Banning AI Art

The taxpayer will be most likely forced to pay when the AI gold rush goes bust. Just like with General Motors and the bank bailouts. We lose every time, its so depressing.

support ！！！

Is there any way to archive/protect and guarantee integrity of the upload datetime of images? That is probably the best way to keep track of what is and isn't potentially AI based on the when it was uploaded.

IE everything uploaded today is suspect, everything 5 years ago safe.

FYI my opinion is that in the context of background wallpapers AI art is good (copyright issues aside, I will not enter into moral debate here) but we should have a way to tag it.

What

It doesn't matter for this rule, all AI art will soon be removed, regardless of the date uploaded.

viddlenchaire said:

Firstly I respect the decision. I am just a humble user of this site. I don't know my opinion is relevant or not, and i really don't want to complain, but I feel some disturbance in the Force. From 1.2M pics what the site shows, there are only 30k tagged as AI, and i think some of it has real values. At least, not in a less rate than in the non-AI content. It seems to me this is an absolutely minor problem, rather it's not a problem at all, or at least the site is handling it already perfectly. So why it must be banned? AI is just another brush in creators hand, if a picture isnt good, that is always the problem of the creator, not the tool. If you really want lure artists to come here, i think it would be better to deal with the fact, at least 50% of the site content is brainless soft porn, basically most of them are the same picture but with another woman. I use this site to inspire myself. When i browse the precious Random to collect ideas, i see much more nearly identical pornographic content than valuable art. well, it isn't a problem to me, we can hide NSFW content too (well, i will not, i am a man of culture as well :D), but if i dont want to see, i can hide AI too, I don't really understand why it is better if you're simply denying already filterable content, and not let the user decide if they want to see it or not, like how it is works nowadays absolute perfectly. So I feel this decision causeless. Well, it isnt much of a loss, and I can't see what you can see operating the site, so as i said, i don't want to complain, i just really don't understand, why is it necessary. I rather miss a rating system to let the audience to judge and evaluate the content, so that would be my idea instead of this simple censorship. Pls don't ban me, i just want to help to make the site better, well, even if it's perfect already.

Very good observation, completely agree with this take.

the thing about gAI being "another brush in a creators hand "is super dumb cuz every single time somebody calls themselves an artist but then says they use gAI it turns out they ONLY ever use gAI. it subsumes all other methods of use. and all of that for the most mediocre images of big-breasted ladies they couldve found via google instead of wasting resources. yall should honestly just ban the ai art tags as a whole imo.

PeriLFlamme said:

the thing about gAI being "another brush in a creators hand "is super dumb cuz every single time somebody calls themselves an artist but then says they use gAI it turns out they ONLY ever use gAI. it subsumes all other methods of use. and all of that for the most mediocre images of big-breasted ladies they couldve found via google instead of wasting resources. yall should honestly just ban the ai art tags as a whole imo.

There is a difference between a "artist" and a "creator" and you are right they could've googled instead but gAI is really good for creating specifics/custom stuff and yeah there is this debate about AI consuming more or less resources but that's for a different thread/site.