous bullshit, as evidenced by like-minded replies:

>Not a big fan of sloppa
>Proompters need to be rounded up and gathered in one place, then we need to dust off and nuke the site from orbit.
>I think there needs to be actual consequences for posting AI art outside the AI treads.

Discussing how to gen better can't improve the whole board if those results aren't allowed anywhere outside the thread for discussing how to gen them better. It doesn't matter if you claim to just want to make everything better, if your proposed solution fails to do that but succeeds at removing something you dislike (and proving you can), those are your real intentions.

>>3024176
So you think it's preferrable for people to post tons of low quality AI, learn nothing, and ruin the board?

>>3024176
I think there should be some middle-ground between a blanket ban on AI for good and allowing people to post error-prone images which are inarguably low quality. Whether it's default to no AI unless specifically allowed, or default to everything goes except when "no AI" is specified, I don't particularly care.

I don't have personal gripes with AI except for the errors. I just don't want to see images that have like extra fingers, mangled fingers, arms that bend in inhuman ways, lack of continuity when objects are partially hidden (like breasts getting fucked up when angled to be hidden by an arm), etc etc. I try not to save images with errors and generally delete them if I've accidentally saved them and I notice later. I think (or hope) most people are like that. And I just want the same standard to be applied to AI art.

Personally, if I saw an AI image that didn't have anatomy errors, background errors, shading/colouring errors, etc, I wouldn't give a shit about whether it's AI if the content interested me. But at the same time, that's such an incredibly small portion of generated images and I don't want to see the rest of it.

>Discussing how to gen better can't improve the whole board if those results aren't allowed anywhere outside the thread for discussing how to gen them better
I can open up /edg/ now and spot a bunch of obvious errors in recently posted pictures. Nobody seems to be calling them out. Do you think that should be allowed everywhere? Or what is your proposed solution?

>>3024059
If they got genuinely good enough to pass as both real and novel.

The poster didn't post to fast or to much as to challenge the rules about spam and low effort posts

And they voluntarily didn't out themselves(which AI-fags really struggle with).

Then why would I care? No one gives a shit if you sneak out of quarantine as long as it doesn't look like an actual breech.

>>3024110
Hey I'd happily take a "don't witch hunt" rule in exchange for a "don't openly post obvious AI-gens outside of designated threads" rule. Wouldn't be surprised if half the witch hunts on other sites are salty AI-fags anyway so best to lock that down.

>>3024176
>People are posting X everywhere because they like it.
you probably haven't been around long enough to remember what this site was like before the pepefication/wojakification/r9kification that has more or less destroyed half of the boards. without any kind of gatekeeping the site just continues to degrade.

we just need a fucking AI BOARD once and for all so they can circlejerk all together

>>3024507
And what happens when it gets good enough to pass as human-made? Every board will be an AI board then.

>>3024519
And? The problem is right now the slop people post which they don't realize is slop. Let's solve the problem we've got right now and leave the future to itself.

isn't /e/ just operating on gentlemen's agreement and the OP has to specify no ai?
i've seen posts get removed for being ai in those threads
personally i don't mind it showing up in threads i just think that it speeds /e/ up a little bit too much, the board doesn't need to move too quickly because it reduces the impact of threads and makes reposts in new threads more common

>>3024176
And people that like art hate AI generated images. People that have the capacity to appreciate art are in a minority, yes. That doesn't make them wrong. It's a fallacy to argue that is the case.

Threads should specify if AI is okay or not at the start. Mods should come out and say definitively that on /e/ where there are AI generals, whether slop posting is permissible or not if not specified by the OP.
A happy medium would be to have posters link to on-topic AI posts from AI generals like so >>3023921
Then it doesn't waste image limit.

>>3024519
What happens then is "don't ask don't tell" half the issue is whenever someone posts a generated image they say something along the lines of...
>I generated this in reaction to this topic
And instantly the thread is derailed with the AI debate yet again. Like when the ponies were quarantined Anons want containment so that they can post about ENF or pantyhose not Grok and MLP. So as long as it passes as human and they don't expose themselves then then it doesn't derail the thread, and its not anyone's business if its real or not (it may still be some's business if you're posting a bunch of technically competent pieces with really simple and uninspired poses and compositions as AI is oft to do, but that's an issue that we would all still be fighting about even without AI and so it falls outside of the scope of this topic)

>>3024176
yes, we don't like AI outputs being lazily dumped everywhere
how hard is it to understand that
i know we're on 4chan but come on this shouldn't be complex

>>3025483
Yeah its like when Kisekae or MMD first became a thing or any other app or game that makes posing up sexy models easy and accessible. Our standards go up to exclude anything that isn't difficult and novel to create, and enthusiasts for the spam making apps get relegated to thier own threads or boards. Its how this shit has always worked, AI doesn't get special treatment.

File: screen-20251124-004147_ex(...).jpg (170 KB, 1308x720)

170 KB JPG

Since the sudden apparition of AI, so advanced and intelligent, taking everybody by surprise, impressed and amazed by all the things AI was capable to do, and the following world-wide massive explosion of popularity and spreading of it, not to mention it kept and keeps getting more and more advanced at a fast rate, it can be used with relative ease and speed. Doesn't take an expert. As a result, just about any idiot with some basic learning before starting, can already make AI generated images/videos/whatever (that range from very poor quality , to just mediocre), and feeling like they are somewhat artists. Sum up to them all the AI enthusiasts which works are generally decent because they think it's an awesome and much more practical way of creating art ("art"), producing high quantities of yet just more and more "slop".
And there you have, the reason. The consequent enormous, invasive flooding of AI-generated anime everywhere now.
Some people argue that AI simply cannot create art and will never do. No matter now or how advanced it will be in the future.
Personally I agree with them. Be it a beautiful landscape or anime image. Created by/with AI. By a skillful individual with very advanced knowledgeable about the tools to generate, editing, and refining exceptionally well. It still just feels like... it lacks something. Like something looks "off".
Lately, I started using a couple of the best free websites that detect with very trustworthy accuracy if an image, just as interesting as the main utility itself (telling you if it's fake or real, AI-generated or Human-made), is it tells you all the reasons of the "Why" of the result the analysis concluded. Characteristics of a fake image and a man-made real image or photo taken by a camera. And expanded information displayed on each.
Here, have a refreshing real pic of Momo in her sexy underwear.

To be clear to AI fags - and assuming most anti-AI fags agree with me - the problem is less AI itself and more that AI has consistent errors and style. Even when a AI-generated picture seems appropriate for a non-AI thread, careful enough examination will generally lead to discovering the same mistakes and monotony. Note that this criticism could theoretically be made towards any artist that would consistently make the same mistakes and flood the board with their art. If it gets better one day, no problem, but that's not the case now, so pointing at it does make sense.

I'd be tempted to say you could post good AI on any board if it can't be recognized as such because of its errors or monotonous style (and in practice, if it really can't be recognized as AI, no ruling can apply to it), but I think at this point, many AI-fags are used to its traits and don't notice them - while others still do, so we have more than one sensibility with which we can judge whether its AI or not. Combine this with some AI-fags flooding some threads and you get to a point where others just dejectedly renounce calling individual cases out - but that doesn't mean they're fine with it, hence this thread.