Banning AI Art

Thank God! Thank you!

There will be a controversy but it's a owner's decision. Best wishes only to good old Wallhaven.

This may be an unpopular opinion but why not create a side website for all the AI Images? I don't like AI Images personally but banning them will surely reflect on your user population who do like it.

@onlinebasedgod said:

This may be an unpopular opinion but why not create a side website for all the AI Images? I don't like AI Images personally but banning them will surely reflect on your user population who do like it.

Creating another website for AI Art is too much work for a developer. Banning is the right choice to get the AI Art out of here, and keeping Wallhaven alive with "real" artwork to support Artists instead of "fake" artwork that are made by AI.

I do understand, where you are going with it. But that won't work at all.

Great news!

You have my thanks for keeping this place focused on artist created art.

Thank you. Been for a long time, keep it more human ;)

amazing! Thank you!

khyden said:

@onlinebasedgod said:

This may be an unpopular opinion but why not create a side website for all the AI Images? I don't like AI Images personally but banning them will surely reflect on your user population who do like it.

Creating another website for AI Art is too much work for a developer. Banning is the right choice to get the AI Art out of here, and keeping Wallhaven alive with "real" artwork to support Artists instead of "fake" artwork that are made by AI.

I do understand, where you are going with it. But that won't work at all.

While i would agree with you (i don't, but i don't wish to enter a AI Imaging flame), one thing i absolutely believe to be true:

Removing AI Art will NOT be the same as "keeping Wallhaven alive with "real" artwork to support Artists"

The amount of crap that is being posted (screenshots of movies? all blured? Is this ART now ?) is, IMHO, far worse than allowing AI art.

There is a LOT of crappy AI that is certain, but i remember a couple of decades ago when we had this very same issue with "Digitally altered images" and ... quite frankly, we all know where that took us.

I don't have a proper solution for this problem. AI just made it easier to "make me a image of a peacock driving a bicycle" ... but it also produced amazing results when handled by a proper Artist.

O

daedric7 said:

The amount of crap that is being posted (screenshots of movies? all blured? Is this ART now ?) is, IMHO, far worse than allowing AI art.

There is a LOT of crappy AI that is certain, but i remember a couple of decades ago when we had this very same issue with "Digitally altered images" and ... quite frankly, we all know where that took us.

This.

I was using Photoshop to clean up a headshot of someone to post on a website. The background needed to fit in line with the rest of the headshot images, and I used AI to clean that up. It's a real photo, with some AI cleanup, or as you said, "digitally altered". I was thinking to myself, hmmmm... wallhaven has an uphill battle ahead of them, one that likely they won't win. Honestly, how many images that are real photographs have already been cleaned up with AI by the original photographer?

Where do you draw the line? If I upscale an image to 10,000x7000 pixels using Topaz Gigapixel, is that AI generated? It cleans up some of the nuances of the original image and the image is 100 times better, and at the same time, is exactly the same image. Is that an AI image or not? It's a digital photo, the that has been enhanced so that it can be enlarged and in the process, makes very minor adjustments.

As I mentioned before in this thread, I have a fondness for some of the AI Art. I don't like it all, just as I don't like everything everyone uploads here. This is why I think this decision, while in principle seems good if you don't want your site to be overtaken by AI art, but it will be interesting to see where the line gets drawn on what AI is acceptable or not.

Then you will run into cases like those who write papers, and their papers get flagged as being AI generated, when they aren't. A mod might say, "oh that is clearly AI art, delete" and perhaps it really wasn't.

I think it's the right thing to do, we need to save at least some of the internet from this stuff.

good！

Good!

zippzap said:

daedric7 said:

The amount of crap that is being posted (screenshots of movies? all blured? Is this ART now ?) is, IMHO, far worse than allowing AI art.

There is a LOT of crappy AI that is certain, but i remember a couple of decades ago when we had this very same issue with "Digitally altered images" and ... quite frankly, we all know where that took us.

This.

I was using Photoshop to clean up a headshot of someone to post on a website. The background needed to fit in line with the rest of the headshot images, and I used AI to clean that up. It's a real photo, with some AI cleanup, or as you said, "digitally altered". I was thinking to myself, hmmmm... wallhaven has an uphill battle ahead of them, one that likely they won't win. Honestly, how many images that are real photographs have already been cleaned up with AI by the original photographer?

Where do you draw the line? If I upscale an image to 10,000x7000 pixels using Topaz Gigapixel, is that AI generated? It cleans up some of the nuances of the original image and the image is 100 times better, and at the same time, is exactly the same image. Is that an AI image or not? It's a digital photo, the that has been enhanced so that it can be enlarged and in the process, makes very minor adjustments.

As I mentioned before in this thread, I have a fondness for some of the AI Art. I don't like it all, just as I don't like everything everyone uploads here. This is why I think this decision, while in principle seems good if you don't want your site to be overtaken by AI art, but it will be interesting to see where the line gets drawn on what AI is acceptable or not.

Then you will run into cases like those who write papers, and their papers get flagged as being AI generated, when they aren't. A mod might say, "oh that is clearly AI art, delete" and perhaps it really wasn't.

Back when Adobe Photoshop started getting some... publicity... everyone was scared that "True photographs" would be lost, everything would become a myriad of altered images.

And it did.

And it's fine. Of course... There's lots of garbage there. But i think banning AI Art is not the solution.

Punishing uploaders that do NOT properly tag their uploads, would produce far better results, not only with AI tag, but every tag.

The amount of sketchy and even NSFW images I've gotten with those cats off... The amount of random or bogus tags on images...

I'm just a newcomer, and i just browse stuff... so whatever gets decided is fine by me.

Totally agree. AI can make super realistic pictures now, but they just feel soulless.Thank you♥

Creating an account to approve the ban of AI, I've used the site for quite some time, thanks guys 🎉🥳🥳👍

the site was more or less enshitified well before AI.

zippzap said:

daedric7 said:

The amount of crap that is being posted (screenshots of movies? all blured? Is this ART now ?) is, IMHO, far worse than allowing AI art.

There is a LOT of crappy AI that is certain, but i remember a couple of decades ago when we had this very same issue with "Digitally altered images" and ... quite frankly, we all know where that took us.

This.

I was using Photoshop to clean up a headshot of someone to post on a website. The background needed to fit in line with the rest of the headshot images, and I used AI to clean that up. It's a real photo, with some AI cleanup, or as you said, "digitally altered". I was thinking to myself, hmmmm... wallhaven has an uphill battle ahead of them, one that likely they won't win. Honestly, how many images that are real photographs have already been cleaned up with AI by the original photographer?

Where do you draw the line? If I upscale an image to 10,000x7000 pixels using Topaz Gigapixel, is that AI generated? It cleans up some of the nuances of the original image and the image is 100 times better, and at the same time, is exactly the same image. Is that an AI image or not? It's a digital photo, the that has been enhanced so that it can be enlarged and in the process, makes very minor adjustments.

As I mentioned before in this thread, I have a fondness for some of the AI Art. I don't like it all, just as I don't like everything everyone uploads here. This is why I think this decision, while in principle seems good if you don't want your site to be overtaken by AI art, but it will be interesting to see where the line gets drawn on what AI is acceptable or not.

Then you will run into cases like those who write papers, and their papers get flagged as being AI generated, when they aren't. A mod might say, "oh that is clearly AI art, delete" and perhaps it really wasn't.

There could also come a time where an artist uses an AI model to create some elements that they then use in creating a human created piece of art, or even uses something made by an AI model in a thematically relevant way in a work. There's potential in the new tools, but like most newfangled doodads, the first uses are normally just people looking to exploit it for quick recognition.

Similar situation happened when music synthesizers, drum machines, or samplers became affordable, and abused by hack musicians. So many people railed against them as never being good enough to replace actual instruments, ignoring the fact that their best use wasn't in replacing traditional instruments but in making sounds that no other instrument could ever make.

I'm thinking we're in the "let's record a Moog playing Bach" phase of AI tools. Sooner or later, someone's gonna make something impressive with them.

I support this.

Lovely stuff; I approve.

Also, my tiny suggestion on how to make Wallhaven more attractive to artists: make the tags with the artists name more clear. Currently, if an image has 30 green tags and one of them is an artist who is not even using their real name but something vague like, for example, Cloud with a capital C, it can make it very hard to spot the name of the artist. The same thing applies if it's an image with a lot of characters and everyone has a separate tag, and among all of those tags with normal names, ONE of them is the name of the artist.

tl;dr: Make artist name tags larger, a separate colour or something else that makes them stand out. That is my suggestion

very right!

BUT! if you're asking for ideas: (in order of easiest to hardest to add)

1) Like a few people said, uhh, porn. I think the default settings for pages should exclude the "sketchy option", personally I think that option is really riding the edge between sketchy and NSFW

2) I'd like if toplist/trending wallpapers were shown alongside or below featured ones, so the community can kinda choose what to boost. While writing I did notice toplist ranking is based on views. I way prefer the look of wallpapers when I set my filter to favorites instead, personally I'd swap toplist to that metric: here

3) When the general filter is selected and people and anime are unselected I still see the occasional people (nitpicky I know)

4) It would be nice to be able to view types of art more easily, the search bar isn't exactly intuitive (of course, I can use it. But if you're new to the site searching tags is unintuitive, if I search "painting" for example, not much comes up). I put this at the bottom because it might be unsolvable. Alongside my last point, in general categorization is a bit weird and things don't line up as often as I'd like.

if you got this far, thanks!

Amazing! I just have a question. On all sites/social networks where the same rule about IA has been implemented they have the same problem. How are you going to tackle the following problem?

First. Many users join the community day by day, absolutely everyone must know this rule and the mods always have problems because they have to explain it over and over again for every person that comes in.

Second. Mods spend hours analyzing posts to know if a creation is made by AI or not (by community reports or other reasons). They always spend a lot of time doing this and get into controversies accusing if a user uses AI or not, in many cases that person refuses to confess and in other cases that person suffers massive harassment by people accusing him of using AI, how are you going to handle that?

Thank you. It's been an incredible pain to find real wallpapers for the last 4 years. Slop, slop everywhere.

This is the biggest W I've seen a site pull in this dark era of the internet.

I have been here for awhile, and personally, I am not nor will I be one of these "Notice me, Senpai" boot lickers. My feelings on A.I. as a writer and artist is simple, if it is all A.I. generated, don't sell it as your own. I believe (as many others have stated) it can be used to help. I also believe that hiding from it will merely stagnate the site. Sure, you will have people posting and visiting, but once the ban goes into effect more and more people will see how little "High Quality" actually means here. Which brings me to...

My question is;

What is the real reason for getting rid of A.I. art? Is it really to bring more "Real" artists?

Enshitification, does that include the site getting inundated with pages from porn mags or pictures from movies (Which could nor should be considered "Art".)? Tons of sloppy CGI images including those from in game Screenshots (The abundant Stellar Blade uploads recently come to mind), 'edgy' pictures of curse words and or marijuana on them? You don't allow multiples, but you allow an image if it's the same thing (Pose and all) if there is a slight change (palette changed slightly or a hair is moved...) But hey, "High quality art", right?

As for bringing in new "Real" artists, why? A majority of some uploaders contributions don't get tagged with the artists and or a model name. Why would people want to be pushed by a site that basically steals art? And oh my god the tags... You have several different models under one model name. You have Artists mixed with Models and vice verse...

I am surprised the site hasn't been hit with several DMCA requests or lawsuits.

Before you want to take a "Moral high ground", Clean your site up, slap all uploaders that don't give credit properly or tag correctly with more punishments or take away their privileges permanently, and stop pretending it is for the betterment of.... well... anything. cause I don't buy it. There is more to it then "A.I. Slop is bad, m'kay." I did notice however that your site is estimated to be worth around 1 to 3 million dollars, so maybe you are selling out to Pornhub, Blacked or something.

Honestly, you sound like a Petulant child ... "I don't like this , so everyone has to agree with me that we take it out!!"

Valyn76

I see Wallhaven more as user curated images and less focused on the "artist". That is my perception and perhaps I am wrong in that. This why I love it because people find stuff they like and upload it here. What I like and what others like, are not always the same thing and that's okay. If someone creates some AI images and they think it's really cool and want to share it, I think that is just as valid as collecting other types of art and photography over the Internet and sharing it.

If someone makes art and shares it here, great. But again, even that is their own curated art. They likely aren't sharing all the art they have and ending people here to view it.