Free 3D
3D Print Models
3D Scans
Animation & MoCap
Textures
Materials
Skin Reference
2D Game Assets
Sound Effects
Brushes & Tools
Reference Photos
Stock Images
HDR Images
3ds Max
Maya
Blender
Unreal Engine
Unity
ZBrush
Cinema 4D
LightWave
Marmoset
SketchUp
FBX
DAE
DXF
GLBHonest question: Shouldn't Facegen and similar programs also be considered AI? (CLOSED)
177Thread Activity
GrapeJuice3DWed, Feb 04
PawngameWed, Feb 04
GrapeJuice3DWed, Feb 04
DoroThee237Wed, Feb 04
GrapeJuice3DTue, Feb 03
DoroThee237Tue, Feb 03
Hey all,
So, I'm not trying to create an controversy or start a fight, honestly that's not my point here. But after interacting in the new thread about how AI products should be handled here on Renderhub that made me thinking... I know it's not exactly the same thing, but when we use programs like Facegen, Headshop and other similiar programs that create morphs and textures from real photos, that shouldn't be considered a form of AI generated content?
I don't have a license for this programs because they are a bit expensive for me, but I already tested Facegen's trial version and with a few clicks you have a complete face with textures that you can use in your renders or even sell if you have the permissions, licenses and etc.
So, if you didn't made all that from zero, shouldn't we consider this programs and characters created by it as a smaller but existent form of AI? I know that it's not like making a prompt, pressing enter, download, and uploading a brand new product, but honestly I was thinking today...using, allowing and even buying those kind of tools and then later arguing and complaining about AI on our lives doesn't sound a bit "wrong"?
Again, I'm not trying to start a fight or make people scream at each other.. I just want your honest opinion about this because I'm genuinely confused!
I'm not saying we should then "allow everything" but I'm honestly start to thinking we already entered in a gray area with AI in 3D and programming that we can't exactly argue about it a lot actually... for example, a lot of porgrammers today use ChatGPT to help the to fix code lines or even improve them, right? Should they say that their final product also used AI? Should they put "AI was used in this code"? I don't know....but that's just my opinion.
What you guys think?
So, I'm not trying to create an controversy or start a fight, honestly that's not my point here. But after interacting in the new thread about how AI products should be handled here on Renderhub that made me thinking... I know it's not exactly the same thing, but when we use programs like Facegen, Headshop and other similiar programs that create morphs and textures from real photos, that shouldn't be considered a form of AI generated content?
I don't have a license for this programs because they are a bit expensive for me, but I already tested Facegen's trial version and with a few clicks you have a complete face with textures that you can use in your renders or even sell if you have the permissions, licenses and etc.
So, if you didn't made all that from zero, shouldn't we consider this programs and characters created by it as a smaller but existent form of AI? I know that it's not like making a prompt, pressing enter, download, and uploading a brand new product, but honestly I was thinking today...using, allowing and even buying those kind of tools and then later arguing and complaining about AI on our lives doesn't sound a bit "wrong"?
Again, I'm not trying to start a fight or make people scream at each other.. I just want your honest opinion about this because I'm genuinely confused!
I'm not saying we should then "allow everything" but I'm honestly start to thinking we already entered in a gray area with AI in 3D and programming that we can't exactly argue about it a lot actually... for example, a lot of porgrammers today use ChatGPT to help the to fix code lines or even improve them, right? Should they say that their final product also used AI? Should they put "AI was used in this code"? I don't know....but that's just my opinion.
What you guys think?
! REPORT
Sorry about the errors, English is not my main language and we can't edit the posts, RH please add this soon 
REPLY
! REPORT
I'm hoping folks work out what part of "AI" is offensive. In the Art community generative "AI" gets the most flack and IMO the offensive part is art theft used to train the "AI". If you train an "AI" off things you own (your likeness, photos of you, art generated by you) then IMO that should grant you an exception. But the loudest voices focus on the term "AI" with no consideration for the details and break out the pitchforks. My concern for Facegen (and similar) is that it can be used to generate the face of a real person (via images). While our community is mostly benign, the potential for deepfake, NIL/Copyright violation, and non-consensual intimate images are a concern when models are made from real people. So, that's a long winded way of saying I would not automatically flag it for AI unless it's an obvious copy of someone else's work; but I would flag it for something more concerning.
REPLY
! REPORT
GrapeJuice3D
Karma: 17,059
Sun, Feb 01Hi kwerkx, I understand what you mean and thanks for your comment, but in this particular discussion I'm not focusing on the copyright or art theft , or the problems about people doing images withour consent actually. My idea on this discussion is: If you didn't made it from zero, like for example, created a cube and turned into a face, or got the main model for example Genesis 8 and sculpted using a program manually and instead you used a program that "Did the job for you", should that be flagged as AI generated too? It can be any program really, I used Facegen as an example because as we are a 3D forum it would be better to keep the discussion in "our world". But actually with your comment, I believe I got a brainstorm of one of the problems about AI today, I believe most people get mad or worried because of what big companies made: trained their AIs using other people's works. With that we stopped the discussion of: If a program is doing that for me, isn't that Ai generated too? That's what I think actually, sorry if I didn't explained exactly well lol.
Facegen and similar programs don't use AI, they employ a mathematical procedure to derive a diffuse texture and some level of height information from one or more photos. At best you could describe it as 'computer assisted'.
If you want to go down the purist route of 'if you didn't make it yourself, then you only did part of the job' you would have to ditch the computer entirely, and create your art from real paint, or carved from wood/stone, even then you would be using paint that you didn't make yourself, or tools that you didn't make.
If you want to go down the purist route of 'if you didn't make it yourself, then you only did part of the job' you would have to ditch the computer entirely, and create your art from real paint, or carved from wood/stone, even then you would be using paint that you didn't make yourself, or tools that you didn't make.
REPLY
! REPORT
GrapeJuice3D
Karma: 17,059
Tue, Feb 03Ah I remembered now that I saw in a forum some days ago a person saying that if people want they could say it's a "collaboration between you and the machine", I found it kinda cool lol.
Personally, for most of us, I'd say use what you want to use if it gets you to the end result your looking for. I tend to go for the "Iray Real" style as I like to call it. 5 year olds draw better stick figures than I can and I simply don't have the "artistic eye" to go into photoshop and play with layers to get the look my imagination was presenting. My fix was to learn the environmental and tone mapping settings along with camera settings and the basics with the surface tab settings for character skins.
Overall, I think we all have different backgrounds, reasons and skillsets for whichever 3D application we're using and should use whatever side applications we have access to or are comfortable with to achieve whatever image and or vision we have running around in our head.
Overall, I think we all have different backgrounds, reasons and skillsets for whichever 3D application we're using and should use whatever side applications we have access to or are comfortable with to achieve whatever image and or vision we have running around in our head.
REPLY
! REPORT
I tried it once and, well, the results were extremely suboptimal. I do not think it uses AI and, like others said, is just trying to match depth and UV wrap an image around its assumption of depth. Maybe for a quick, background and out of focus character it is a shortcut to consider, other than that, I wouldn't use it for any other reason.
But, having said that, it is yet another reason to avoid uploading your images to social media and such.
But, having said that, it is yet another reason to avoid uploading your images to social media and such.
REPLY
! REPORT
GrapeJuice3D
Karma: 17,059
Tue, Feb 03Thanks for commenting Luxe Muse, and you're right, I don't have social media anymore as well because of that too (unless people count Deviantart lol). I had an account on X but when I found out that their AI let anyone edit\manipulate user's photos I closed my account.
I looked at the FaceGen website and there is no mention anywhere of the use of AI in the software; the first version was released in 2001, did AI exist at that time?
REPLY
! REPORT
GrapeJuice3D
Karma: 17,059
Tue, Feb 03Hi DoroThee237, thanks for the comment. Actually yeah, AI is something that's been studied since 1950, only now that's becoming popular and used on our daily bases, of course the AI we had in our heads that time and in the 1980s are not the same we have today, but it's not something actually new as people think, machine learning is actually pretty old. Well, I believe that the product launched in 2001 is not the same we have today, Daz didn't existed on 2001 too and technologies change, so that's not exactly a "proof" that the program avaiable today doesn't have AI. But that's exactly my point on this discussion, when we say AI today, we only think about the AI generated Images, videos and ChatGPT, my discussion here is, if you're not "doing the project from zero, and there's a program doing the "hard work for you" can't we say that some form of AI (Artificial Inteligence) helped us on the matter? That's my question, and I'm not in any way just puttin the final nail in the coffin, I'm asking you guys's opinion about it. And about the website doesn't mentioning they don't use any form of AI it's not exactly a proof, companies lie all the time unfortunately. :/
DoroThee237
Karma: 15,789
Wed, Feb 04It was the title that misled me, because if I understand correctly, the real purpose of the conversation is to broaden the topic not only to face morphs, but also to full-body morphs, clothing created with Marvelous Designer, for example, and even animation, whether with Daz and its timeline for the intermediate calculations between poses.
My response in this case is that practically everything is created with the help of AI, to varying degrees of sophistication. Only elements made with archaic software like Hexagon can truly be claimed to have been created solely by a human.
My response in this case is that practically everything is created with the help of AI, to varying degrees of sophistication. Only elements made with archaic software like Hexagon can truly be claimed to have been created solely by a human.
GrapeJuice3D
Karma: 17,059
Wed, Feb 04Yeah, that's my opinion too now 
. Sorry I think I didn't choose the best title for the discussion lol, sorry about that, my bad
. Sorry I think I didn't choose the best title for the discussion lol, sorry about that, my bad
PSA: I hope my comment does not cause any misunderstanding or conflict. This is only my personal opinion based on more than 34 years experience in coding and 3D development.
I feel that much of current confusion is coming from mixing AI as a supporting tool and AI as replacement of authorship. These two should be considered separately.
If we decide that "any software which generate content automatically should be forbidden," then logically we must also stop using many existing tools such as Substance Painter, Photoshop, Blender smart UV functions, photo projection, scan data, procedural shaders, and similar technologies. However, it seems that nobody is willing to abandon these tools and return to older, but still very efficient, workflows used by Japanese game development studios in early 2000s. Those who carefully study UV layout and topology of PS1/PS2 era Final Fantasy titles (8, 9, 10, and especially 11) will understand how strict the consistency and pipeline discipline was at that time.
Regarding AI, unless one is training own model from beginning, most users are simply using software-as-a-service that automate certain tasks. In this sense, it is not fundamentally different from using Photoshop or other advanced tools. Interestingly, when creators train models using their own data, AI suddenly seems to become less problematic in discussion.
Therefore, the more important question may not be "was AI used somewhere in the production pipeline?", but rather: was the content mass-generated without sufficient human involvement or responsibility? In such case, I can understand the concerns being raised.
We are working in this industry in order to earn living. Tools that reduce production time are not necessarily bad; in many cases, they are essential.
Twenty years ago, when I was working full-time as programmer, what is now called "AI" was simply called Stack Overflow. Clients never asked how solutions were found; they only cared that their applications worked correctly and stably for many years.
In fact, I developed an application 16 years ago which is still in use today, and even now some large SSII-level solutions have not matched its efficiency. Results were important at that time, and they remain important today.
AI will likely impact many jobs in future, this is difficult to deny. However, while ideological position is understandable, it unfortunately does not pay the bills.
I feel that much of current confusion is coming from mixing AI as a supporting tool and AI as replacement of authorship. These two should be considered separately.
If we decide that "any software which generate content automatically should be forbidden," then logically we must also stop using many existing tools such as Substance Painter, Photoshop, Blender smart UV functions, photo projection, scan data, procedural shaders, and similar technologies. However, it seems that nobody is willing to abandon these tools and return to older, but still very efficient, workflows used by Japanese game development studios in early 2000s. Those who carefully study UV layout and topology of PS1/PS2 era Final Fantasy titles (8, 9, 10, and especially 11) will understand how strict the consistency and pipeline discipline was at that time.
Regarding AI, unless one is training own model from beginning, most users are simply using software-as-a-service that automate certain tasks. In this sense, it is not fundamentally different from using Photoshop or other advanced tools. Interestingly, when creators train models using their own data, AI suddenly seems to become less problematic in discussion.
Therefore, the more important question may not be "was AI used somewhere in the production pipeline?", but rather: was the content mass-generated without sufficient human involvement or responsibility? In such case, I can understand the concerns being raised.
We are working in this industry in order to earn living. Tools that reduce production time are not necessarily bad; in many cases, they are essential.
Twenty years ago, when I was working full-time as programmer, what is now called "AI" was simply called Stack Overflow. Clients never asked how solutions were found; they only cared that their applications worked correctly and stably for many years.
In fact, I developed an application 16 years ago which is still in use today, and even now some large SSII-level solutions have not matched its efficiency. Results were important at that time, and they remain important today.
AI will likely impact many jobs in future, this is difficult to deny. However, while ideological position is understandable, it unfortunately does not pay the bills.
REPLY
! REPORT
GrapeJuice3D
Karma: 17,059
Wed, Feb 04Hi Pawngame, thanks for entering the discussion! Oh don't worry I got your idea and I understood your view and I agree with you, I believe if we use technology in a responsible way and worry if it's not hurting other people's works it's totally ok and we need technology to help us everyday, like you said, programs like Substance and Blender's functions helps us a LOT, imagine doing all that manually like before today? Probably my title lead to some misleading so that's my fault. And thanks for commenting, your points gave a lot of sense to the matter, oh and I didn't knew you had so much computer experience, it's impressive! That's probably why your products are so good 