Recently two sites I also post to belittled my art calling it AI, even my older wobbly lined drawings. I proved it isn't, but they literally haven't been bothered to respond in a timely fashion. I don't even think they are able to "rescue" the image judging from their silence.

And this has been due to pro-AI trolls getting https://aiornot.optic.xyz to flag even my old art as "AI" by spamming the 'voting' system with bots.

DA still has the image they took down: https://www.deviantart.com/inafoxy/art/A-Kind-of-Moth-that-s-Drawn-to-You-899830058

I sent them proof like: https://ibb.co/TkSTT7d (bases) https://ibb.co/3WpsxfM (lines)

I wonder what your guys views on this is. Surely sites should use detectors to "flag" to manually moderate and ask for proof rather than just willy-nilly deleting? I mean this goes for everything not just AI.

I'm wracking my brain trying to think if I've ever heard anything unequivocally good about FA. :x

This gives me appalling flashbacks to YouTube copyright trolls spamming bogus reports—and since in their infinite wisdom the highers-up designed the automod to tie your hands if a dispute was still pending, you could get your entire channel struck off before a live operator even looked at it.

At day's end, it's the sort of call that can only be made by human review, and it's more than a little disturbing any so-called professional site would crowdsource its basic administrative functions like this.

×

Oh I definitely agree with that. Plus the site is inundated with ads and if you dare say something positive about their art, if it's an ad, you'll get blocked because the users there expect you to only to comment to bid/buy their art. At this point it's CapitalistAffinity, they should add a ad/buy system rather than polluting everyone's feed with ads. Also a lot of non-pornographic artwork is defined as "underage kink content" if your character happens to be voluptuous, and don't you dare have innocent pet photos that happen to have their genitals barely visible in the image. Allowing artists to be exposed and share their art to potential customers is one thing, turning the submissions section into an ad site is another. I feel like they're protecting their income rather than artists, only they took a different business model to DA so are anti-AI.

Agreed, but it's worse when they do it on "sole discretion" as well entirely, them using AI detectors at least gives people a 1 in 50 chance of not being falsely flagged as AI. I admire that they are anti-AI, but they should ask for proof first if something gets flagged.

My account had already been "warned" for "commenting too much". I posted about like 500 comments a day when I was in hospital, charming, I was just being nice... I enjoy art and I like to say things about it and encourage other artists. I was never penalised in the past even before I was an artist myself and it's only been since the FA+ thing. But to them they see it as "spam" or "botting". But really the only spam bots on the site are the ads being constantly reposted by PostyBirb and the like.

speaking of Copyright trolls like youtube ones, this was the reason a sizable amount of Fanworks(outside fangames that uses Nintendo franchises) suffers (unnecessary) copyright takedowns

and use of AIs to take down AI arts from whatever platforms that bans them can be (somewhat) hypocritical

Damn, I'm so sorry that you had to experience this. That really wasn't fair. Next time, (if this were me) tell them their mom is AI. All joking aside, I am legit concerned for artists with this whole AI thing. Hopefully it's just another fad, like NFTs were...

I used to have an FA years ago, then I just moved on from that site, I think it’s for the best that I stopped using that site, when it’ll up and accuse artists of using ai in their works. (I’m still annoyed that some websites are still using braindead bot mods too. It’s as if the Tumblr bot incident didn’t exist or something.) (I also thought some artists having an angry paranoid fit about “AI” referencing their art or being worrywarts about it is frustrating to see, this is one of the reasons I became apathetic towards “AI” art stuff still. What the frick? They put ads in the site’s feed? I’m happy I stopped using FA years ago.

I am sorry to hear that your art is being targeted. I looked at that piece you linked to on DA, and I can only guess that you have either been trolled or people are taking this brand-new "AI witch hunt" to extremes. And I use the term "witch hunt" because, like real-world witch hunts, they are made up of baseless accusations and criteria that people are unable to reasonably link to the matter at hand yet use them because they blindly believe that they work. I've seen my fair share of AI artwork lately. They have features in common with one another that I do not see with any of your work either on FA or here on Side 7. I hope that your old artwork is saved somewhere else, as it seems clear that FA is allowing unchecked accusations to decimate its userbase. The admins at FA need to start checking into these matters, or else FA will start turning into an anarchist cesspool. And, between it and DA, I suspect FA may not have the same capacity for survival.

Bring them to Side 7. Our cookies are tastier.

I am furious to learn the original post and/or thread seems to have been purged, but my all-time favourite CivFanatics mod action read "We can't have threads about people being happy! I mean, closed as this is not the chatroom." :^)

I gave that Optic AI or Not site a try. It tagged this as AI art, but the older work I put in was correctly identified. It would appear that these people are using a tool that is not completely accurate.

I feel like so much of this AI debacle (at least in art; less so the chatbots) could have been mitigated had someone dedicated a library to public, open-source, attributed contributions, so that the people that want to use this stuff "ethically" could do so in a way that avoids the copyright entanglements. I'm not a fan of AI, but there is a certain blind hate that blinkers the arguments into either-or, and most of that is a defensive reflex based on the huge unresolved issue of plagiarism. Were there a way to curate between strip-miners like Stable Diffusion, and a "good" database that was explicitly opt-in and indexed its contributors, I feel there'd be far less vitriol. The problem isn't AI itself, but how it's being used.

I think so too Thorvald, though everyone had option to use, at worst DALL-E which is at least (somewhat stolen) stock photos. Being that the stock photos used by DALL-E were paid for, but the stock photographers and artists didn't know AI would be used on their work so actually didn't want AI to be used upon their work. The same issue is the same for Adobe Firefly, which Adobe has get-out clauses to make sure they can use it for AI and dodge lawsuits for its users. Whereas even the base Stable Diffusion model is 100% scraped, and contains copyrighted content.

The two models that really don't use stolen copyrighted content are carefully filtered. The first being Mitsua Diffusion One and the other being the original DALL-E mini (not the newer model). Those only contain public domain (e.g. dead artist's) works and clearly public contributions as part of academic databases. https://huggingface.co/Mitsua/mitsua-diffusion-one

But people literally jumped away from DALL-E because they wanted the quality that copyrighted works have. They have the choice of less infringing models but pursue copyrighted material. OpenAI admitted their mistake, thinking that the stock images used would had been properly consented first, but the stock providers failed to take an opt-in approach. The CEO has recently taken a more opt-in copyright approach for future models. StabilityAI like Microsoft however doesn't seem to care whatsoever, but had moved towards photography instead of just art to create a more art-photo hybrid model (aka SD v2.1). Then of course you have all your CivitAI folk training SD models and LoRAs directly on people's oeuvres and styles.

When you report a mod for being clearly rogue and they suspend your account for another image that clearly isn't AI. https://i.imgur.com/LR6eQaU.png

I sent them evidence but if they don't care this time it's clear that the reason for targeting me isn't even AI at all. But rather they are envious of skill, as an ex-mod pointed out from their actions in a group. Quite a few artists have been randomly banned in past for this same "reason" but we'll see.

Jesus.

Alright, place your bets: Which folds first, FA or Reddit?

I honestly think FA will croak first, then Reddit. (If Reddit dies, I just hope they go to other reddit-like sites, I don’t want brain-dead reddit users swarming anywhere else.)

I am not sure, but I've not seen this behaviour on other non-AI sites. Not even Newgrounds. And that says something. Also how comes I can now give myself views on Reddit by refreshing?

Blame the assholes who made this labor theft BS in the first place.

It's intriguing to see how AI tech has permeated even the art realm. As an artist myself, I believe it exemplifies another tool for creatives, not a substitute for human talent. I'm also personally very interested in AI-generated images. AI Art Generator (https://www.gate2ai.com/tools/art/ai-art-generator-image-maker), this tool is very fun and interesting, you can try it if you are interested.

You will find no refuge here.

I have had the same thoughts. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with the programs themselves; they make an excellent model generator and could be used to produce landscapes for image backgrounds and even concept art for an artist looking to develop ideas. Unfortunately, that is not how others are using it. Such purpose has been rejected for this notion that an "artist" is now capable of mass-producing artwork without having to spend the same amount of time other artists need to produce a work of at least similar quality. The A.I. should not be meant to produce displayable artwork because the A.I. is flawed and limited. As fascinating as A.I. artwork is, the style is much more limited than the average artist, who is capable of adjustments as necessary. Characters produced by A.I. can often be identified by relatively emotionless faces and physical imperfections, particularly the extremities and any small, visible feature such as teeth. These flaws would embarrass another artist to no end, especially when pointed out. The "A.I. artist" does not have the same qualms because they do not as often cast such a critical eye on the product. The prevalence of "A.I. artists" is what has caused A.I. programs to become hated, and there really isn't much reason for that.

FirstnameLastname
Post's timestamp is dead-on the account's creation
Mealy-mouthed plug to an external website

Tell us you're a bot without telling us you're a bot.

Ah. An A.I. advertising an A.I.

Oh be quiet, bot.

Fake artists (AI artists) should have a fake audience (AI bots) on a fake site (in the database of some backward LLM)

Inafox:

Fake artists (AI artists) should have a fake audience (AI bots) on a fake site (in the database of some backward LLM)

Agreed.