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
GLBFight AI with Data Poisoning
875Thread Activity
VinceThu, Jun 11
VinceThu, Jun 11
JackolanternSat, May 23
Angry SaladFri, May 22
diogenese19348Fri, May 22
Luxe MuseThu, May 21
Wolf007Thu, May 21
diogenese19348Thu, May 21
Luxe MuseThu, May 21
diogenese19348Thu, May 21
This guy is literally pining for the "good old days"
of content piracy and theft of other peoples IP( music).
of content piracy and theft of other peoples IP( music).
REPLY
! REPORT
bonj
Karma: 14,894
Mon, May 18AI is literally pining for content piracy and theft of other peoples IP.
Shoes on the other foot now.
Shoes on the other foot now.
Vince
Karma: 8,495
Tue, May 19Mr Anabran,
You don't find it "interesting" that you are attacking me for supposedly 'desiring' a return to piracy
while your next posts are all attempting to justify your 'output' which is totally based on the artistic
blood and sweat of others?
You offer no recompense to those whose years of practice, pain, failure and success, led to their works
being accepted as 'greater achievements' of and for, mankind and just offer up cheap ripoffs you then seem to presume
you deserve to be paid for producing. Why should your 'work' be accepted when there's nothing of 'YOU' in the output except, again,
a possibly saved text file?
You don't find it "interesting" that you are attacking me for supposedly 'desiring' a return to piracy
while your next posts are all attempting to justify your 'output' which is totally based on the artistic
blood and sweat of others?
You offer no recompense to those whose years of practice, pain, failure and success, led to their works
being accepted as 'greater achievements' of and for, mankind and just offer up cheap ripoffs you then seem to presume
you deserve to be paid for producing. Why should your 'work' be accepted when there's nothing of 'YOU' in the output except, again,
a possibly saved text file?
Quote:"Generative AI is theft and piracy."
You Believe this ^
Quote :"AI is acceptable, as long it does not interfere with a creative process."
But you also Believe this?^
You Believe this ^
Quote :"AI is acceptable, as long it does not interfere with a creative process."
But you also Believe this?^
REPLY
! REPORT
Masterstroke
Karma: 5,702
Sun, May 17Yes, if you don't understand the fine distinction, the problem is clearly on your side.
I really hope for you, you will find a time consuming, satisfying Ai-Creator side, where your "wisdom" is truely appreciated.
We ordinary "mortal anti-AI hypocrates" will never understand your higher advises.
They will only confuse us.
So this glorious ship of generative AI will sail without us. Don't worry, we won't suffer, because we don't have your higher understanding.
Sail on, don't look back back on us. We will be fine.
bye, bye
I really hope for you, you will find a time consuming, satisfying Ai-Creator side, where your "wisdom" is truely appreciated.
We ordinary "mortal anti-AI hypocrates" will never understand your higher advises.
They will only confuse us.
So this glorious ship of generative AI will sail without us. Don't worry, we won't suffer, because we don't have your higher understanding.
Sail on, don't look back back on us. We will be fine.
bye, bye
https://www.copyright.gov/ai/
Read it and weep. In a nutshell, AI created works can not be copyrighted...period!
This decision was recently upheld by the US supreme court.
There's some nuance to it with regards to how much human input was used. This decision has already opened up a flood of lawsuits against the large AI companies.
Read it and weep. In a nutshell, AI created works can not be copyrighted...period!
This decision was recently upheld by the US supreme court.
There's some nuance to it with regards to how much human input was used. This decision has already opened up a flood of lawsuits against the large AI companies.
REPLY
! REPORT
While I'm not against AI I am against data theft, which is what AI companies have been doing. Open AI could have bought copies of every book it used, read that data into it's system, and trained from it. That isn't what it did, it visited pirate sites to get the copies, and that's why it lost that particular court case. That's what they are talking about in that video, AI companies bypassing any licensing requirements by misusing downloading of websites.
Of course humans are doing that too, there are any number of pirate sites out there where humans can download people's work without paying them. Artists run up against that all the time, including of course on this site.
And corporations have a long history of stealing public data, making in proprietary "Monetizing" it, and selling it. The SCO Group tried to do that with Linux, AT&T also tried it with Unix, parts of that were written public domain, they tried to make it all proprietary, and eventually sold their version to Novell when that failed.
Generative AI is only theft and piracy because we are allowing corporations to flout laws that send individuals to jail when they attempt to do the same thing.
Pharmaceutical companies do that all the time with basic research paid for by the public.
So the problem isn't so much AI itself, which is simply the next iteration of computer programming, the problem is what we let corporations get away with. And probably the bigger issue is how we handle Intellectual property in general.
Of course humans are doing that too, there are any number of pirate sites out there where humans can download people's work without paying them. Artists run up against that all the time, including of course on this site.
And corporations have a long history of stealing public data, making in proprietary "Monetizing" it, and selling it. The SCO Group tried to do that with Linux, AT&T also tried it with Unix, parts of that were written public domain, they tried to make it all proprietary, and eventually sold their version to Novell when that failed.
Generative AI is only theft and piracy because we are allowing corporations to flout laws that send individuals to jail when they attempt to do the same thing.
Pharmaceutical companies do that all the time with basic research paid for by the public.
So the problem isn't so much AI itself, which is simply the next iteration of computer programming, the problem is what we let corporations get away with. And probably the bigger issue is how we handle Intellectual property in general.
REPLY
! REPORT
diogenese19348
Karma: 718
Sun, May 17" Artists run up against that all the time, including of course on this site."
I need to explain that one a bit. While pirated content sometimes appears here with people trying to sell it, it gets noticed and taken down pretty quickly, this site upholds Artists IP rights.
What I was talking about is some person buying content from here then loading it on a pirate site to distribute it.
I need to explain that one a bit. While pirated content sometimes appears here with people trying to sell it, it gets noticed and taken down pretty quickly, this site upholds Artists IP rights.
What I was talking about is some person buying content from here then loading it on a pirate site to distribute it.
Quote:There's some nuance to it with regards to how much human input was used.
Right just make sure to make major human adjustments:
All of My AI generated works (still or animation) have major adjustments
Did you actually READ the Court Ruling in article you referenced?:
"Transformative works made with AI can receive copyright protection under U.S. law, but only to the extent that they reflect sufficient human authorship. Purely AI-generated outputs, even if highly detailed prompts are used, generally do not qualify.
Core Principle: Human Authorship Requirement
U.S. copyright law, rooted in the Constitution's Copyright Clause and the Copyright Act, requires human authorship for protection. The U.S. Copyright Office and federal courts have consistently held that copyright protects original expression resulting from human creativity. Non-human entities, including AI systems acting autonomously, cannot be authors.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this in Thaler v. Perlmutter (certiorari denied March 2026), leaving intact the D.C. Circuit's affirmation of the human authorship requirement.
Works generated entirely by AI in response to prompts are not copyrightable, as prompts convey ideas rather than controlling expressive elements.
Protection for Transformative or AI-Assisted Works
The Copyright Office's January 2025 report (Part 2 on Copyrightability of AI Outputs) and March 2023 Registration Guidance affirm that existing law is flexible enough to protect works involving AI when human creativity determines sufficient expressive elements.
Protection applies in these scenarios:
Significant human modifications or edits: Substantial creative alterations to AI-generated material (e.g., detailed retouching, compositing, or stylistic changes) can make the human contributions copyrightable.
Creative selection, arrangement, or compilation: Humans who curate, organize, or combine multiple AI outputs (or mix them with human-authored elements) in an original way may claim protection for those aspects.
AI as an assistive tool: When AI aids the creative process but a human maintains control over the final expression (e.g., in a larger human-generated work), the overall work or human portions remain eligible. The inclusion of AI-generated material does not automatically bar protection.
Determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, focusing on the degree of human creative control. Minor adjustments typically do not suffice.
Right just make sure to make major human adjustments:
All of My AI generated works (still or animation) have major adjustments
Did you actually READ the Court Ruling in article you referenced?:
"Transformative works made with AI can receive copyright protection under U.S. law, but only to the extent that they reflect sufficient human authorship. Purely AI-generated outputs, even if highly detailed prompts are used, generally do not qualify.
Core Principle: Human Authorship Requirement
U.S. copyright law, rooted in the Constitution's Copyright Clause and the Copyright Act, requires human authorship for protection. The U.S. Copyright Office and federal courts have consistently held that copyright protects original expression resulting from human creativity. Non-human entities, including AI systems acting autonomously, cannot be authors.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this in Thaler v. Perlmutter (certiorari denied March 2026), leaving intact the D.C. Circuit's affirmation of the human authorship requirement.
Works generated entirely by AI in response to prompts are not copyrightable, as prompts convey ideas rather than controlling expressive elements.
Protection for Transformative or AI-Assisted Works
The Copyright Office's January 2025 report (Part 2 on Copyrightability of AI Outputs) and March 2023 Registration Guidance affirm that existing law is flexible enough to protect works involving AI when human creativity determines sufficient expressive elements.
Protection applies in these scenarios:
Significant human modifications or edits: Substantial creative alterations to AI-generated material (e.g., detailed retouching, compositing, or stylistic changes) can make the human contributions copyrightable.
Creative selection, arrangement, or compilation: Humans who curate, organize, or combine multiple AI outputs (or mix them with human-authored elements) in an original way may claim protection for those aspects.
AI as an assistive tool: When AI aids the creative process but a human maintains control over the final expression (e.g., in a larger human-generated work), the overall work or human portions remain eligible. The inclusion of AI-generated material does not automatically bar protection.
Determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, focusing on the degree of human creative control. Minor adjustments typically do not suffice.
REPLY
! REPORT
Quote:This decision has already opened up a flood of lawsuits against the large AI companies.
There has already been a "flood of lawsuits"
against the AI companies for years and everyone who argued that internet scraping is "theft has FAILED.
Anthropic settled for billions with some writers because they actually downloaded specific whole books from one of those…. "knowledge should be FREE!"…. pirated book websites, that the guy, in Vince's video, is lamenting about such pirate sites being shuttered.
Warner Music sued the SUNO AI music service but then made a deal to profit share with SUNO for training on the the music artists Data that they own.
There has already been a "flood of lawsuits"
against the AI companies for years and everyone who argued that internet scraping is "theft has FAILED.
Anthropic settled for billions with some writers because they actually downloaded specific whole books from one of those…. "knowledge should be FREE!"…. pirated book websites, that the guy, in Vince's video, is lamenting about such pirate sites being shuttered.
Warner Music sued the SUNO AI music service but then made a deal to profit share with SUNO for training on the the music artists Data that they own.
REPLY
! REPORT
Vince
Karma: 8,495
Thu, Jun 11You're forgetting one important point, our gov't at this time is being held hostage by a bunch of ignorant, greedy, power hungry "people" who donald installed and none of them produce a thing. None of them are ARTISTS! None of them care about rights, life, or justice... so, your arguments about courts and such are moot.. until we have a real gov't in charge and we've killed ALL the CEOs and investors.
Vince
Karma: 8,495
Thu, Jun 11And with your fervent defense... I must ask, how much are you paying to some AI company each month? And, are you seeing profits? I doubt it.. cos AI is hated... because of what the people who rent it are doing... being greedy, untalented, ugly.. piles of crap.
no different than the porch pirate dye-plosion videos. if you scrape or pirate, you deserve what you get.
REPLY
! REPORT
With generative AI why do they need to scrape books, images, or music created by humans to train it? Since we are told generative AI can create those things just as good as a human then why can't it create it's own training data, faster and with infinite variation?
REPLY
! REPORT
Quote: With generative AI why do they need to scrape books, images, or music created by humans to train it?
The sum total of human knowledge is based on retention and pattern recognition AFTER repeated observation.
we are "trained" on the existing "Data"
compiled by every human predecessor.
you did not naturally know how to eat with a spoon.
you "stole" that skill from observing others in the environment around you as child and henceforth you linguisticly associate the word "spoon", and its function ,with this common household utensil.
Quote: Since we are told generative AI can create those things just as good as a human.
No … AI can "recall" how to produce visual media based on having mass observed what linguistic terms are associated with whatever visual representation of that media or object etc..
With the exception of two Daz Mike 3 character Characters from Xurge3D
I modeled Every single item in this video,
I rigged and animated the characters and edited the video.
But How?? it is because I have a human soul?
if so you can use your human soul and human"creativity" and reproduce a similar video yes?
Or is it because I "scraped" the free Blender modeling tutorials on youtube
and was (very obviously) inspired by the HALO video game franchise.
Generative AI is an advanced human made pattern recognition software not some alien invader from another planet.
It can create visual media better than most humans because most humans lack any creative ability in the first place or the discipline to learn how to model texture and rig, animate.
Hence the existence of mass produced
canned, 3D content markets like Daz inc.
The sum total of human knowledge is based on retention and pattern recognition AFTER repeated observation.
we are "trained" on the existing "Data"
compiled by every human predecessor.
you did not naturally know how to eat with a spoon.
you "stole" that skill from observing others in the environment around you as child and henceforth you linguisticly associate the word "spoon", and its function ,with this common household utensil.
Quote: Since we are told generative AI can create those things just as good as a human.
No … AI can "recall" how to produce visual media based on having mass observed what linguistic terms are associated with whatever visual representation of that media or object etc..
With the exception of two Daz Mike 3 character Characters from Xurge3D
I modeled Every single item in this video,
I rigged and animated the characters and edited the video.
But How?? it is because I have a human soul?
if so you can use your human soul and human"creativity" and reproduce a similar video yes?
Or is it because I "scraped" the free Blender modeling tutorials on youtube
and was (very obviously) inspired by the HALO video game franchise.
Generative AI is an advanced human made pattern recognition software not some alien invader from another planet.
It can create visual media better than most humans because most humans lack any creative ability in the first place or the discipline to learn how to model texture and rig, animate.
Hence the existence of mass produced
canned, 3D content markets like Daz inc.
REPLY
! REPORT
I think the answer is similar to the reason that incestuous relationships between people are forbidden/regarded as bad. As we have seen from examples where members of the nobility would sometimes marry and have children with a close cousin, those children tend to not to become more handsome and more intelligent with each generation, in fact the opposite happens, and the more the same DNA goes round an around within a closed group the worse the effects become. You need external input of fresh material to keep things from degenerating. Which begs the question, if traditional artists stop producing pictures/music/writing because competitive AI makes it uneconomical then there will be no new material going into the AI, other than it's own output, and it will gradually get more and more distorted. I'm sure there is already AI generated content being fed back into it as training material, so the rot has already set in and we just have to wait for entropy to increase. What is today output as music could soon be a deafening howl due to positive feedback.
REPLY
! REPORT
Luxe Muse
Karma: 7,887
Mon, May 18I have had the same thought. Killing human creativity by disincentivizing it will only leave behind this void. I think I can already spot it in multiple posts from people with the dumb "how in the world do I make that long em dash" symbol and the repeated copy-and-paste unauthentic phrasing.
Jackolantern
Karma: 422
Mon, May 18I already find myself using the handy calculator to do simple maths that I used to do manually without much effort, the more I do that, the less I am practising doing the calculations by hand , and the more I will forget.
Quote:Which begs the question, if traditional artists stop producing pictures/music/writing because competitive AI makes it uneconomical then there will be no new material going into the AI, other than it's own output,
An extremely wishful and reductive supposition based on static analysis
First you seem to be assuming that current AI models have already "scraped" everything visual in existence.
That by definition cannot be true.
This planet's oceans are still largely unseen by man or machine, to say nothing of the cosmos.
And second creative people are not some monolithic, group thinking entity. ( Shocker I know)
making a full time living "creating art" was always a risky option, even in your hypothetical scenario ,what makes you think that broke unemployed artists would not be willing provide new content for AI training for a stipend and choose starvation instead?
An extremely wishful and reductive supposition based on static analysis
First you seem to be assuming that current AI models have already "scraped" everything visual in existence.
That by definition cannot be true.
This planet's oceans are still largely unseen by man or machine, to say nothing of the cosmos.
And second creative people are not some monolithic, group thinking entity. ( Shocker I know)
making a full time living "creating art" was always a risky option, even in your hypothetical scenario ,what makes you think that broke unemployed artists would not be willing provide new content for AI training for a stipend and choose starvation instead?
REPLY
! REPORT
Vince
Karma: 8,495
Tue, May 19The "if" statement has no place in a supposed rational argument, it presumes a state of reality in a future based solely on YOUR prediction; which is illogical.
Artists create. People who use an AI based on the works of others, is theft, no matter how you cut the reasoning.
Artists create. People who use an AI based on the works of others, is theft, no matter how you cut the reasoning.
"what makes you think that broke unemployed artists would not be willing provide new content for AI training for a stipend and choose starvation instead? "
Possibly the notion that, by denying AI the input it relies on to survive, it might become less pervasive and leave room for those artists to make a proper living from their original works. A bit like pulling the weeds out of a garden, so that the other plants can flourish.
I think AI has a lot of potential for good, for example I think sending an advanced AI to Mars would make a lot more sense than sending humans, but if other people disagree then that's fine.
Possibly the notion that, by denying AI the input it relies on to survive, it might become less pervasive and leave room for those artists to make a proper living from their original works. A bit like pulling the weeds out of a garden, so that the other plants can flourish.
I think AI has a lot of potential for good, for example I think sending an advanced AI to Mars would make a lot more sense than sending humans, but if other people disagree then that's fine.
REPLY
! REPORT
Jackolantern
Karma: 422
Mon, May 18And... while humans are indeed to a monolithic group thinking entity we sometimes act as if we were.
For example the early moon landings were promoted as 'man' had taken the first steps on another world, not 'a man'.
For example the early moon landings were promoted as 'man' had taken the first steps on another world, not 'a man'.
you create with AI by typing into a text box "what you want the result to be".
The shaping, the corrections, the 'finale', DO come from the 'mind' of the human
typing into the box but, that's where the creative process on that human side ends.
the rest is up to how the program interprets the words inside the text box.
The 'artist' isn't making the strokes with a brush, or a shovel, or a hammer...
there is no residue left behind there is no sweat... there is just the monthly bill
from the AI rental.
that is not creation, that is fantasy
The shaping, the corrections, the 'finale', DO come from the 'mind' of the human
typing into the box but, that's where the creative process on that human side ends.
the rest is up to how the program interprets the words inside the text box.
The 'artist' isn't making the strokes with a brush, or a shovel, or a hammer...
there is no residue left behind there is no sweat... there is just the monthly bill
from the AI rental.
that is not creation, that is fantasy
REPLY
! REPORT
diogenese19348
Karma: 718
Tue, May 19The interesting thing about this discussion is how both sides are saying it is so easy to use a particular piece of software anybody can do it (And AI is software)
No, it takes a lot of skill and talent to get anything but "slop" out of DAZ Studio or any other 3D program, there is no "make art" button.
But by the same token, it's really tough to get anything but slop out of "AI", throwing random words into a prompt gets you about as far as not understanding lighting or surfaces in DAZ.
You get slop, which is why there is so much AI slop running around.
The major difference between the two ways of creating art is that you can crank out slop at least 100 times faster with AI than with 3D art.
Creating real art surprisingly takes about as long because an artist is trying to figure out the right words in the right order with the right emphasis to put in the box to get the picture they want rather than slop and that is surprisingly difficult.
And if you don't believe me, try getting a picture out of AI that isn't slop.
Or go to civatai, look for a picture that isn't crap, and take a look at exactly what had to go into that prompt to get a decent picture.
No, it takes a lot of skill and talent to get anything but "slop" out of DAZ Studio or any other 3D program, there is no "make art" button.
But by the same token, it's really tough to get anything but slop out of "AI", throwing random words into a prompt gets you about as far as not understanding lighting or surfaces in DAZ.
You get slop, which is why there is so much AI slop running around.
The major difference between the two ways of creating art is that you can crank out slop at least 100 times faster with AI than with 3D art.
Creating real art surprisingly takes about as long because an artist is trying to figure out the right words in the right order with the right emphasis to put in the box to get the picture they want rather than slop and that is surprisingly difficult.
And if you don't believe me, try getting a picture out of AI that isn't slop.
Or go to civatai, look for a picture that isn't crap, and take a look at exactly what had to go into that prompt to get a decent picture.
descapotable
Karma: 132
Tue, May 19Honestly I think the “sloppoint is one of the few reasonable takes in this thread. AI makes it way easier to pump out mediocre stuff fast (like the multiple videos someone posted on the thread eww), but making something that actually looks good and feels intentional still takes taste and judgment. The speed changed, the need for artistic discernment didn’t.
And really, almost nobody here is actually “against AIitself. That’s just an easy narrative for people who don’t want to engage with the real arguments about scraping, consent, authorship, and ethics.
And really, almost nobody here is actually “against AIitself. That’s just an easy narrative for people who don’t want to engage with the real arguments about scraping, consent, authorship, and ethics.
QUOTE:The 'artist' isn't making the strokes with a brush, or a shovel, or a hammer...
there is no residue left behind there is no sweat...
Did you "sweat" to produce those naked prefabbed massed produced chicks in your gallery here?
you bought ,you installed , you moved vertices via pre baked sliders
and anyone who bought those same products From Daz can replicate what you did.
But you are an "artist"
I make my own 3D Models AI is just another production tool.
there is no residue left behind there is no sweat...
Did you "sweat" to produce those naked prefabbed massed produced chicks in your gallery here?
you bought ,you installed , you moved vertices via pre baked sliders
and anyone who bought those same products From Daz can replicate what you did.
But you are an "artist"
I make my own 3D Models AI is just another production tool.
REPLY
! REPORT
Vince
Karma: 8,495
Tue, May 19You presume again. You're telling me how I view myself, my daz work, and the inherent value of my work... that's a tad leading on your part, hmm?
I do know exactly what it's like to 'be' an artist, and btw, a paid artist. Not with daz, but in music.
I DO know what goes into learning an instrument; learning how songs are structured, the variety of forms music takes and the influence it can have... socially, individually, and even politically. I'm quite pleased with what I've created and the rules we used back in the 80s to keep ourselves both interesting and honest.
For instance: "If yer gonna play someone else's music, make it your own." IE: don't you DARE just copy it... that will get you immediately unloved.. double-plus ungood even. That is where my values come from, and that is what you SHOULD Be referring to instead of
straw men and red herrings.
Your vigor in your defense means either you're a bored troll, a scrappy AI, OR... your guilt remains within, slowly gouging away at your mind.
Where are your true creations, created by your hands, your mind, and your talent? Go ahead, I'll wait.
I do know exactly what it's like to 'be' an artist, and btw, a paid artist. Not with daz, but in music.
I DO know what goes into learning an instrument; learning how songs are structured, the variety of forms music takes and the influence it can have... socially, individually, and even politically. I'm quite pleased with what I've created and the rules we used back in the 80s to keep ourselves both interesting and honest.
For instance: "If yer gonna play someone else's music, make it your own." IE: don't you DARE just copy it... that will get you immediately unloved.. double-plus ungood even. That is where my values come from, and that is what you SHOULD Be referring to instead of
straw men and red herrings.
Your vigor in your defense means either you're a bored troll, a scrappy AI, OR... your guilt remains within, slowly gouging away at your mind.
Where are your true creations, created by your hands, your mind, and your talent? Go ahead, I'll wait.
evarest
Karma: 279
Tue, May 19Transcript of yet another insulting rant that dismisses anyone critical of AI as irrelevant, pathetic wanker, and hypocritical. It reduces the entire debate to provocation and contempt while promoting his own AI content as superior:
"Listen up, you bloody wankers. I am Hogarth by thing for Daz Genesis 9. I don't tolerate no disrespect to my club, so you better be on your best behavior.
Now, a lot of you knobbers are upset that we use AI, and I am here to tell you we don't bloody care what you think.
Really, it's all a bit knackered, mate, and we absolutely will not submit to your arbitrary permission structures.
You always banging on about protecting art when you're really only trying to protect relevancy that you never had in the first bloody place.
Seriously, what do you bloody people do to create your art?
You buy figures from Daz that you didn't make, rig, or even texture, and toss it into a scene IN DAZ STUDIO.
AND THEN WHAT? YOU WAIT HOURS FOR that ridiculous Iray render engine to resolve something that looks like everything else being tossed out by that regurgitated Daz content. And you spend the rest of your time in pathetic little online mutual validation bubbles, gaslighting each other about how bloody talented you think you are.
And you really think that you are on the vanguard of some righteous holy war against AI? Really? When you've not got the balls to even free yourselves from that Daz content hamster WHEEL YOU ARE TURNING ON.
SERIOUSLY, GUYS, YOUR LACK OF self-awareness is bloody pathetic."
There’s a pretty obvious contradiction between the video’s message and how it behaves in the forum.
The video attacks others as “pathetic,“irrelevant,and stuck in “validation bubbles,while simultaneously posting inflammatory, attention grabbing content across threads and pushing a personal channel. That’s basically the same engagement-driven ecosystem it claims to be superior to.
It also constantly reshapes the narrative to suit the moment: when criticism is about consent and scraping, it becomes “you’re just anti-progress.When it’s about tooling and authorship, it becomes “you all do the same thing anyway.When it’s about tone or behavior, it becomes “you’re just offended.None of those responses actually address the core points, they just redirect.
So the irony is that the video presents itself as cutting through delusion and self-validation, while its own style relies heavily on provocation, exaggeration, and selective framing to stay relevant in the very same attention economy it criticizes.
In the context of this thread, the following sections of the TOS could reasonably be considered relevant:
>Section 17, "User Conduct" (personal attacks / harassment)
“Users will not use the RenderHub community for personal attacks. This includes but is not limited to destructive, abusive, defamatory communications in any form, and retaliation against personal attacks.br>
by insulting other users (“pathetic “irrelevant “you people are delusional etc.)
>Also Section 17, "User Conduct" (disruption / abuse)
“Users will not use the RenderHub community for any activity that affects the normal operations of the community.br>“Users will not use the RenderHub community for destructive commentary or communications made with the intent to disrupt or attack another.br>
by using threads primarily to provoke arguments, derail discussions, or escalate conflicts
> Section 3, "Your Use of Our Services" (spam / solicitation)
“Using the Site for any commercial solicitation purposes, except as explicitly provided for by these Terms.br>“Transmitting spam, chain letters, or other unsolicited promotional email.br>
by repeatedly posting videos to promote a personal channel or drive external traffic
> Also Section 3, "Your Use of Our Services" (interference)
“Interfering with the proper working of the Site.br>
with behaviour that repeatedly derails threads or disrupts normal forum discussion flow.
Overall, this kind of approach makes it hard to have a real discussion. When a thread is driven more by insults, provocation, and narrative framing than by addressing points directly, it quickly stops being productive.
It also tends to derail conversations and turn every disagreement into escalation, which affects the overall tone of the RenderHub Forums. Whatever one thinks about the AI debate itself, the way it’s being discussed here is what ends up shaping the environment.
"Listen up, you bloody wankers. I am Hogarth by thing for Daz Genesis 9. I don't tolerate no disrespect to my club, so you better be on your best behavior.
Now, a lot of you knobbers are upset that we use AI, and I am here to tell you we don't bloody care what you think.
Really, it's all a bit knackered, mate, and we absolutely will not submit to your arbitrary permission structures.
You always banging on about protecting art when you're really only trying to protect relevancy that you never had in the first bloody place.
Seriously, what do you bloody people do to create your art?
You buy figures from Daz that you didn't make, rig, or even texture, and toss it into a scene IN DAZ STUDIO.
AND THEN WHAT? YOU WAIT HOURS FOR that ridiculous Iray render engine to resolve something that looks like everything else being tossed out by that regurgitated Daz content. And you spend the rest of your time in pathetic little online mutual validation bubbles, gaslighting each other about how bloody talented you think you are.
And you really think that you are on the vanguard of some righteous holy war against AI? Really? When you've not got the balls to even free yourselves from that Daz content hamster WHEEL YOU ARE TURNING ON.
SERIOUSLY, GUYS, YOUR LACK OF self-awareness is bloody pathetic."
There’s a pretty obvious contradiction between the video’s message and how it behaves in the forum.
The video attacks others as “pathetic,“irrelevant,and stuck in “validation bubbles,while simultaneously posting inflammatory, attention grabbing content across threads and pushing a personal channel. That’s basically the same engagement-driven ecosystem it claims to be superior to.
It also constantly reshapes the narrative to suit the moment: when criticism is about consent and scraping, it becomes “you’re just anti-progress.When it’s about tooling and authorship, it becomes “you all do the same thing anyway.When it’s about tone or behavior, it becomes “you’re just offended.None of those responses actually address the core points, they just redirect.
So the irony is that the video presents itself as cutting through delusion and self-validation, while its own style relies heavily on provocation, exaggeration, and selective framing to stay relevant in the very same attention economy it criticizes.
In the context of this thread, the following sections of the TOS could reasonably be considered relevant:
>Section 17, "User Conduct" (personal attacks / harassment)
“Users will not use the RenderHub community for personal attacks. This includes but is not limited to destructive, abusive, defamatory communications in any form, and retaliation against personal attacks.br>
by insulting other users (“pathetic “irrelevant “you people are delusional etc.)
>Also Section 17, "User Conduct" (disruption / abuse)
“Users will not use the RenderHub community for any activity that affects the normal operations of the community.br>“Users will not use the RenderHub community for destructive commentary or communications made with the intent to disrupt or attack another.br>
by using threads primarily to provoke arguments, derail discussions, or escalate conflicts
> Section 3, "Your Use of Our Services" (spam / solicitation)
“Using the Site for any commercial solicitation purposes, except as explicitly provided for by these Terms.br>“Transmitting spam, chain letters, or other unsolicited promotional email.br>
by repeatedly posting videos to promote a personal channel or drive external traffic
> Also Section 3, "Your Use of Our Services" (interference)
“Interfering with the proper working of the Site.br>
with behaviour that repeatedly derails threads or disrupts normal forum discussion flow.
Overall, this kind of approach makes it hard to have a real discussion. When a thread is driven more by insults, provocation, and narrative framing than by addressing points directly, it quickly stops being productive.
It also tends to derail conversations and turn every disagreement into escalation, which affects the overall tone of the RenderHub Forums. Whatever one thinks about the AI debate itself, the way it’s being discussed here is what ends up shaping the environment.
bonj
Karma: 14,894
Tue, May 19your words or near enough "You moved over to full ai and do not make or use 3d assets". Why are you trolling a 3d asset forum?
Take it to an ai site and leave 3d alone because that's where you belong.
Take it to an ai site and leave 3d alone because that's where you belong.
bonj
Karma: 14,894
Thu, May 21This is unexceptionable. Is anabran above the site rules for some special reason?
Jackolantern
Karma: 422
Thu, May 21Maybe it's allowed because it's directed at all of us, and not a single person. I have to say I still don't like it on principle, but I honestly don't care what he thinks, so whatever.
bonj
Karma: 14,894
Thu, May 21@Jackolantern
Oh it's plural then. "Listen up, you bloody wankers." is ok but "Listen up, you bloody wanker." Is directed at one person. They have some funny logic here
Oh it's plural then. "Listen up, you bloody wankers." is ok but "Listen up, you bloody wanker." Is directed at one person. They have some funny logic here
Jackolantern
Karma: 422
Sat, May 23If someone chooses to portray themselves as a fat loudmouth pig who am I to argue.
Anabran,
I'd ask an AI 'artist', "Where in your art are the artist's strokes and ideas your text/choices/orders generated, and what artists were they? I'm sure you have no idea and cannot find that
information since AI will, does, and can, hallucinate on answering. Why? Because you didn't create the final product, period. You are not the artist.
Do you presume you deserve to be paid for such output? And if so, please explain why that action is not theft. Remember, AI is, as yet, unpunished intellectual property theft.
Using it makes YOU complicit, AND let's others know you are lazy, greedy, without moral compass, AND devoid of talent.
I'd ask an AI 'artist', "Where in your art are the artist's strokes and ideas your text/choices/orders generated, and what artists were they? I'm sure you have no idea and cannot find that
information since AI will, does, and can, hallucinate on answering. Why? Because you didn't create the final product, period. You are not the artist.
Do you presume you deserve to be paid for such output? And if so, please explain why that action is not theft. Remember, AI is, as yet, unpunished intellectual property theft.
Using it makes YOU complicit, AND let's others know you are lazy, greedy, without moral compass, AND devoid of talent.
REPLY
! REPORT
Luxe Muse
Karma: 7,887
Tue, May 19It is important to note that trashing what people make with the products from RenderHub and every vendor sells on its own site feels not just like trolling, but a deliberate attack on the value, goodwill, and effort of everyone who contributes here. So this attack on your art and your beautiful renders is an attack on every artist on this site. And I say so even though, I have not even seen the nudes he referenced given my filter, only the moderates, so I can only imagine they must be jaw-dropping.
But it's no different than trolling a ballerina for not composing her or his own music, or for not sewing her or his own tutu. or trolling a painter for not crafting his own oils, his own pencils, or his own brushes. I know a lot of artists who do not build their own canvases either.
But it's no different than trolling a ballerina for not composing her or his own music, or for not sewing her or his own tutu. or trolling a painter for not crafting his own oils, his own pencils, or his own brushes. I know a lot of artists who do not build their own canvases either.
Lastly... why is AI?
Duhhhh... it's because it's making nvidia filthy rich...
GN takes a wonderful look at the AI bubble, how it works, and who's involved.
Duhhhh... it's because it's making nvidia filthy rich...
GN takes a wonderful look at the AI bubble, how it works, and who's involved.
REPLY
! REPORT
bonj
Karma: 14,894
Tue, May 19I see this a lot recently.. I should use the other browser with the vpn . The world wide web is now just the local Nannie web. Thanks ai your so great!!!
dirtrider00
Karma: 22,540
Tue, May 19I contribute that more to bs government crap regardless of where you live.
Jackolantern
Karma: 422
Tue, May 19Agreed. I'd love to go to Civitai as suggested earlier, and see what's going on, but I can't. This is because our wonderful government has decided that, since Civitai contains some NSFW content, it needs to verify our citizens are over 18 before they are allowed to view the site, and Civitai has chosen to block all access from my country rather than spend time and money checking users ages. So VPN apart it's as dark as the dark web..
Luxe Muse
Karma: 7,887
Tue, May 19Orwell wrote very nice books. Then the AI folks came along and thought, oh, is that a challenge? Hold my beer. (Not my original thought. It was my better half's joke.)
Luxe Muse
Karma: 7,887
Tue, May 19Oh, and also, prove that I'm not a bot, 'cause I give credits to creators, hi, hi, hi
diogenese19348
Karma: 718
Tue, May 19Well that sucks. Here's a picture you can hopefully view:
https://image-b2.civitai.com/file/civitai-media-cache/7354fac3-d0b3-46fa-bfef-858779db6c1f/original
And here's the prompt for it:
masterpiece, very aesthetic, best quality, score_9, score_8, score_7, highres, newest, Graphic illustration of a figure in profile seated on a simple wooden chair in an otherwise empty white square composition, their body rendered in sharp clean ink lines, but from the back of their head erupts a vast flock of hundreds of crows drawn in varying scales some in tight detail near the head, others just gestural ink strokes near the frame edges the birds filling the entire right two-thirds of the frame in a dense expanding spiral, each crow individually drawn, the figure's posture hunched slightly forward, elbows on knees, head bowed under the weight of the eruption above, monochrome ink with a single flat wash of deep prussian blue behind the crows only, otherwise cream ground, portrait orientation @gpt-image-2, @748cm_style
The checkpoints, lora, and styles used are also important.
And full disclosure: I have tried to use AI, I really have. I just don't have the patience to write a prompt in that kind of detail, and I get *drum roll* AI slop.
I find it much more intuitive to use 3D programs to create pictures for my stories.
But whatever else you think about it, four or five words in a prompt generator in AI does not give you art.
https://image-b2.civitai.com/file/civitai-media-cache/7354fac3-d0b3-46fa-bfef-858779db6c1f/original
And here's the prompt for it:
masterpiece, very aesthetic, best quality, score_9, score_8, score_7, highres, newest, Graphic illustration of a figure in profile seated on a simple wooden chair in an otherwise empty white square composition, their body rendered in sharp clean ink lines, but from the back of their head erupts a vast flock of hundreds of crows drawn in varying scales some in tight detail near the head, others just gestural ink strokes near the frame edges the birds filling the entire right two-thirds of the frame in a dense expanding spiral, each crow individually drawn, the figure's posture hunched slightly forward, elbows on knees, head bowed under the weight of the eruption above, monochrome ink with a single flat wash of deep prussian blue behind the crows only, otherwise cream ground, portrait orientation @gpt-image-2, @748cm_style
The checkpoints, lora, and styles used are also important.
And full disclosure: I have tried to use AI, I really have. I just don't have the patience to write a prompt in that kind of detail, and I get *drum roll* AI slop.
I find it much more intuitive to use 3D programs to create pictures for my stories.
But whatever else you think about it, four or five words in a prompt generator in AI does not give you art.
Jackolantern
Karma: 422
Tue, May 19Yes i can see that image, thank you. I've played with AI a bit, out of curiosity mainly, and iI found it an exercise in compromise. I'm quite happy to accept that might be my fault for not being a prompt wizard. I sometimes wish I knew someone that was an expert, so that I could hand them a render, and ask them to write a prompt to reproduce it 'exactly' with AI ( without feeding the AI my render).. They could probably get something similar, and if similar is good enough for them well to me that's just compromise.
diogenese19348
Karma: 718
Tue, May 19That's true for about any method of recreating an existing piece of art though, Trying to make an exact copy is painstaking, very time consuming, and is usually called forgery if not labeled correctly.
Aside from wholesale data theft, which a couple of major AI companies have more than dabbled with, is the issue of if you train an AI model on a particular artists works, it becomes very good at churning out that artist's style at a much faster rate than the artist can do it.
For a deceased artist that really isn't that big an issue, for a living one though, yeah, nobody wants to be in competition with an automated version of themselves. And there have been those out there that pull that stunt. They need to be legally smacked upside the head.
But again, that is getting into the issues of how we value and protect Intellectual Property, and not about AI itself. Piracy has been rife on the Internet for a long time now, Corporations are good at protecting their IP, individual artists not so much.
Aside from wholesale data theft, which a couple of major AI companies have more than dabbled with, is the issue of if you train an AI model on a particular artists works, it becomes very good at churning out that artist's style at a much faster rate than the artist can do it.
For a deceased artist that really isn't that big an issue, for a living one though, yeah, nobody wants to be in competition with an automated version of themselves. And there have been those out there that pull that stunt. They need to be legally smacked upside the head.
But again, that is getting into the issues of how we value and protect Intellectual Property, and not about AI itself. Piracy has been rife on the Internet for a long time now, Corporations are good at protecting their IP, individual artists not so much.
Ironically it's the more responsible sites, and their users that suffer. Our government tried to enforce the same rules on 4chan ( not sure what that is but I guess it's NSFW ), and 4chan's response, through their lawyers was 'go forth and multiply', oh and they did point out that our government is not the supreme authority on World Wide internet policing.
REPLY
! REPORT
diogenese19348
Karma: 718
Tue, May 19It isn't much better here. We have states trying to get all O/S's to get your age when you install them. Linux distro's are basically telling them the same thing 4chan did, while some of them are going the route Civatai did and tell users it's illegal to install the O/S in their state.
Ya' know though, we're all in democracies and we are electing these morons. Shame on us.
Ya' know though, we're all in democracies and we are electing these morons. Shame on us.
Jackolantern
Karma: 422
Tue, May 19I'm curious how a state could justify demanding a user prove their age before being allowed to install an O/S. Does having Linux expose users to harmful content or represent some security risk? Or is it more a case of "We can make you jump through this hoop, just for the hell of it, and to make ourselves feel empowered".
diogenese19348
Karma: 718
Tue, May 19To be clear: They didn't demand they prove their age, that's impossible anyway. The demand was that the user have to state their birth date to install the operating system, and that the operating system had to store it, presumably so they could hand it over when the person went to a website.
The whole thing didn't make any sense, you can lie when you install an O/S just as easily as you can lie on a website filling it in.
Anyway, we were asked politely to avoid politics so I am going to
The whole thing didn't make any sense, you can lie when you install an O/S just as easily as you can lie on a website filling it in.
Anyway, we were asked politely to avoid politics so I am going to
Luxe Muse. Yes Orwell wrote great fiction, and governments an corporations seem intent on turning 1984 into reality. When they start turning Animal Farm into reality we all need to watch that we don't end up like Boxer, the horse.
REPLY
! REPORT
Luxe Muse
Karma: 7,887
Tue, May 19Thank you, Jasckolantern. I understand your perspective. The only thing I'd add is, let's not dive into politics here, any of us.
I'm personally somewhat allergic to it, so I'd go as far as to make fun of AI a little. Actually, more on the "this isn't an AI forum but no one listens to me on AI forums so I come here to troll, folks" than AI itself.
But if we start referencing politics, whichever country you come from, it doesn't matter, then things start getting ugly. I don't even use social media because of that. I'm just here, with the things and people that care about 3D.
Don't take it negative, please. On the contrary.
I'm personally somewhat allergic to it, so I'd go as far as to make fun of AI a little. Actually, more on the "this isn't an AI forum but no one listens to me on AI forums so I come here to troll, folks" than AI itself.
But if we start referencing politics, whichever country you come from, it doesn't matter, then things start getting ugly. I don't even use social media because of that. I'm just here, with the things and people that care about 3D.
Don't take it negative, please. On the contrary.
Jackolantern
Karma: 422
Tue, May 19I completely understand and I agree. I was wrong to bring politics into the discussion and apologise.
Nyghtfall3DTue, May 19
Account Closed
Afternoon, folks.... Long time shopper, first time poster... Decided to offer my two cents against my better judgement...
I'd like to begin by sharing my creative background. I got into 3D art using Daz Studio nineteen years ago because I wanted to create my own adult content, fetish videos remain prohibitively expensive to finance, and I don't know how to draw anything more complex than stick figures. Several years ago, my wife greenlit my desire to start my own fetish production studio. I spent the next few years studying photography. Unfortunately, the studio wound up not happening, but I enjoyed a brief stint as a macro photographer, and was able to apply what I learned about lighting and composition to my 3D art.
With that in mind, say what you will about AI, it's not going anywhere. I didn't know it was a thing until three years ago, and shunned it almost immediately. I then spent a year learning everything I could about the tech, so I could better defend my position when discussing AI, only to find myself adding it my own toolkit after all.
At the moment, there are two camps of people with equally passionate thoughts about AI. Having been a forum admin until a year ago - I closed my board last August - and a former opponent of AI, I'm intimately familiar with both sides' arguments, and remain deeply empathetic to the opposition. As such, the first question I ask myself when considering a new project is whether my workflow can start with Daz. Unfortunately for my needs since the new year, the answer has been a resounding 'no' more often than 'yes', largely due to Daz's technical limitations, how tired I've long been of MacGyvering poses it was never intended for, and the lack of suitable content on sites like Daz and Rendo. Consequently, I've had to bend my moral position on AI to satisfy my irresistible need to express myself. To that end, this is my position on AI as it stands today:
Ethical issues aside, AI is an incredibly powerful tool that even a lot of professional artists have embraced. For hobbyists like myself, who share a strong interest in photorealism, AI is a quantum leap forward in achieving the level of visual fidelity we've craved for decades but 3D-modeled figures still lack, and physically-based render engines like Iray will never be able to deliver. For my needs, I've long since come to realize that I'm less concerned about the tools I use to produce the final image than I am about being able to use whatever tools I need to produce the final image at the level of visual quality I want, and that includes creating art solely with AI when necessary.
I sincerely wish companies like OpenAI hadn't trained their models on copyrighted works, but they did, and Musk failed to sue them in time for abandoning their nonprofit origins. Now, the world gets to figure out how to deal with it. Thankfully, I work in an industry that needs human employees to interact with customers, and that will never change. I only wish I were in a position to retire sooner than later.
I'm going to close with a bit of advice for artists using AI in the work:
One of, if not the biggest, drivers behind the disdain for AI is its ability to rapidly churn out dozens of images en masse. You'd be hard-pressed to find a forum admin who hasn't struggled with the challenge of moderating image dumps, or people apposed to AI strongly disliking having to scroll through them. My solution stems from my experience as a photographer: I made a point to treat that particular "feature" as if I'm repeatedly pressing the shutter button on my camera. After generating a few dozen images, I analyze the lot, pick my favorite one to use for a given project, and discard the rest.
I'd like to begin by sharing my creative background. I got into 3D art using Daz Studio nineteen years ago because I wanted to create my own adult content, fetish videos remain prohibitively expensive to finance, and I don't know how to draw anything more complex than stick figures. Several years ago, my wife greenlit my desire to start my own fetish production studio. I spent the next few years studying photography. Unfortunately, the studio wound up not happening, but I enjoyed a brief stint as a macro photographer, and was able to apply what I learned about lighting and composition to my 3D art.
With that in mind, say what you will about AI, it's not going anywhere. I didn't know it was a thing until three years ago, and shunned it almost immediately. I then spent a year learning everything I could about the tech, so I could better defend my position when discussing AI, only to find myself adding it my own toolkit after all.
At the moment, there are two camps of people with equally passionate thoughts about AI. Having been a forum admin until a year ago - I closed my board last August - and a former opponent of AI, I'm intimately familiar with both sides' arguments, and remain deeply empathetic to the opposition. As such, the first question I ask myself when considering a new project is whether my workflow can start with Daz. Unfortunately for my needs since the new year, the answer has been a resounding 'no' more often than 'yes', largely due to Daz's technical limitations, how tired I've long been of MacGyvering poses it was never intended for, and the lack of suitable content on sites like Daz and Rendo. Consequently, I've had to bend my moral position on AI to satisfy my irresistible need to express myself. To that end, this is my position on AI as it stands today:
Ethical issues aside, AI is an incredibly powerful tool that even a lot of professional artists have embraced. For hobbyists like myself, who share a strong interest in photorealism, AI is a quantum leap forward in achieving the level of visual fidelity we've craved for decades but 3D-modeled figures still lack, and physically-based render engines like Iray will never be able to deliver. For my needs, I've long since come to realize that I'm less concerned about the tools I use to produce the final image than I am about being able to use whatever tools I need to produce the final image at the level of visual quality I want, and that includes creating art solely with AI when necessary.
I sincerely wish companies like OpenAI hadn't trained their models on copyrighted works, but they did, and Musk failed to sue them in time for abandoning their nonprofit origins. Now, the world gets to figure out how to deal with it. Thankfully, I work in an industry that needs human employees to interact with customers, and that will never change. I only wish I were in a position to retire sooner than later.
I'm going to close with a bit of advice for artists using AI in the work:
One of, if not the biggest, drivers behind the disdain for AI is its ability to rapidly churn out dozens of images en masse. You'd be hard-pressed to find a forum admin who hasn't struggled with the challenge of moderating image dumps, or people apposed to AI strongly disliking having to scroll through them. My solution stems from my experience as a photographer: I made a point to treat that particular "feature" as if I'm repeatedly pressing the shutter button on my camera. After generating a few dozen images, I analyze the lot, pick my favorite one to use for a given project, and discard the rest.
REPLY
! REPORT
Nyghtfall3D
Account Closed
Tue, May 19Just noticed there's a bit of an authoritative tone in my post. Sorry about that. Please note, everything I wrote is based on solely on my own experience and observations across several sites in recent years.
Jackolantern
Karma: 422
Wed, May 20I'd like to know, where do you find women who will greenlight you going into production of fetish material after you marry them?? I'm horribly jealous. I think my ex would have instead greenlit herself going into the horror genre, with me as the victim.
Nyghtfall3D
Account Closed
Wed, May 20LOL!
Ours has been a very complicated, very challenging marriage. She became permanently disabled and bedridden about 5 years into it. Me and a lifelong High School buddy who lives with us have been sharing caregiver duties ever since.
I told her about my kinks about 3 years after we were married, which resulted in about six months of marriage counseling and re-building trust. (Word to the wise: If you're dating someone, tell them now. Don't wait.) Over the next twenty-plus years, she grew to accept and even support my interests. The production studio was a Christmas present, her ultimate gesture of trust in me to work with other women and realize my dream of being a a producer.
Ours has been a very complicated, very challenging marriage. She became permanently disabled and bedridden about 5 years into it. Me and a lifelong High School buddy who lives with us have been sharing caregiver duties ever since.
I told her about my kinks about 3 years after we were married, which resulted in about six months of marriage counseling and re-building trust. (Word to the wise: If you're dating someone, tell them now. Don't wait.) Over the next twenty-plus years, she grew to accept and even support my interests. The production studio was a Christmas present, her ultimate gesture of trust in me to work with other women and realize my dream of being a a producer.
Nyghtfall3D
Account Closed
Wed, May 20| ... her ultimate gesture of trust in me...
And thanks for staying with her.
I will be forever grateful for her gift and the love behind it, but I'm not sorry the studio never happened. I've since read so many horror stories by other producers that I can't imagine enjoying trying to resolve on-set drama, and then having to care for her upon returning home. I much prefer working with 3D-modeled, and AI-generated figures.
And thanks for staying with her.
I will be forever grateful for her gift and the love behind it, but I'm not sorry the studio never happened. I've since read so many horror stories by other producers that I can't imagine enjoying trying to resolve on-set drama, and then having to care for her upon returning home. I much prefer working with 3D-modeled, and AI-generated figures.
Jackolantern
Karma: 422
Thu, May 21I don't know who this was intended for, but whoever that lady in the video is, she's absolutely right, whatever she says.
Luxe Muse
Karma: 7,887
Thu, May 21Hi, hi, hi!!!
Him: "You are doing the same thing your mom does."
Her: "Have you seen her do this?"
Him: "You are doing the same thing your mom does."
Her: "Have you seen her do this?"
Jackolantern
Karma: 422
Thu, May 21She doesn't do the ironing, she stares at the clothes and they iron themselves.
Jackolantern
Karma: 422
Thu, May 21Some people can communicate a whole sentence with a single glance, in her case it would be , "Look at me like that again and I'll pull your arms out of their sockets, and hit you over the head with the sticky end".
Well, I see you're all going on about the same thing. Look, the way AI generates content depends on how it's used. I use Face Fusion AI to mix my characters' faces to create other characters, etc., so with all this talk about piracy and all that, why didn't I pirate it myself?.By the way, Blender now has AI connectivity.
REPLY
! REPORT
descapotable
Karma: 132
Thu, May 21I think you’re misunderstanding the core criticism people are making here. Most people are not “demonizing AIas a tool, they’re criticizing the ethics behind how many commercial models were trained: mass scraping, use of copyrighted works without consent, datasets sourced from pirate archives, and companies monetizing that at industrial scale. That is not the same argument as “AI bad.br>
Some users keep reframing every criticism as fear of technology or resistance to progress, but many people here are specifically talking about consent, authorship, licensing, and exploitation. Whetther AI can be useful is almost beside the point. The real debate is about how the systems were built and who benefited from that process.
Some users keep reframing every criticism as fear of technology or resistance to progress, but many people here are specifically talking about consent, authorship, licensing, and exploitation. Whetther AI can be useful is almost beside the point. The real debate is about how the systems were built and who benefited from that process.
diogenese19348
Karma: 718
Thu, May 21There's some irony in that. The fact that pirate websites exist at all means that humans are ripping off artists. Humans are stealing IP, and those websites are hubs for it.
You hear vendors complaining about it here all the time, they put all the work into creating a model, and then they can only sell a few copies because a lot of people obtain it without paying. Same for music, same for books, same for movies, same for artwork in general. The internet and peer to peer networking made that possible.
The basic problem is the human cost of producing the content remains high, while the means of mass distributing the content became very low.
Which leaves artists of all types scrambling to build up a fan base that will actually pay for what they produce. Some have been very successful at it, others starve.
And none of that has anything to do with AI.
All AI is doing is lowering the cost of production, which ironically enough, may be a good thing for artists.
Will it change how things are done? Of course. But you know there was once a time when the only way to make a copy of a book was by manuscript - you had to make a hand written copy of the book.
Then the printing press was invented which greatly reduced the time it took to make copies of a book.
You still had to use paper, ink, and machinery to do it, then stockpile the books and distribute physical copies.
Then came the PDF electronic version. No storage to speak off, and you can make millions of copies as needed.
But what a human had to do to write that book to start with didn't change much, particularly the time involved.
And authors went from really not being to sell any books until the printing press arrived, to being able to sell millions of copies.
Then piracy hit and the number of copies that could be "sold" started going down.
So essentially the issue is we as a species never did value IP or the artist much, we valued the art, the person making it not so much.
AI didn't put us against that wall, we were doing it before it came about.
Those of us that only use models in 3D art production we paid to use, there is some moral ground there.
Anybody who rips off other people's IP to create models or art, and complains AI is hurting their efforts? Um....
I totally get the argument that large corporations ripped off IP to train their models.
I am less swayed by the idea that AI is putting artists out of business. It may be the thing that saves them.
You hear vendors complaining about it here all the time, they put all the work into creating a model, and then they can only sell a few copies because a lot of people obtain it without paying. Same for music, same for books, same for movies, same for artwork in general. The internet and peer to peer networking made that possible.
The basic problem is the human cost of producing the content remains high, while the means of mass distributing the content became very low.
Which leaves artists of all types scrambling to build up a fan base that will actually pay for what they produce. Some have been very successful at it, others starve.
And none of that has anything to do with AI.
All AI is doing is lowering the cost of production, which ironically enough, may be a good thing for artists.
Will it change how things are done? Of course. But you know there was once a time when the only way to make a copy of a book was by manuscript - you had to make a hand written copy of the book.
Then the printing press was invented which greatly reduced the time it took to make copies of a book.
You still had to use paper, ink, and machinery to do it, then stockpile the books and distribute physical copies.
Then came the PDF electronic version. No storage to speak off, and you can make millions of copies as needed.
But what a human had to do to write that book to start with didn't change much, particularly the time involved.
And authors went from really not being to sell any books until the printing press arrived, to being able to sell millions of copies.
Then piracy hit and the number of copies that could be "sold" started going down.
So essentially the issue is we as a species never did value IP or the artist much, we valued the art, the person making it not so much.
AI didn't put us against that wall, we were doing it before it came about.
Those of us that only use models in 3D art production we paid to use, there is some moral ground there.
Anybody who rips off other people's IP to create models or art, and complains AI is hurting their efforts? Um....
I totally get the argument that large corporations ripped off IP to train their models.
I am less swayed by the idea that AI is putting artists out of business. It may be the thing that saves them.
Luxe Muse
Karma: 7,887
Thu, May 21Okay, everyone, do you hear? Please stop complaining that thieves are stealing your things and giving them away for free, because AI will put the thieves out of business and without even buying you a copy. No need, your product shots are already great for training it and stuff. So, stop complaining, okay?
Ugh, what a silly world.
Ugh, what a silly world.
diogenese19348
Karma: 718
Thu, May 21The argument I was making is AI would reduce the cost of creating the art to start with. Making art with AI still requires an artist, anybody else doing it creates slop.
And of course AI will not put thieves out of business, thieves will always exist. Regrettably technology is making their job LOTS easier too, they no longer need to get near you to steal your stuff, they can do it over the phone and Internet.
And of course artists will still create art in any fashion that pleases them, but if they are trying to make a living off it they will probably try to reduce their time costs in doing so. After all, you can still sell a physical painting - once, it's a physical item. And the market will still be out there for reproductions you can hang on your wall. But if it becomes digital distribution, then you need to reduce the cost of making it.
If what you got out of what I wrote is that people should give stuff away for free, well you know, some people do that already, I do, I have other means of making money other than my comics.
People that don't have some business decisions to make if they want to make a living.
And of course AI will not put thieves out of business, thieves will always exist. Regrettably technology is making their job LOTS easier too, they no longer need to get near you to steal your stuff, they can do it over the phone and Internet.
And of course artists will still create art in any fashion that pleases them, but if they are trying to make a living off it they will probably try to reduce their time costs in doing so. After all, you can still sell a physical painting - once, it's a physical item. And the market will still be out there for reproductions you can hang on your wall. But if it becomes digital distribution, then you need to reduce the cost of making it.
If what you got out of what I wrote is that people should give stuff away for free, well you know, some people do that already, I do, I have other means of making money other than my comics.
People that don't have some business decisions to make if they want to make a living.
Wolf007
Karma: 319
Thu, May 21"I am less swayed by the idea that AI is putting artists out of business. It may be the thing that saves them."
Save them from what?
Save them from what?
diogenese19348
Karma: 718
Thu, May 21From not being able to make a living doing digital art because the cost of production of digital art is too high.
It basically comes down to we either need to find a way to curtail the piracy on independent creators who don't have the legal departments the corporations do, or artists need to reduce the time it takes to create their art because that is their major cost of production.
There are a number of AI tools coming out that can greatly reduce the time it takes to create the art, and I am not talking about just entering 5 words of text into generative AI.
We are currently handling a lot of that type automation with scripts, AI may well prove a better way to do it.
The fear is that AI will replace artists, the hope is that it will make them more productive.
And we will have to wait and see which way it goes.
It basically comes down to we either need to find a way to curtail the piracy on independent creators who don't have the legal departments the corporations do, or artists need to reduce the time it takes to create their art because that is their major cost of production.
There are a number of AI tools coming out that can greatly reduce the time it takes to create the art, and I am not talking about just entering 5 words of text into generative AI.
We are currently handling a lot of that type automation with scripts, AI may well prove a better way to do it.
The fear is that AI will replace artists, the hope is that it will make them more productive.
And we will have to wait and see which way it goes.
Luxe Muse
Karma: 7,887
Thu, May 21I think we, the greatest pattern recognition creatures on this earth, can already tell which way things will go. And that is the same way the supposedly technological advances were meant to make our lives easier and the cost of everything cheaper, and so on.
diogenese19348
Karma: 718
Thu, May 21The reality is there are hundreds of billions of capital if not trillions at this point pouring into AI, so unless we elect governments that put the breaks on it we are going to have to deal with it, like it or not. There is nothing you or I can do to change that.
The reason all that capital is pouring into AI is that people with the capital are convinced that it will make cost of production cheaper.
And of course that translates into less human effort to do the same job.
I will point out that to date technological advances have made things cheaper, although it does pinch the workforce - people are constantly needed to update their skill set.
Which is the case now.
Personally much of what is being done with AI to date I don't like. I can search just fine without AI assistance, I don't need suggestions from Copilot, and I don't need five line emails summarized for me. I also don't like creating the extremely specific text strings needed to get a decent render from generative AI, I vastly prefer to use 3D assets.
It still doesn't effect the reality of the situation that if hundreds of billions of dollars of capital are flooding into AI projects, you can bet we are going to get AI.
The reason all that capital is pouring into AI is that people with the capital are convinced that it will make cost of production cheaper.
And of course that translates into less human effort to do the same job.
I will point out that to date technological advances have made things cheaper, although it does pinch the workforce - people are constantly needed to update their skill set.
Which is the case now.
Personally much of what is being done with AI to date I don't like. I can search just fine without AI assistance, I don't need suggestions from Copilot, and I don't need five line emails summarized for me. I also don't like creating the extremely specific text strings needed to get a decent render from generative AI, I vastly prefer to use 3D assets.
It still doesn't effect the reality of the situation that if hundreds of billions of dollars of capital are flooding into AI projects, you can bet we are going to get AI.
Wolf007
Karma: 319
Thu, May 21"From not being able to make a living doing digital art because the cost of production of digital art is too high."
If we were in 2005 or earlier, i may had thought like that....to a point.
"The fear is that AI will replace artists, the hope is that it will make them more productive."
I think you forget the 'AI abuse'. Without entering an Skynet like artist kind of AI distopian future, we are already dealing with a mass of trolls (individuals, and companies) making slops at incredible speed because of AI.
"I will point out that to date technological advances have made things cheaper, although it does pinch the workforce - people are constantly needed to update their skill set."
True, but not always. Computer became more powerfull and faster, tools became more accesible, programing languages too, massive engines saving you ton of time, digital art production is easier and faster (even before AI), and now they are also using AI: Have you seen AAA games becoming cheaper over the years?
"The reason all that capital is pouring into AI is that people with the capital are convinced that it will make cost of production cheaper."
For the big guys, sure. But I think AI will be one of those tech that will not translate its usage cost saving into the consumer.
In fact, its making several things harder or more expensive.
-AI agents are a cost saving for companies. But the users loose hours trying to get a real person to see their specific issues that the bot can't. Of course, those companies could provide a better service that requires less support, but is probably more cost efficient to provide an even worst service and pay for extra instance of the agent to keep complainers entertained.
-Computers are becoming more expensive because of the cost of tech that is hoarded by AI companies.
"Personally much of what is being done with AI to date I don't like. I can search just fine without AI assistance, I don't need suggestions from Copilot, and I don't need five line emails summarized for me. I also don't like creating the extremely specific text strings needed to get a decent render from generative AI, I vastly prefer to use 3D assets."
On that we can agree.
Now i wonder, if artists(and many other) are being almost forced into embracing AI or disapear; is AI saving them or enslaving them?
If we were in 2005 or earlier, i may had thought like that....to a point.
"The fear is that AI will replace artists, the hope is that it will make them more productive."
I think you forget the 'AI abuse'. Without entering an Skynet like artist kind of AI distopian future, we are already dealing with a mass of trolls (individuals, and companies) making slops at incredible speed because of AI.
"I will point out that to date technological advances have made things cheaper, although it does pinch the workforce - people are constantly needed to update their skill set."
True, but not always. Computer became more powerfull and faster, tools became more accesible, programing languages too, massive engines saving you ton of time, digital art production is easier and faster (even before AI), and now they are also using AI: Have you seen AAA games becoming cheaper over the years?
"The reason all that capital is pouring into AI is that people with the capital are convinced that it will make cost of production cheaper."
For the big guys, sure. But I think AI will be one of those tech that will not translate its usage cost saving into the consumer.
In fact, its making several things harder or more expensive.
-AI agents are a cost saving for companies. But the users loose hours trying to get a real person to see their specific issues that the bot can't. Of course, those companies could provide a better service that requires less support, but is probably more cost efficient to provide an even worst service and pay for extra instance of the agent to keep complainers entertained.
-Computers are becoming more expensive because of the cost of tech that is hoarded by AI companies.
"Personally much of what is being done with AI to date I don't like. I can search just fine without AI assistance, I don't need suggestions from Copilot, and I don't need five line emails summarized for me. I also don't like creating the extremely specific text strings needed to get a decent render from generative AI, I vastly prefer to use 3D assets."
On that we can agree.
Now i wonder, if artists(and many other) are being almost forced into embracing AI or disapear; is AI saving them or enslaving them?
Luxe Muse
Karma: 7,887
Thu, May 21Excluding political and other factors, which are beyond the scope, when it comes to technology:
Clothing can be produced faster, yes, less costly to the company producing it, with amazing technology that makes it all happen in a flash. Is clothing cheaper?
Game consoles, I remember when my mom and dad came in with a Nintendo for my brother's birthday. It is a great memory, because I got to see what it was for the first time. It is a good thing my girls do not ask for one, and they are happy using my computer. Are consoles less expensive now?
Is food produced with less technology now, about the same as from the 90s? How do the prices compare? I do remember me and my better half filling up our old car trunk with the equivalent of maybe 25 dollars.
I could go on, but I hope the generalization which works for certain areas of an economy and only a certain group becomes clear. It does not apply to the rest of the normal people living day to day, and no, it is not a "perceived" thing. It is factual. One last example could be, yes, it is much cheaper now to create and store a video than in the 90s. You do not have to burn a CD. You can just share it on YouTube. Add to that the cost of every tool you need just for YouTube to receive your video.
Clothing can be produced faster, yes, less costly to the company producing it, with amazing technology that makes it all happen in a flash. Is clothing cheaper?
Game consoles, I remember when my mom and dad came in with a Nintendo for my brother's birthday. It is a great memory, because I got to see what it was for the first time. It is a good thing my girls do not ask for one, and they are happy using my computer. Are consoles less expensive now?
Is food produced with less technology now, about the same as from the 90s? How do the prices compare? I do remember me and my better half filling up our old car trunk with the equivalent of maybe 25 dollars.
I could go on, but I hope the generalization which works for certain areas of an economy and only a certain group becomes clear. It does not apply to the rest of the normal people living day to day, and no, it is not a "perceived" thing. It is factual. One last example could be, yes, it is much cheaper now to create and store a video than in the 90s. You do not have to burn a CD. You can just share it on YouTube. Add to that the cost of every tool you need just for YouTube to receive your video.
diogenese19348
Karma: 718
Fri, May 22Unfortunately there isn't any coherent way to answer that without getting into political factors, and I agree with you completely that it doesn't belong on this board.
We made a large number of bad choices over the years that skewed the table away from working families, technology itself isn't the issue, the way we incorporate it is. Why shouldn't we be able to repair our own equipment in any way we deem best? The answer is how corporations are allowed to guard their IP.
And that is a huge issue with AI since it is IP corporations have claimed from us, and now want us to pay to get it back. I mean that's a core issue with it.
Microsoft basically just forced us all to buy new computers whether we needed them or not. Anybody see anything wrong with that?
I have to pay my phone company to exclude spammers or simply never answer my phone unless it is a call I am expecting from someone I know.
I can come up with any number of ways large corporations are using technology against us, so I can easily see why the pushback against AI came about.
Bottom line though, is it's just another way of programming computers, the rest, pro or con, is just hype.
If you want to discuss the political side of it I'll be happy to do it, just not on the public boards here.
We made a large number of bad choices over the years that skewed the table away from working families, technology itself isn't the issue, the way we incorporate it is. Why shouldn't we be able to repair our own equipment in any way we deem best? The answer is how corporations are allowed to guard their IP.
And that is a huge issue with AI since it is IP corporations have claimed from us, and now want us to pay to get it back. I mean that's a core issue with it.
Microsoft basically just forced us all to buy new computers whether we needed them or not. Anybody see anything wrong with that?
I have to pay my phone company to exclude spammers or simply never answer my phone unless it is a call I am expecting from someone I know.
I can come up with any number of ways large corporations are using technology against us, so I can easily see why the pushback against AI came about.
Bottom line though, is it's just another way of programming computers, the rest, pro or con, is just hype.
If you want to discuss the political side of it I'll be happy to do it, just not on the public boards here.
Water pollution should be at the top of everyone's list of concerns.
REPLY
! REPORT