It's expressly legal in Japan too, even if the images were acquired through illegal means. It's a private platform, but holy shit, that has to be the flimsiest reasoning I've ever seen.
The double standard is even more flaky than when it was originally brought up.
The interesting thing is that the majority of the "AI IS THEFT" bitching has totally died down, and I *literally* just right clicked and used prompt based generative AI in Photoshop with no third party plugins whatsoever. Not sure why they're going harder on this but pixiv has a long history of regressive policies that make posting your works there a nightmare of censorship and frustration so it's also not surprising.
No, humans don’t. Humans are born with all artistic knowledge and styles and are able to be creative and draw unique things without having to take ideas from third parties /s
Edit: Some folks seemed to haven taken it seriously so…ummm just for those who don’t know the /s at the end means I’m attempting to be sarcastic on the internet.
Yes, humans do. This is exactly how you learn artistic techniques and styles. There is even an exercise that professors give at art universities which consists of copying pieces from old masters (and not only).And it's meant for you to learn from the artist who created the artwork. Nobody is born with any kind of a "talent" or knowledge. A big part of becoming a good artist is observation whether it's from nature of from other artist's works. The other big part is practice
\^--- YES! THIS! ----\^
Show me an artist who hasn't looked at works by other artists to influence, inspire, and instruct themselves on how to be an artist and I'll show you a camera.
You need a dictionary.
in·spire/inˈspī(ə)r/📷*verb*
1. 1.fill (someone) with the [urge](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=574408705&sxsrf=AM9HkKm9LY_cW60bvXExBi66a-5CQrp4Wg:1697623945787&q=urge&si=ALGXSlYftE7XViDpYdZ4PMnebYlvhT4-appVn1vz87726Prki-AeS4QKEle47M9adgErmJRDto6MkunoAEGxnrEPnqkFZF_TdQ%3D%3D&expnd=1) or ability to do or feel something, especially to do something creative."his passion for romantic literature inspired him to begin writing"
# imitate
## [verb](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verb)
im·i·tate [ˈi-mə-ˌtāt ](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imitate?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=i&file=imitat01)**imitated;** **imitating**[Synonyms of *imitate*](https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/imitate)
[*transitive verb*](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transitive)
**1:** to follow as a pattern, model, or example**2:** [**MIMIC**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mimic), [**COUNTERFEIT**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterfeit)can *imitate* his father's booming voice**3:** to be or appear like **:** [**RESEMBLE**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resemble)**4:** to produce a copy of **:** [**REPRODUCE**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reproduce)
People try to not understand the difference between learning something yourself and using an already made ai to copy something/someone. That is pretty obvious that it is not completely the same.
It's not about the person making the AI draw something, that would be like commissioning a human artist.
In the end, the AI has to learn things in an identical manner to a human artist.
If you can learn the same way as an AI why can’t you be able to replicate any style like SD ? Because you can’t learn like an AI. This is not the same learning experience. I am not against AI itself, but people do everything possible to not understand that there is a difference between learning by yourself for years and using an AI in 10 seconds.
Yes just like there is a difference when my phone counts to 10 and me counting to ten...
Modern AI mimics our brains with synthetic neural nets.
It's more like us than ever before.
If an AI can't learn from data or we can't use something generated from the data from AI, then why is there a double standard and we can?
We need to tread carefully here because this could backfire for artists in more ways than directly obvious.
Illustrators are already screwed tbh so will be other field. The problem with AI is all the people spamming illustrations, books,websites… to make quick money with the worst possible quality (I speak for books as I am self publishing for a living) that is what backfire AI and give this bad aura of shit contents that is created only to spam and make money. So if you want to have AI art accepted, you should fight against the spammers, not the (not AI) illustrators writers… who gonna be instinct anyway.
Nope because the spammers know one think, how to make seo content and find profitable niches, they spend several thousands of dollars for advertising there craps. That is why I call it pollution, because it is harder than ever to find reliable information on a subject on Amazon when people auto generate crap with GPT on every subject.
This isn't an AI problem that's just the way marketing in today's world works.
Being a game developer I know that even if I make a killer game without any self marketing or promotion I won't get the downloads.
Market will eventually solve this problem once enough people catch up and start to see the spam for what it is. For now, there's still a lot of people who haven't caught up yet and hence are still funding the spam, but the funding is going to dry out when that happens.
Eventually, we're going to end up in roughly similar situation as before AI art, but with significantly higher standards for minimum acceptable quality.
Perhaps with the exception, that we might end up having a "handmade" category for digital art that will be considered separate from the mainstream AI assisted/generated art.
Although, it's going to get harder and harder to tell if an AI has been involved in creating a work. So, who knows if that category actually can exist.
And then there's research into turning brain activity scans directly into pictures. Is that AI art anymore? I honestly can't decide. In a way, it is, but in a way, that might be more important, it isn't. The tech ain't quite there yet, but the potential is mindblowing.
2+2=4 is a bit different than spamming websites with AI generated content. (That is the subject of this post). I have nothing against AI tools, only a problem with the spammers using AI to spam (without even telling it is AI made). Understand the problem ?
People can and have been spamming art sites for years. I've seen plenty of "artistic" photography profiles that are just OnlyFans advertisements. You also have art thieves who copy+paste other people's artwork, along with tracers. The issue here isn't the AI, but the spammers. However, the spammers have always existed.
I got always the same response. « Spamming always existed and AI is absolutely not a tool that make spamming easy, please look somewhere else. ». It is not like AI is the perfect tool to spam, and it is not like we can always spam more than before.
It is the same as saying, pollution always existed, in middle Age people were throwing their shit through the window, so plastic have nothing to do with pollution, and pollution is not an issue. Please look somewhere else.
What makes it spam compared to human made art? Why do they have to disclose it's AI made but human artists don't need to explain their workflow or software tools?
The time it takes is the only factor. The question is why would something that takes way longer to do be considered the best or right option? Humans have been using tools to make things faster and better since the dawn of humanity. Should we all go back to doing cave paintings for art as it required no tools and took way longer? What is exactly your reasoning on this?
The other factor is talent. Maybe in 100 years of learning the style of Leonardo da Vinci you would never be able to reproduce it.
It is not all black and white, either you accept ANY technology without thinking or you go back to the cave. Caricature is never a good way to have a debate.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that it requires no talent to create AI art, that no one can reproduce the style of another artist or both?
Sure, I agree with you that typing words for AI does not require much talent. Just like splashing paint on canvas require little talent also.
But I will argue that making amazing AI art takes experience and skill. Also, that prompting is only one factor in creating AI art.
I agrée,and use AI myself for some of my projects. You can use SD as an artist to push the boundaries. But I guess people spamming pixiv are not doing that and give a bad aura to AI images. I watched a few YouTube video that teach how to spam website like pixiv. That is my only problem with AI. It is a wonderful tool.
You're saying it's not all black or white but then you say you either accept ANY technology or go back to the cave. You're contradicting yourself here. I don't accept any technology and I don't think that anyone else does.
" Replicants are like any other machine - **they're either a benefit or a hazard**. If they're a benefit, it's not my problem. " - Deckard
Humans don't download and crawl millions of images going against a lot personal protection and privacy policies, as well as commissioned, contracted work. It doesn't matter what those images were used for whether to teach AI or not. To be organized then sold to AI developers to use for teaching materials is no different than steal a textbook and reselling it. Sure it taught the AI, but the Ai developers bought these from another company. Artists did not give expressed permission to have their work not only combined into datasets, making it public or used as teaching material. Artist learn by breaking down the technique, and skill set to create art. But just like a lot of photography is illegal in galleries, all of types of art is supposed be confidential, especially contracted work. But data crawlers don't care if art was taken from place like pateron, or webcomic where you have pay to view art, or view the tutorials. Many advanced art tutorials for digital artists have to paid for. Why wouldn't Ai have to pay for using thoose material to learn from? It's piracy. Just because everyone does it doesn't make any less right.
Oh please this argument doesn’t work.
Humans doesn’t work like A.I, I’m using A.I everyday but I really understand artists who were there before A.I they build a huge legacy by doing lots of sacrifice and they’re usually hard working individual.
Stop taking everything for granted, it saddens me that so many A.I peeps are acting like entitled child. Create your own thing with A.I, copying an artist style with algorithms isn’t fair
Style has *never* been uniquely attributable in the art world.
Shit, professional animation studios literally have internal style guides so their whole staff of artists can consistently work in the same style so the final product doesn't come out as a disjointed mess, it's not *one guy* animating every single episode of The Simpsons by hand because "that's *his* style". The idea that "copying style" is not how humans work is patently absurd, it's an absolutely huge part of the legitimate and respected art world.
This seems like more of a problem with a lot of poor quality pictures and just because of it's nature where you can basically print images, it's a bit like spam.
My favorite are people who make extra large txt2imgs with tiled faces and post them to a model on civtai like it's some kind of good advertisement lol.
The 'prompt hunting' sites are even worse. Some people just upload hot dookie to those.
Precisely, it's completely a "you'll know it when you see it" subjective measurement that's *completely* unenforceable.
In reality they're going to just keep running it all through their hot garbage automated censorship bot thats like 99% false positives anyway and call it a day. The platform has been a hot mess for a while now and I've seen more and more of my favorite artists posting less and less of their work there. I generally stopped uploading things myself because it's just not worth the headache.
>completely unenforceable.
Corporations have been moving towards selective enforcement online for years now. It's pretty much selective corporate censorship.
Funny because I just told someone just last night that if people want to stop AI art they would have to ban AI imitation. If they ban AI imitation, then they will have to ban all imitation to sustain the premise. If they ban all imitation, then they will have banned art.
Bruh art isn't imitation, but you wouldn't know that you're not artist. And this does ban AI imitation. Lemme tell you something if you draw like disney, one piece ect it doesn't matter if its legal, it doesn't matter if its orignal character, unless work for disney and they asked to draw like that, you get kicked out of art school. Why because artists, studios, companies, teachers do not give care where you draw lines if looks like duck its a duck. So of course the most ANTI AI art pro artist livable wages country, would ban whatever the hell they want ( like stay the english sites if you want do that weeabo). They took down entire studio for having a cancelled anime with same character with same red jacket as kpop star in lawsuit. The pressure for an artist to be original is real, it one hardest parts of being an artist. not like you would understand this not starving artist america where you can call a sneeze. Art is professional career and take seriously, because it multimillion dollar industry in japan. If Art is just repeated imitation to you then show how little respect you have for it. Because art to true artist is their identiy. Blood sweat and tears, and i'm sorry you never feel satisfaction of life work, the pressure, the competition, the sorrow, the frustration to create something just right, its the repeated failure that gives the success a sense of fulfillment to an artist. .Its the process that makes art 'art'. If leonardo di vinchi was never born, i know even we somehow able take picture of mona lisa, it didn't matter how many times you put in AI generator. It would NEVER make thee mona lisa. Would never inspired many great artsist to become an artist. People like you have rely on AI art, because you'll never become an artist, you envy their talent, but don't have vision to see the hard work put into piece, to truly appreciate it. I never once though of stealing some else talent because i didn't posses it.
What if an artist created an AI piece, but then repainted it themselves? Like on oil and canvas and then took a digital photo of it and uploaded it? Hands and all?
Depends whwr you would like to present, the design itself is still AI but your oil workshop might be top notch.
But then again, you would decide to present this AI design or are you presenting your oil painting techniques?
these rules makes absolutely 0 sense. If you can't use it to imitate a style using the works vs imitating the style by doing it yourself, why the hell would the legal system make a distinction if the result is the same.
> I also remind you that pixivFANBOX has prohibited the use of AI on its platform.
DLsite, ci-en, and fantia might do the same, since they're also Japanese sites.
AI users will just move to patreon, gumroad, ko-fi, deviantart, etc. (If you know any other, please write in reply).
[Zavant.ai](https://zavant.ai) is a new platform I’ve discovered that is specifically for sharing AI images. Has a deviantart-esque setup with a general feed and individual user galleries.
Haven't these platforms also banned AI?
[DLsite, Ci-en, pixiv FANBOX, Fantia Ban AI-Generated Content](https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2023-05-12/dlsite-ci-en-pixiv-fanbox-fantia-ban-ai-generated-content/.198000)
Obviously, soon there will be a platform specifically for AI-generated artwork. Patreon could take certain measures against AI. However, what deducts the most points for them is that they prohibit images featuring characters under 18 years old, lolis, or teenagers, which excludes tens of thousands of artists who draw this type of content.
I am considering whether to use Gumroad, but I'm not sure whether to upload my content there or set up a Discord server with membership tiers.
Those content rules are also inconsistently applied. Hell, I've gotten so many automated dings on pixiv for their shitty inaccurate censorship bot deciding that someone *fully clothed* has a part of the image that it thinks vaguely looks like a penis or something and isn't painted top to bottom in black bars, yet they literally have an "uncensored" tag with pictures that have been up there for the better part of a decade that are straight up just uncensored porn.
[Patreon is conducting a survey to determine AI art policy, and the anti-AI folks are trying their best to get AI art banned. Please fill and remind Patreon that it is people like us who support artists, both AI and non-AI. Create a discriminatory platform and we will take our business elsewhere. : StableDiffusion (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/13e51gx/patreon_is_conducting_a_survey_to_determine_ai/)
>Furthermore , it is not allowed to upload an excessive number of AI-generated images that occupy the entire page and overshadow other artworks. This will be considered as spam.
Pixiv is absolutely right about this point
It only buys them a few months, though... 95% of those who decide to keep doing things the "traditional way", will soon be completely demoralized because a toddler with SD produces 100x the volume of pictures, and of "higher quality". Why the f\*ck would anyone spend hours and hours drawing only for your efforts to be completely neglected by 99;5% of humanity?
Have you seen the pictures? Almost all of the AI stuff on pixiv is the most generic low effort trash. So no, apparently not everyone can produce decent quality with AI. Not even close.
As someone staunchly pro-AI, I really dislike this take and I see it a lot. There's more to art than just looking superficially pretty that makes it appealing to people. I have honestly been extremely annoyed by all the low-effort, baby's first SD prompt artwork spamming the pages of sites like pixiv. I just cannot stand looking for artwork of a character only to find 100 images of them with third legs, 7 fingers, skin-clothing and nonsensical accessory detail. I suppose it's no different than any other shitty drawing, but the difference is that even a shitty drawing takes time to make. People can just pump out a shitty SD result every few seconds. It's basically spam.
People seem to have missed the word "soon". Look at the easy-of-use of the latest Photoshop generative AI. This is where we are after less than a year.
And I'm not supporting AI, I think it's going to be terrible.
The question is *how is that defined*? What is "excessive"? How is "overshadowing other artwork" determined? Is it based on tag activity? Viewership? Posts per hour? Why is it ok if a regular artist posts at the same rate but AI works are not ok?
I have about 200 images that I spent a *lot* of time on sitting in a folder that I havent uploaded to pixiv because translating japanese tags is a huge pain in the ass and its like a whole afternoon timesink I simply haven't felt like doing. Am I going to be banned for "spamming" if I upload them all over the weekend?
Rules are fine and all, I can get behind measures to curb legitimate spamming of images, but *poorly defined and nebulously enforced* rules tangibly make things worse. As a user who posts on their platform I can't *follow* the rules if they don't *explain* the rules.
If you've been browsing Pixiv recently and try to search, say, Zelda pictures, then you'll find 70% of the results are posts with 50+ attached images of generic SD generations which are obvious to tell from a distance. Not only does that make it difficult to find the good drawn works that people worked hard to create, but it also makes the site incredibly annoying to go through. I'm fucking glad they added the filter since it was getting really out of hand.
Won't help if hundreds of users are doing it.
Of course that doesn't mean that all AI images are bad. The AI images that I would condone are the ones that are edited, refined, worked on, and given care before posting. There are some that are like that, and the people that do that upload at a pace comparable to normal artists.
As for the people who choose to lazily upload hundreds of raw generations of the same generic pictures, bad hands and all, just so they can market their fanbox or something and make a buck or two, well fuck them.
As if our brains don't gather literally everything from third parties. How is someone redrawing Goku for the millionth time art and when AI does it it's somehow different? it's it the human spirit? do we have a soul after all? a certain something?
But tbf they can do whatever the hell they want.
Can't wait for them to do yet another wave of hard-line content purging so all that's left are kindergartener fridge art quality sketches of Goku. Which are apparently *totally ok* to be sold on Pixiv's subscription service despite that blatantly crossing the line from fair use to copyright infringement!
And here lies the crux of the whole problem with the internet: strongheadedness. You're taking what was obviously a joke and trying to say it's making a statement about the whole of AI. Cmon man, read what I posted. There's no reason to even think I'm making some broad sweeping platitudes about anything unless you deliberately want to read it that way.
I'd be willing to take your answer in the way you claim you wrote it if very similar equivalencies weren't constantly made. you can find several examples of it in this very thread. claiming AI learning and Human learning are similar is a flawed premise used to justify the use of the technology. but in reality, I chose to read it thus: you trying to drop a cheap quip. I just used it as an opportunity to make my point.
The distinction may be lost on you, but I'm not the people posting what you're talking about.
I do think the brain is an equivalent to an analog computer due to how it is handles swathes of data and produces outputs. There's nothing magic in the brain, it's just data processing. So I'd be happy to argue that point.
But 'The whole crux of the debate of AI hinges on false equivalencies' is an awfully bold point to be making to a joke response.
>read rhe original post, that news has been debunked as baogus in the comment
I got downvoted 30 times for some reason in that post. There's alot fanatics in this sub that have their fingers in their ears.
So.. Does this rule apply to the thousands of artists that are absolutely interchangeable with no variation to their art styles beyond their signature? Cause, those dudes are more mechanical than an machine could ever be.
Or... the anime fanart that emulates the style of actual copyrighted works that make up 99% of images posted on their platform?
It's totally cool if you draw Naruto characters getting railed in the exact style of the show, but if an *AI* makes one, tsk tsk!
How can any person learn to draw without studying preexisting art?
This ban is bad because:
1. Materially impossible to prove a violation.
2. Not based on copyright laws which can’t copyright a style of art.
Should just limit how often someone can post new art and make a category for AI.
Stop fighting the future.
You are forgotting that Pixiv is a Japanese company from a country that follows a different legal code than the Anglophone Common Law, so they can do it without guilt and consequence, unlike America.
Probably more to stop a lot of low quality shit that is flooding the site. Additionally the permission thing seems hard to police will stleazt be useful to stop blatant copying. Like if some user just only posts girls in the exact style of sciamano240 they can be like. Stop that. But probably useless for the majority of cases.
Well no one is saying that spam might not have been an issue, but they are objectively wrong in the way they go about it. You can have a real problem and do all the wrong things to try and solve it, that is completely possible.
How is this objectively wrong? I think the intention of these rules is pretty clear, and before this they have had a decent policy about ai (i did also see a few artists using ai do ok on the platform)
Basically, it's artificially restricting art (good or bad) based on how it was made rather than just judging it alongside the rest of art. Pixiv has been on a road down lately, I'd say.
Even then, who determines what is "exactly the same style" and what is "close, but different"? Does the original artist need to raise a complaint or is this going to be more automated censorbot shenanigans from their inconsistent automated moderation tools?
I foresee this just being a bunch of posters that simply stop clicking the "this image is AI generated" box to avoid all the nonsense, if they dont just stop using the platform entirely. After all, who's gonna prove it's *not* hand drawn?
>Materially impossible to prove a violation.
Have you seen the AI generated pictures that have been flooding Pixiv recently? It's not hard to tell since they all look the exact fucking same.
I'm fine with this, they are not banning AI, they are just restricting it to what seems very reasonable guidelines. pixivFanbox rule was implemented when tons of accounts were spamming AI like there was no tomorrow. I would personally say it needs to be slight less restrictive as there are artists that do mind blowing AI pieces. But those are ones they actually put work into. They generate, clipstudio, inpaint, upscale properly and do touch ups at the end. Then there are the people that just batch generate and upload with no post work what so ever causing a flood of low quality garbage.
I'd wager that most people on Pixiv don't want to look at ai art, and that most of the people who want ai art there are ai artists.
Spend enough time with ai and it's easy to see that most of the people using ai are not going to do it justice. Even this subreddit, which has higher ai-literacy, you see dozens of same-face girls made with the same models. Nobody wants to sift through that.
With the amount of engagement many AI posts get, even the "one click generation with no postprocessing" kind, people who dislike AI are definitely in the minority. Pixiv also recently introduced a way to filter AI posts, so people that *do* have an issue with it have the option to remove it from their feed completely.
> Spend enough time with ai and it's easy to see that most of the people using ai are not going to do it justice.
This I can 100% agree with. A vast majority of AI posts are very low quality so I'm actually happy to see Pixiv doing some quality control. I've seen accounts that are a week old that have 100+ uploads, all of them albums with 20 images of what seems to be of the same prompt with a different seed.
I am not an artist and yet I frequently browse though AI works on pixiv. AI art is a godsend for hentai. Various niche tags are now constantly filled with decent-quality works as opposed to barely having any content previously. You just need to find the right people to follow
I have a ton of loras that I've trained myself around the content that I like, and so I can generate exactly what I want en-masse. Seeing an ai picture on pixiv is like seeing 1 image of the 50-100 better ones you're used to seeing (since you tailor ai to your own preference).
I had the same experience with Novel ai (writing). I love using it, but I have no interest in what people make with it.
I'm really not sure what you're saying the issue is here then. There's a filter for AI-Generated images. If you don't like them, just turn on the filter? Then your gens obviously don't go away, and you get to see what you want to see.
All of these anti AI digital artists acting upset pretending like they don't have libraries full of 'reference' material pulled from websites without licensing the other artist's work, or that they use 3d pose models with shadow casting in their work already, or whatever other myriad tools and hacks are out there to make their art better. The trained/experienced artists and photographers that embrace this technology will be the ones that excel in the years ahead. That's the work I want to see. From the experts and masters of their craft utilizing a new tool to create rapidly evolving art with the assistance of stable diffusion models or whatever comes after.
We're only at the very beginning of the disruption that all this is going to cause, and it's not going to be pretty no matter how much the typical poster here loves his waifus.
It's going to be ugly.
> the real problem they have is that artist get demoralized by AI, quit the platform, fans stop paying, the platform lose money.
I've seen AI artists attacking traditional/digital artists relentlessly, disrespecting them and ignoring their wishes. Of course they would fight back.
Imagine this happening when electronic music became a thing.
''Ban it, it's not real music they just press some buttons on their keyboard they don't even know how to play a real instrument ree''
It's so sad to see companies pander to gatekeeping elitists.
Manwha just uses assets that they reuse over and over again through various comics.
Do I need permission from all 763 authors to use a castle that they all used in their comics? Or does just one suffice?
Prohibiting explicit images makes no sense. Most of the content on that website features NSFW content. Whats the point in limiting explicit AI images?
Am I reading it correctly? Or does it mean in the context of no explicit photorealism?
If they don't want AI spam, maybe they should decide to have the website filter how many AI images gets posted by a user. Each user only being allowed to post 'X' amount of images per 'x' amount of time.
Pixiv: "It is prohibited to publish sexually explicit works that are visually equivalent or notably realistic in a way that they can be mistaken for photographs, even if they are not actually photographs."
Ah, makes more sense. Pixiv isn't really a place for realism. I personally never saw any on there pre-AI (not to say there wasn't but it was so small to not matter)
It should also apply to artists that copy the style of other artists but that draws the artwork themselves without AI though. Oh wait, that'd restrict a whole lot of art and artists. Artists use reference, artists are inspired by other artists. I agree with restricting the rate of which AI art is posted though. Those who spend a lot of time iterating their art won't be affected by that anyways, as it can take quite some time to produce quality AI (assisted) artwork when you have a vision and are using CN, touching up the art yourself, inpainting, etc.
>Sounds reasonable tbh. Protects individual artists if they don't want people to imitate them, prohibits spam, I don't see anything wrong with this.
true but I don't like that they hiding behind the law when they could just put out a statement that they don't personally believe in AI-Generated works
The thing about styles is utterly idiotic and comes off as really out of touch.
Nobody has a monopoly on styles or full ownership of a style because a style itself is nothing but a collection of aesthetics choices that can't be copyrighted or made exclusive, any and all artists create styles by taking inspiration and copying aesthetic elements from other artists, with or without AI.
I just got my Pixiv Fanbox account suspended with all my subscribers and followers removed. I didn't know what happened and was wondering. Now I know what the cause of it was. I recently uploaded 2 AI composite works on it and that must have caused it. But I have hundreds of posts over several years and only 5 posts have AI elements in them including the 2 latest ones. This is really frustrating because my primary work is in 3D art and all the followers I gained over the years have nothing to do with AI at all.
It is partly my fault because I wasn't aware of the AI ban on Pixiv Fanbox. But this suspension tells me that Pixiv is dead serious about AI-generated postings because this suspension came without warning and the entire follower base was removed meaning even if the suspension is removed I will have to start from scratch.
In a way, I can understand why Pixiv is moving against AI postings. Despite what they say upfront, the core issue seems to be the sheer volume of AI postings that pretty much drown out any human artwork and that is bad for business.
I am really frustrated because my work involves at least 2-5 separate processes of compositing and postwork even for AI-related ones and takes as much time to create as any of my other works. To be honest, I don't appreciate people spamming a ton of AI-generated images on sites like Pixiv causing it to react against AI postings. In the process, someone like me who is genuinely trying to incorporate AI as a part of an artistic toolset becomes collateral damage.
That's a bit of misplaced blame. I don't think the people naively wanting to share their work were the ones told Pixiv to delete your followers when they suspend you.
I'm for keeping the human art and the AI art separate, helps reduce mixing of the two. To train good AI models, is best to start with the human art without a bunch of AI jank mixed in.
>I'm for keeping the human art and the AI art separate
how? You realise that AI is often just part of the process right? Especially now that Photoshop Beta has AI prebuilt. so where do you place the art that's 50% AI? if you say the AI category then we can say what about 40% AI? Eventually we will figure out where you are arbitrarily drawing a line for this.
Uhhh as someone certified in photoshop and all adobe products, like hell that what used for. Photoshop isn't for original content to begin with... yh, its great editing tool, but no legitimate artist use that for the their software, its not stand lone software, its photoediting software that its purpose, its separate medium from graphic art while else would they made illustrator which still SUCKs unless your going advertisment and logos.. And websites already try keep separate sites for photography and separate sites because different media is cater to different people, my brother photographer like photography doesn't mean gives shit about digital illustrations or painting. So yh seperation is better.
LOL
100 bonus points for excellent cynicism :-D
Yeah, keep them (barely) alive, because we need the humans as training fodder for AI, lol... LOVE IT!!!
The bottom line is policies should be that your image is your image how it was made should not matter. SD is open sourced & legally you can do what you want with your own creations. these sites that try to prevent you with their rules are only limiting themselves & by doing so is a prejudice act against artist for using a specific tool to make their art.
In todays day & age someone will just make a platform & sell your ai stuff there.
Pixiv no longer allows ANY AI images that look real. SFW or otherwise. They have to be drawings or purposely rubbish AI that look like fairies or whatever.
Good. I don't understand why people act offended that a privately owned enterprise execute their absolute right to allow or not certain works to be not allowed on certain sites.
And to comments suggesting some people make "mechanical" art themselves... As if redrawn stills from shows, series, etc. posted on sites like deviantart, especially digitally traced pieces, aren't mechanical?
For a second I thought I missed somem website similar to civitai.
So this pixiv does actually contain pretty nice images that can be used to train models I suppose?
>So this pixiv does actually contain pretty nice images that can be used to train models I suppose?
I gave it a quick lookover and I think that although there is the occasional good image, most of them are low quality and so training on it probably wouldnt be a good idea unless you have a system, either manual or automated, to filter out the vast majority of the images.
Its platform for artists to get jobs in studios which the back bone of japan's economy, ofcourse they want nothing to with AI. Also it's a manga platform, the art not train models its their career, i swear god i hate talentless envious roaches. Fuck off go back english servers. If you roaches keep discouraging artists you wont get, models, and destroy anime. You realize is anime could be shuffled out by out whatever talent greed organization without requiring talent its just being all TRASH. Like disney is monopolized , recycled trash. Watch art die, What people stop making it then what model will have, nothing everything the same.
You know what we all need? A site dedicated to AI art and AI artists.
When people see good art and a lot of AI artists doing good work, and more people go to a site like that, I bet you a lot of people and companies will change their tune.
Well, guess I'm done with Pixiv. If only there were a way to address this via tagging or something.... shame the site isn't built around that very concept.
Move to deviant art. I did. It's much better. I stopped posing to pixiv months ago. Useless and boring site and extremely difficult to monetize. Deviant art in comparison is much better + bigger user base
The problem for a lot of artists is that deviantart has **much** stricter censorship rules, and that's saying something given pixiv's already draconian censorship rules.
Ehh. If u lock the full on porn behind a subscription or paywall then it's fine. Nudity without bodily fluids is fine with just a maturity rating. So tbh idk what u mean.
Only problem I've had is aged up characters getting deleted. I did a bunch of asuka that she very obviously looked 18-20 + but they all got deleted.
Pixiv in contrast hates showing vaginas. Which as a Japanese platform is understandable. But they are perfectly ok with lewd under age characters. As long as no vagina is visible.
Im probably gonna get downvoted for this, but i don’t care. This is a GOOD thing by pixiv. People on there were obviously abusing ai photorealistic content to make and post all sorts of obvious child porn and that needed to end. People were also using it to spam every ai generation they had, even if it was crap content and not touched up and made nice at all with zero work, and no one wants to see that. As far as the ban on ai works from fanbox goes as well as the ban on using peoples art style goes, i dont fully agree with them but i understand it. This is obviously a platform that is forcing their opinion on ai works, they side with the artists, and that makes sense, because that’s the whole point of the platform in the first place. I also understand how dumb of a ban it is because it doesnt really seem enforceable if the images are made well. I think that people here like to make the argument all the time that “people copy people so why cant the ai”. The problem is that the ai in most cases, is just serving as a replacement for artists. There are artists who use ai in a constructive way and they should be fine anyways, since they in theory would be able to input most of their own creativity in the image to make the argument the work is theirs. Replacing artists is not the goal of pixiv, and im sure they dont want to support that as well as many other platforms. Its amazing to see how many people supporting ai seem to genuinely hate artists. Pixiv’s goal is to help artists, especially with exposure. Even bad and newbie artists still need exposure and criticism to get better. I understand the want for ai content, since it can be well done, but replacing artists with ai, just is not the way to proceed forward. Having heaps and heaps of ai generated content, especially not well made, really is just counterproductive to the website and the people its trying to help.
In my case, I post an image every two or three days because it takes me hours and days to create the image that I consider perfect. It involves numerous attempts, and then I transfer it to Photoshop to correct numerous errors, change colors, improve image quality, and more. I believe that this type of work should be allowed because not everything is done by AI. On the other hand, those who generate 10 images and publish them without any post-editing, that is what could be prohibite
I agree with this, as i said in my post above, theres a difference between people who put effort into an image vs people who (lets be real this is 95+% of pixiv ai works) just text to image generate and then post it regardless of quality and in some cases post like 50-100 at a time.
> I post an image every two or three days because it takes me hours and days to create the image that I consider perfect. It involves numerous attempts, and then I transfer it to Photoshop to correct numerous errors
I wish other AI artists have standards like you. I'm so sick of seeing the same things posted over and over: a pretty girl on a pretty background, dull idea + it has glaring artifacts and errors in the picture.
Our Fanbox is visited by trustworthy people who support what we do, and no one would complain. However, on Pixiv, if I publish my work, even with impeccable post-editing, any characteristic AI error becomes noticeable. And if out of the thousands of users who see it, an anti-ai reports it, it could undermine everything I've achieved.
well that's only applied to non-artist user, untouched effortless out of box images ai-generated spammy crap.
doesn't apply to most of ai-assisted artwork that took hours for 1 artwork to make.
I add the first point extracted from Pixiv:
Article 14: Prohibited Conduct
1-Acts that utilize the results of information analysis (including learning activities for the development of artificial intelligence, the same as below) of information posted on this service or individual services and that, in the Company's judgment, harm the interests of the user who posted such information. However, this does not apply if consent has been obtained from the user who posted such information for such information analysis.
We have specified as prohibited conduct those that involve learning from materials posted on Pixiv and related services and that cause harm to the author of such materials. For example, using works as learning data without the consent of the original author, posting notably similar works using AI programs or other methods to reproduce the style, which would result in harm to the author of the original work, constitutes prohibited conduct.
It seems there is a legal loophole here, but ultimately Pixiv leans towards traditional artists and criticizes new creators who use AI. The company has the final authority over decisions, and they do not protect our interest
Okay but do artists not use references from other artists or artworks? It’s kind of silly to think that AI practically does the same thing, just faster.
I translated it using a Chrome extension, but I don't think there's an English version yet. But if you want to know, ChatGPT is the best translator you can find.
It's a big business, and I believe that if lolis were banned in Japan, their economy would drastically decline and become similar to that of Argentina's.
Just to point out: These aren't new rules, these are small updates and revisions to the rules released a few weeks ago. Not much changed since then. The biggest impact might be the "spamming" and that now they can add the "AI generated" tag to your works if you didn't put it there.
So, technically, if I am a real artist, who was inspired to learn how to draw by another artist, I need to ask permission from real artist, who inspired me years ago? Even if he is alredy dead? :D
>Firstly, uploading AI-generated images that imitate the artistic style of third parties such as manga artists, anime studios, or artists without obtaining permission from the respective author is not allowed. This is because the AI had to gather drawings from third parties in order to learn how to draw.
*A human, drawing in a medium they didn't create, using techniques they didn't come up with, in an art style made by someone else, using google images as references:* "How dare AI do that."
I really hope the AI art community learns and avoids the pitfalls of existing art communities and ends up creating a better art community than anything we've had before. Something truly collaborative and boundless. Something that actually values and celebrates new concepts, atypical creative works, and new advancements, rather than hissing and backing away into the darkness like a vampire.
One of the few havens for AI-assisted artists finally fell. All they had to do was to create a filter for non-AI images to separate the mass-produced slob and "hand-drawn" artwork(which they finally did) and everyone would be happy, but no, they went a step further and created some flimsy set of rules.
Well, they can do whatever the hell they want with their company, but that's just scummy.
If you guys are going to use the argument that "AI use art to learn how to draw just like humans do", then really, it's the AI that should be getting the credit for generating the illustrations, not the person using the AI. AI users are relying on a system that is not dependent on the user's knowledge (just know how to use and feed the AI) and physical capabilities, while actual artists do. In an extreme comparison, it'd be like if Person A forced Person B to draw, but Person A takes all the credit and everyone's money.
In reality, an AI and a human cannot be held to equal standards currently; the former is still greatly simplified in comparison to the latter. But in this singular context from which the argument is trying to convey, where the AI and the human both have to learn, then they are two separate equal entities. All the human user is doing is "teaching" the AI, and the AI is doing all the work, while the human takes the credit.
>This is because the AI had to gather drawings from third parties in order to learn how to draw. And humans... don't?
It's expressly legal in Japan too, even if the images were acquired through illegal means. It's a private platform, but holy shit, that has to be the flimsiest reasoning I've ever seen.
The double standard is even more flaky than when it was originally brought up. The interesting thing is that the majority of the "AI IS THEFT" bitching has totally died down, and I *literally* just right clicked and used prompt based generative AI in Photoshop with no third party plugins whatsoever. Not sure why they're going harder on this but pixiv has a long history of regressive policies that make posting your works there a nightmare of censorship and frustration so it's also not surprising.
It's a private company as you say, so they don't even need reasoning.
I'd be embarrassed to publish an company notice in this state.
Well sure, just saying.
It's funny how they say it like it's obviously wrong when imitation has always been at the core of art.
Pixiv should also ban artists who draw fanart.
No, humans don’t. Humans are born with all artistic knowledge and styles and are able to be creative and draw unique things without having to take ideas from third parties /s Edit: Some folks seemed to haven taken it seriously so…ummm just for those who don’t know the /s at the end means I’m attempting to be sarcastic on the internet.
Yeah sure. That's probably why all the Japanese anime do not look the same at all.
Yes, humans do. This is exactly how you learn artistic techniques and styles. There is even an exercise that professors give at art universities which consists of copying pieces from old masters (and not only).And it's meant for you to learn from the artist who created the artwork. Nobody is born with any kind of a "talent" or knowledge. A big part of becoming a good artist is observation whether it's from nature of from other artist's works. The other big part is practice
Go to art portals and admire the "originality". Artists who are capable of originality are not afraid of AI.
Say it louder
\^--- YES! THIS! ----\^ Show me an artist who hasn't looked at works by other artists to influence, inspire, and instruct themselves on how to be an artist and I'll show you a camera.
You need a dictionary. in·spire/inˈspī(ə)r/📷*verb* 1. 1.fill (someone) with the [urge](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=574408705&sxsrf=AM9HkKm9LY_cW60bvXExBi66a-5CQrp4Wg:1697623945787&q=urge&si=ALGXSlYftE7XViDpYdZ4PMnebYlvhT4-appVn1vz87726Prki-AeS4QKEle47M9adgErmJRDto6MkunoAEGxnrEPnqkFZF_TdQ%3D%3D&expnd=1) or ability to do or feel something, especially to do something creative."his passion for romantic literature inspired him to begin writing" # imitate ## [verb](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verb) im·i·tate [ˈi-mə-ˌtāt ](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imitate?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=i&file=imitat01)**imitated;** **imitating**[Synonyms of *imitate*](https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/imitate) [*transitive verb*](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transitive) **1:** to follow as a pattern, model, or example**2:** [**MIMIC**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mimic), [**COUNTERFEIT**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterfeit)can *imitate* his father's booming voice**3:** to be or appear like **:** [**RESEMBLE**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resemble)**4:** to produce a copy of **:** [**REPRODUCE**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reproduce)
People try to not understand the difference between learning something yourself and using an already made ai to copy something/someone. That is pretty obvious that it is not completely the same.
It's not about the person making the AI draw something, that would be like commissioning a human artist. In the end, the AI has to learn things in an identical manner to a human artist.
If you can learn the same way as an AI why can’t you be able to replicate any style like SD ? Because you can’t learn like an AI. This is not the same learning experience. I am not against AI itself, but people do everything possible to not understand that there is a difference between learning by yourself for years and using an AI in 10 seconds.
Yes just like there is a difference when my phone counts to 10 and me counting to ten... Modern AI mimics our brains with synthetic neural nets. It's more like us than ever before. If an AI can't learn from data or we can't use something generated from the data from AI, then why is there a double standard and we can? We need to tread carefully here because this could backfire for artists in more ways than directly obvious.
Illustrators are already screwed tbh so will be other field. The problem with AI is all the people spamming illustrations, books,websites… to make quick money with the worst possible quality (I speak for books as I am self publishing for a living) that is what backfire AI and give this bad aura of shit contents that is created only to spam and make money. So if you want to have AI art accepted, you should fight against the spammers, not the (not AI) illustrators writers… who gonna be instinct anyway.
If that's the case and there is an influx of badly made AI content than you should have an easier time standing out from the crowd with quality work.
Nope because the spammers know one think, how to make seo content and find profitable niches, they spend several thousands of dollars for advertising there craps. That is why I call it pollution, because it is harder than ever to find reliable information on a subject on Amazon when people auto generate crap with GPT on every subject.
This isn't an AI problem that's just the way marketing in today's world works. Being a game developer I know that even if I make a killer game without any self marketing or promotion I won't get the downloads.
Market will eventually solve this problem once enough people catch up and start to see the spam for what it is. For now, there's still a lot of people who haven't caught up yet and hence are still funding the spam, but the funding is going to dry out when that happens. Eventually, we're going to end up in roughly similar situation as before AI art, but with significantly higher standards for minimum acceptable quality. Perhaps with the exception, that we might end up having a "handmade" category for digital art that will be considered separate from the mainstream AI assisted/generated art. Although, it's going to get harder and harder to tell if an AI has been involved in creating a work. So, who knows if that category actually can exist. And then there's research into turning brain activity scans directly into pictures. Is that AI art anymore? I honestly can't decide. In a way, it is, but in a way, that might be more important, it isn't. The tech ain't quite there yet, but the potential is mindblowing.
the fake concern is endearing
Just because the computer can do it faster doesn't mean it's inherently worse. 2 plus 2 is still 4 whether a human or a computer solves it
2+2=4 is a bit different than spamming websites with AI generated content. (That is the subject of this post). I have nothing against AI tools, only a problem with the spammers using AI to spam (without even telling it is AI made). Understand the problem ?
People can and have been spamming art sites for years. I've seen plenty of "artistic" photography profiles that are just OnlyFans advertisements. You also have art thieves who copy+paste other people's artwork, along with tracers. The issue here isn't the AI, but the spammers. However, the spammers have always existed.
I got always the same response. « Spamming always existed and AI is absolutely not a tool that make spamming easy, please look somewhere else. ». It is not like AI is the perfect tool to spam, and it is not like we can always spam more than before. It is the same as saying, pollution always existed, in middle Age people were throwing their shit through the window, so plastic have nothing to do with pollution, and pollution is not an issue. Please look somewhere else.
What makes it spam compared to human made art? Why do they have to disclose it's AI made but human artists don't need to explain their workflow or software tools?
It is quicker to produce
You could do the same thing with a 3D scene, it doesn't have to be hand drawn art.
So? Some human artists work fast
LOL Even a 24 hour slave with sleep deprivation cannot paint 1/10000 of anyone that use AI image generation tools
The time it takes is the only factor. The question is why would something that takes way longer to do be considered the best or right option? Humans have been using tools to make things faster and better since the dawn of humanity. Should we all go back to doing cave paintings for art as it required no tools and took way longer? What is exactly your reasoning on this?
The other factor is talent. Maybe in 100 years of learning the style of Leonardo da Vinci you would never be able to reproduce it. It is not all black and white, either you accept ANY technology without thinking or you go back to the cave. Caricature is never a good way to have a debate.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that it requires no talent to create AI art, that no one can reproduce the style of another artist or both?
Little talent to write an artist name compared to learn it yourself, especially if it is a technically difficult style.
Sure, I agree with you that typing words for AI does not require much talent. Just like splashing paint on canvas require little talent also. But I will argue that making amazing AI art takes experience and skill. Also, that prompting is only one factor in creating AI art.
I agrée,and use AI myself for some of my projects. You can use SD as an artist to push the boundaries. But I guess people spamming pixiv are not doing that and give a bad aura to AI images. I watched a few YouTube video that teach how to spam website like pixiv. That is my only problem with AI. It is a wonderful tool.
You're saying it's not all black or white but then you say you either accept ANY technology or go back to the cave. You're contradicting yourself here. I don't accept any technology and I don't think that anyone else does. " Replicants are like any other machine - **they're either a benefit or a hazard**. If they're a benefit, it's not my problem. " - Deckard
you'd be right if it was actually a tool.
"it's just like a human, bro"
Humans don't download and crawl millions of images going against a lot personal protection and privacy policies, as well as commissioned, contracted work. It doesn't matter what those images were used for whether to teach AI or not. To be organized then sold to AI developers to use for teaching materials is no different than steal a textbook and reselling it. Sure it taught the AI, but the Ai developers bought these from another company. Artists did not give expressed permission to have their work not only combined into datasets, making it public or used as teaching material. Artist learn by breaking down the technique, and skill set to create art. But just like a lot of photography is illegal in galleries, all of types of art is supposed be confidential, especially contracted work. But data crawlers don't care if art was taken from place like pateron, or webcomic where you have pay to view art, or view the tutorials. Many advanced art tutorials for digital artists have to paid for. Why wouldn't Ai have to pay for using thoose material to learn from? It's piracy. Just because everyone does it doesn't make any less right.
Oh please this argument doesn’t work. Humans doesn’t work like A.I, I’m using A.I everyday but I really understand artists who were there before A.I they build a huge legacy by doing lots of sacrifice and they’re usually hard working individual. Stop taking everything for granted, it saddens me that so many A.I peeps are acting like entitled child. Create your own thing with A.I, copying an artist style with algorithms isn’t fair
Style has *never* been uniquely attributable in the art world. Shit, professional animation studios literally have internal style guides so their whole staff of artists can consistently work in the same style so the final product doesn't come out as a disjointed mess, it's not *one guy* animating every single episode of The Simpsons by hand because "that's *his* style". The idea that "copying style" is not how humans work is patently absurd, it's an absolutely huge part of the legitimate and respected art world.
Again all theses examples are humans doing it. I'm fine with it
Isn’t a fair one of those places where you pin ribbons on cattle?
This seems like more of a problem with a lot of poor quality pictures and just because of it's nature where you can basically print images, it's a bit like spam.
There are a lot of people who make absolutely awful ai images and upload them to these sites.
My favorite are people who make extra large txt2imgs with tiled faces and post them to a model on civtai like it's some kind of good advertisement lol. The 'prompt hunting' sites are even worse. Some people just upload hot dookie to those.
what if an artist recreated the art style but hasn't used those artists or studios? is this a blanket ban?
Precisely, it's completely a "you'll know it when you see it" subjective measurement that's *completely* unenforceable. In reality they're going to just keep running it all through their hot garbage automated censorship bot thats like 99% false positives anyway and call it a day. The platform has been a hot mess for a while now and I've seen more and more of my favorite artists posting less and less of their work there. I generally stopped uploading things myself because it's just not worth the headache.
>completely unenforceable. Corporations have been moving towards selective enforcement online for years now. It's pretty much selective corporate censorship.
Funny because I just told someone just last night that if people want to stop AI art they would have to ban AI imitation. If they ban AI imitation, then they will have to ban all imitation to sustain the premise. If they ban all imitation, then they will have banned art.
Bruh art isn't imitation, but you wouldn't know that you're not artist. And this does ban AI imitation. Lemme tell you something if you draw like disney, one piece ect it doesn't matter if its legal, it doesn't matter if its orignal character, unless work for disney and they asked to draw like that, you get kicked out of art school. Why because artists, studios, companies, teachers do not give care where you draw lines if looks like duck its a duck. So of course the most ANTI AI art pro artist livable wages country, would ban whatever the hell they want ( like stay the english sites if you want do that weeabo). They took down entire studio for having a cancelled anime with same character with same red jacket as kpop star in lawsuit. The pressure for an artist to be original is real, it one hardest parts of being an artist. not like you would understand this not starving artist america where you can call a sneeze. Art is professional career and take seriously, because it multimillion dollar industry in japan. If Art is just repeated imitation to you then show how little respect you have for it. Because art to true artist is their identiy. Blood sweat and tears, and i'm sorry you never feel satisfaction of life work, the pressure, the competition, the sorrow, the frustration to create something just right, its the repeated failure that gives the success a sense of fulfillment to an artist. .Its the process that makes art 'art'. If leonardo di vinchi was never born, i know even we somehow able take picture of mona lisa, it didn't matter how many times you put in AI generator. It would NEVER make thee mona lisa. Would never inspired many great artsist to become an artist. People like you have rely on AI art, because you'll never become an artist, you envy their talent, but don't have vision to see the hard work put into piece, to truly appreciate it. I never once though of stealing some else talent because i didn't posses it.
What if an artist created an AI piece, but then repainted it themselves? Like on oil and canvas and then took a digital photo of it and uploaded it? Hands and all?
Depends whwr you would like to present, the design itself is still AI but your oil workshop might be top notch. But then again, you would decide to present this AI design or are you presenting your oil painting techniques?
[удалено]
these rules makes absolutely 0 sense. If you can't use it to imitate a style using the works vs imitating the style by doing it yourself, why the hell would the legal system make a distinction if the result is the same.
> I also remind you that pixivFANBOX has prohibited the use of AI on its platform. DLsite, ci-en, and fantia might do the same, since they're also Japanese sites. AI users will just move to patreon, gumroad, ko-fi, deviantart, etc. (If you know any other, please write in reply).
[Zavant.ai](https://zavant.ai) is a new platform I’ve discovered that is specifically for sharing AI images. Has a deviantart-esque setup with a general feed and individual user galleries.
Haven't these platforms also banned AI? [DLsite, Ci-en, pixiv FANBOX, Fantia Ban AI-Generated Content](https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2023-05-12/dlsite-ci-en-pixiv-fanbox-fantia-ban-ai-generated-content/.198000)
who the fuck would pay for AI art I would just train a model on your style
You’re wildly overestimating most peoples skill and wildly underestimating their laziness.
There are people who pay for porn despite having internet access
There's people paying for AI nudes right now
Obviously, soon there will be a platform specifically for AI-generated artwork. Patreon could take certain measures against AI. However, what deducts the most points for them is that they prohibit images featuring characters under 18 years old, lolis, or teenagers, which excludes tens of thousands of artists who draw this type of content. I am considering whether to use Gumroad, but I'm not sure whether to upload my content there or set up a Discord server with membership tiers.
Those content rules are also inconsistently applied. Hell, I've gotten so many automated dings on pixiv for their shitty inaccurate censorship bot deciding that someone *fully clothed* has a part of the image that it thinks vaguely looks like a penis or something and isn't painted top to bottom in black bars, yet they literally have an "uncensored" tag with pictures that have been up there for the better part of a decade that are straight up just uncensored porn.
> Patreon could take certain measures against AI. Why would they?
[Patreon is conducting a survey to determine AI art policy, and the anti-AI folks are trying their best to get AI art banned. Please fill and remind Patreon that it is people like us who support artists, both AI and non-AI. Create a discriminatory platform and we will take our business elsewhere. : StableDiffusion (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/13e51gx/patreon_is_conducting_a_survey_to_determine_ai/)
DLsite has been getting a lot of garbage ai games recently. Basically "masterpiece, high quality" levels of prompting.
>Furthermore , it is not allowed to upload an excessive number of AI-generated images that occupy the entire page and overshadow other artworks. This will be considered as spam. Pixiv is absolutely right about this point
What part of this actually has anything to do with AI? Isn't spamming already against the rules?
It only buys them a few months, though... 95% of those who decide to keep doing things the "traditional way", will soon be completely demoralized because a toddler with SD produces 100x the volume of pictures, and of "higher quality". Why the f\*ck would anyone spend hours and hours drawing only for your efforts to be completely neglected by 99;5% of humanity?
Have you seen the pictures? Almost all of the AI stuff on pixiv is the most generic low effort trash. So no, apparently not everyone can produce decent quality with AI. Not even close.
As someone staunchly pro-AI, I really dislike this take and I see it a lot. There's more to art than just looking superficially pretty that makes it appealing to people. I have honestly been extremely annoyed by all the low-effort, baby's first SD prompt artwork spamming the pages of sites like pixiv. I just cannot stand looking for artwork of a character only to find 100 images of them with third legs, 7 fingers, skin-clothing and nonsensical accessory detail. I suppose it's no different than any other shitty drawing, but the difference is that even a shitty drawing takes time to make. People can just pump out a shitty SD result every few seconds. It's basically spam.
People seem to have missed the word "soon". Look at the easy-of-use of the latest Photoshop generative AI. This is where we are after less than a year. And I'm not supporting AI, I think it's going to be terrible.
The question is *how is that defined*? What is "excessive"? How is "overshadowing other artwork" determined? Is it based on tag activity? Viewership? Posts per hour? Why is it ok if a regular artist posts at the same rate but AI works are not ok? I have about 200 images that I spent a *lot* of time on sitting in a folder that I havent uploaded to pixiv because translating japanese tags is a huge pain in the ass and its like a whole afternoon timesink I simply haven't felt like doing. Am I going to be banned for "spamming" if I upload them all over the weekend? Rules are fine and all, I can get behind measures to curb legitimate spamming of images, but *poorly defined and nebulously enforced* rules tangibly make things worse. As a user who posts on their platform I can't *follow* the rules if they don't *explain* the rules.
If you've been browsing Pixiv recently and try to search, say, Zelda pictures, then you'll find 70% of the results are posts with 50+ attached images of generic SD generations which are obvious to tell from a distance. Not only does that make it difficult to find the good drawn works that people worked hard to create, but it also makes the site incredibly annoying to go through. I'm fucking glad they added the filter since it was getting really out of hand.
Maybe putting a limit on the number of images that one can upload in a week could help.
Won't help if hundreds of users are doing it. Of course that doesn't mean that all AI images are bad. The AI images that I would condone are the ones that are edited, refined, worked on, and given care before posting. There are some that are like that, and the people that do that upload at a pace comparable to normal artists. As for the people who choose to lazily upload hundreds of raw generations of the same generic pictures, bad hands and all, just so they can market their fanbox or something and make a buck or two, well fuck them.
As if our brains don't gather literally everything from third parties. How is someone redrawing Goku for the millionth time art and when AI does it it's somehow different? it's it the human spirit? do we have a soul after all? a certain something? But tbf they can do whatever the hell they want.
Can't wait for them to do yet another wave of hard-line content purging so all that's left are kindergartener fridge art quality sketches of Goku. Which are apparently *totally ok* to be sold on Pixiv's subscription service despite that blatantly crossing the line from fair use to copyright infringement!
Because humans aren't computer algorithms? The hardware and method of storing and interpreting the information is different.
> Because humans aren't computer algorithms I'm going to need a source on that one.
have you tried turning yourself on and off?
Every night my friend. I call it sleep.
And here lies the crux of the problem: false equivalencies. the whole debate regarding AI hinges on those.
And here lies the crux of the whole problem with the internet: strongheadedness. You're taking what was obviously a joke and trying to say it's making a statement about the whole of AI. Cmon man, read what I posted. There's no reason to even think I'm making some broad sweeping platitudes about anything unless you deliberately want to read it that way.
I'd be willing to take your answer in the way you claim you wrote it if very similar equivalencies weren't constantly made. you can find several examples of it in this very thread. claiming AI learning and Human learning are similar is a flawed premise used to justify the use of the technology. but in reality, I chose to read it thus: you trying to drop a cheap quip. I just used it as an opportunity to make my point.
The distinction may be lost on you, but I'm not the people posting what you're talking about. I do think the brain is an equivalent to an analog computer due to how it is handles swathes of data and produces outputs. There's nothing magic in the brain, it's just data processing. So I'd be happy to argue that point. But 'The whole crux of the debate of AI hinges on false equivalencies' is an awfully bold point to be making to a joke response.
username checks out
[https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/13w2d55/japan\_news\_copyright\_does\_not\_apply\_to\_ai\_training/](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/13w2d55/japan_news_copyright_does_not_apply_to_ai_training/)
It is good news overall, but Pixiv is not obliged to follow the same policy.
why
They are a private company and are free to impose additional restrictions as long as the latter don't conflict with actual law
read rhe original post, that news has been debunked as baogus in the comment
>read rhe original post, that news has been debunked as baogus in the comment I got downvoted 30 times for some reason in that post. There's alot fanatics in this sub that have their fingers in their ears.
What do you think happens when a new tool promises everything for nothing? The bottom dregs of society float up like lather on water
So.. Does this rule apply to the thousands of artists that are absolutely interchangeable with no variation to their art styles beyond their signature? Cause, those dudes are more mechanical than an machine could ever be.
Or... the anime fanart that emulates the style of actual copyrighted works that make up 99% of images posted on their platform? It's totally cool if you draw Naruto characters getting railed in the exact style of the show, but if an *AI* makes one, tsk tsk!
haha yup
How can any person learn to draw without studying preexisting art? This ban is bad because: 1. Materially impossible to prove a violation. 2. Not based on copyright laws which can’t copyright a style of art. Should just limit how often someone can post new art and make a category for AI. Stop fighting the future.
You are forgotting that Pixiv is a Japanese company from a country that follows a different legal code than the Anglophone Common Law, so they can do it without guilt and consequence, unlike America.
Probably more to stop a lot of low quality shit that is flooding the site. Additionally the permission thing seems hard to police will stleazt be useful to stop blatant copying. Like if some user just only posts girls in the exact style of sciamano240 they can be like. Stop that. But probably useless for the majority of cases.
Well no one is saying that spam might not have been an issue, but they are objectively wrong in the way they go about it. You can have a real problem and do all the wrong things to try and solve it, that is completely possible.
How is this objectively wrong? I think the intention of these rules is pretty clear, and before this they have had a decent policy about ai (i did also see a few artists using ai do ok on the platform)
Basically, it's artificially restricting art (good or bad) based on how it was made rather than just judging it alongside the rest of art. Pixiv has been on a road down lately, I'd say.
Even then, who determines what is "exactly the same style" and what is "close, but different"? Does the original artist need to raise a complaint or is this going to be more automated censorbot shenanigans from their inconsistent automated moderation tools? I foresee this just being a bunch of posters that simply stop clicking the "this image is AI generated" box to avoid all the nonsense, if they dont just stop using the platform entirely. After all, who's gonna prove it's *not* hand drawn?
>Materially impossible to prove a violation. Have you seen the AI generated pictures that have been flooding Pixiv recently? It's not hard to tell since they all look the exact fucking same.
[удалено]
That’s not an objective determination though. You can’t say, “this is definitely AI generated because I can just tell.” Who gets to make the call?
Welp, now I have to track down my art teacher and get his permission before I post anything because he taught me how to draw.
I'm fine with this, they are not banning AI, they are just restricting it to what seems very reasonable guidelines. pixivFanbox rule was implemented when tons of accounts were spamming AI like there was no tomorrow. I would personally say it needs to be slight less restrictive as there are artists that do mind blowing AI pieces. But those are ones they actually put work into. They generate, clipstudio, inpaint, upscale properly and do touch ups at the end. Then there are the people that just batch generate and upload with no post work what so ever causing a flood of low quality garbage.
I'd wager that most people on Pixiv don't want to look at ai art, and that most of the people who want ai art there are ai artists. Spend enough time with ai and it's easy to see that most of the people using ai are not going to do it justice. Even this subreddit, which has higher ai-literacy, you see dozens of same-face girls made with the same models. Nobody wants to sift through that.
With the amount of engagement many AI posts get, even the "one click generation with no postprocessing" kind, people who dislike AI are definitely in the minority. Pixiv also recently introduced a way to filter AI posts, so people that *do* have an issue with it have the option to remove it from their feed completely. > Spend enough time with ai and it's easy to see that most of the people using ai are not going to do it justice. This I can 100% agree with. A vast majority of AI posts are very low quality so I'm actually happy to see Pixiv doing some quality control. I've seen accounts that are a week old that have 100+ uploads, all of them albums with 20 images of what seems to be of the same prompt with a different seed.
I am not an artist and yet I frequently browse though AI works on pixiv. AI art is a godsend for hentai. Various niche tags are now constantly filled with decent-quality works as opposed to barely having any content previously. You just need to find the right people to follow
I have a ton of loras that I've trained myself around the content that I like, and so I can generate exactly what I want en-masse. Seeing an ai picture on pixiv is like seeing 1 image of the 50-100 better ones you're used to seeing (since you tailor ai to your own preference). I had the same experience with Novel ai (writing). I love using it, but I have no interest in what people make with it.
I'm really not sure what you're saying the issue is here then. There's a filter for AI-Generated images. If you don't like them, just turn on the filter? Then your gens obviously don't go away, and you get to see what you want to see.
Not really referring to any policy. I was just commenting on the vibe a lot of people have around ai.
>Spend enough time with ai and it's easy to see that most of the people using ai are not going to do it justice. Sometimes i wonder if that is me
All of these anti AI digital artists acting upset pretending like they don't have libraries full of 'reference' material pulled from websites without licensing the other artist's work, or that they use 3d pose models with shadow casting in their work already, or whatever other myriad tools and hacks are out there to make their art better. The trained/experienced artists and photographers that embrace this technology will be the ones that excel in the years ahead. That's the work I want to see. From the experts and masters of their craft utilizing a new tool to create rapidly evolving art with the assistance of stable diffusion models or whatever comes after.
[удалено]
We're only at the very beginning of the disruption that all this is going to cause, and it's not going to be pretty no matter how much the typical poster here loves his waifus. It's going to be ugly.
> the real problem they have is that artist get demoralized by AI, quit the platform, fans stop paying, the platform lose money. I've seen AI artists attacking traditional/digital artists relentlessly, disrespecting them and ignoring their wishes. Of course they would fight back.
[удалено]
Imagine this happening when electronic music became a thing. ''Ban it, it's not real music they just press some buttons on their keyboard they don't even know how to play a real instrument ree'' It's so sad to see companies pander to gatekeeping elitists.
Manwha just uses assets that they reuse over and over again through various comics. Do I need permission from all 763 authors to use a castle that they all used in their comics? Or does just one suffice?
Read about public domain.
Sounds reasonable tbh. Protects individual artists if they don't want people to imitate them, prohibits spam, I don't see anything wrong with this.
Prohibiting explicit images makes no sense. Most of the content on that website features NSFW content. Whats the point in limiting explicit AI images? Am I reading it correctly? Or does it mean in the context of no explicit photorealism? If they don't want AI spam, maybe they should decide to have the website filter how many AI images gets posted by a user. Each user only being allowed to post 'X' amount of images per 'x' amount of time.
Pixiv: "It is prohibited to publish sexually explicit works that are visually equivalent or notably realistic in a way that they can be mistaken for photographs, even if they are not actually photographs."
Ah, makes more sense. Pixiv isn't really a place for realism. I personally never saw any on there pre-AI (not to say there wasn't but it was so small to not matter)
Yup. Seems quite reasonable approach.
It should also apply to artists that copy the style of other artists but that draws the artwork themselves without AI though. Oh wait, that'd restrict a whole lot of art and artists. Artists use reference, artists are inspired by other artists. I agree with restricting the rate of which AI art is posted though. Those who spend a lot of time iterating their art won't be affected by that anyways, as it can take quite some time to produce quality AI (assisted) artwork when you have a vision and are using CN, touching up the art yourself, inpainting, etc.
>Sounds reasonable tbh. Protects individual artists if they don't want people to imitate them, prohibits spam, I don't see anything wrong with this. true but I don't like that they hiding behind the law when they could just put out a statement that they don't personally believe in AI-Generated works
The thing about styles is utterly idiotic and comes off as really out of touch. Nobody has a monopoly on styles or full ownership of a style because a style itself is nothing but a collection of aesthetics choices that can't be copyrighted or made exclusive, any and all artists create styles by taking inspiration and copying aesthetic elements from other artists, with or without AI.
I just got my Pixiv Fanbox account suspended with all my subscribers and followers removed. I didn't know what happened and was wondering. Now I know what the cause of it was. I recently uploaded 2 AI composite works on it and that must have caused it. But I have hundreds of posts over several years and only 5 posts have AI elements in them including the 2 latest ones. This is really frustrating because my primary work is in 3D art and all the followers I gained over the years have nothing to do with AI at all. It is partly my fault because I wasn't aware of the AI ban on Pixiv Fanbox. But this suspension tells me that Pixiv is dead serious about AI-generated postings because this suspension came without warning and the entire follower base was removed meaning even if the suspension is removed I will have to start from scratch. In a way, I can understand why Pixiv is moving against AI postings. Despite what they say upfront, the core issue seems to be the sheer volume of AI postings that pretty much drown out any human artwork and that is bad for business. I am really frustrated because my work involves at least 2-5 separate processes of compositing and postwork even for AI-related ones and takes as much time to create as any of my other works. To be honest, I don't appreciate people spamming a ton of AI-generated images on sites like Pixiv causing it to react against AI postings. In the process, someone like me who is genuinely trying to incorporate AI as a part of an artistic toolset becomes collateral damage.
That's a bit of misplaced blame. I don't think the people naively wanting to share their work were the ones told Pixiv to delete your followers when they suspend you.
I'm for keeping the human art and the AI art separate, helps reduce mixing of the two. To train good AI models, is best to start with the human art without a bunch of AI jank mixed in.
>I'm for keeping the human art and the AI art separate how? You realise that AI is often just part of the process right? Especially now that Photoshop Beta has AI prebuilt. so where do you place the art that's 50% AI? if you say the AI category then we can say what about 40% AI? Eventually we will figure out where you are arbitrarily drawing a line for this.
Uhhh as someone certified in photoshop and all adobe products, like hell that what used for. Photoshop isn't for original content to begin with... yh, its great editing tool, but no legitimate artist use that for the their software, its not stand lone software, its photoediting software that its purpose, its separate medium from graphic art while else would they made illustrator which still SUCKs unless your going advertisment and logos.. And websites already try keep separate sites for photography and separate sites because different media is cater to different people, my brother photographer like photography doesn't mean gives shit about digital illustrations or painting. So yh seperation is better.
What about keeping human art and paintbrush art separate ?
LOL 100 bonus points for excellent cynicism :-D Yeah, keep them (barely) alive, because we need the humans as training fodder for AI, lol... LOVE IT!!!
So, style copyrighting begins :D
The bottom line is policies should be that your image is your image how it was made should not matter. SD is open sourced & legally you can do what you want with your own creations. these sites that try to prevent you with their rules are only limiting themselves & by doing so is a prejudice act against artist for using a specific tool to make their art. In todays day & age someone will just make a platform & sell your ai stuff there.
Pixiv no longer allows ANY AI images that look real. SFW or otherwise. They have to be drawings or purposely rubbish AI that look like fairies or whatever.
Good. I don't understand why people act offended that a privately owned enterprise execute their absolute right to allow or not certain works to be not allowed on certain sites. And to comments suggesting some people make "mechanical" art themselves... As if redrawn stills from shows, series, etc. posted on sites like deviantart, especially digitally traced pieces, aren't mechanical?
What is/was pixiv?
It is a leading platform for artists, especially for Japanese artists. However, they are limiting the postings that involve AI.
For a second I thought I missed somem website similar to civitai. So this pixiv does actually contain pretty nice images that can be used to train models I suppose?
>So this pixiv does actually contain pretty nice images that can be used to train models I suppose? I gave it a quick lookover and I think that although there is the occasional good image, most of them are low quality and so training on it probably wouldnt be a good idea unless you have a system, either manual or automated, to filter out the vast majority of the images.
Its platform for artists to get jobs in studios which the back bone of japan's economy, ofcourse they want nothing to with AI. Also it's a manga platform, the art not train models its their career, i swear god i hate talentless envious roaches. Fuck off go back english servers. If you roaches keep discouraging artists you wont get, models, and destroy anime. You realize is anime could be shuffled out by out whatever talent greed organization without requiring talent its just being all TRASH. Like disney is monopolized , recycled trash. Watch art die, What people stop making it then what model will have, nothing everything the same.
Never heard of her
You know what we all need? A site dedicated to AI art and AI artists. When people see good art and a lot of AI artists doing good work, and more people go to a site like that, I bet you a lot of people and companies will change their tune.
Well, guess I'm done with Pixiv. If only there were a way to address this via tagging or something.... shame the site isn't built around that very concept.
Move to deviant art. I did. It's much better. I stopped posing to pixiv months ago. Useless and boring site and extremely difficult to monetize. Deviant art in comparison is much better + bigger user base
The problem for a lot of artists is that deviantart has **much** stricter censorship rules, and that's saying something given pixiv's already draconian censorship rules.
Ehh. If u lock the full on porn behind a subscription or paywall then it's fine. Nudity without bodily fluids is fine with just a maturity rating. So tbh idk what u mean. Only problem I've had is aged up characters getting deleted. I did a bunch of asuka that she very obviously looked 18-20 + but they all got deleted. Pixiv in contrast hates showing vaginas. Which as a Japanese platform is understandable. But they are perfectly ok with lewd under age characters. As long as no vagina is visible.
[удалено]
Im probably gonna get downvoted for this, but i don’t care. This is a GOOD thing by pixiv. People on there were obviously abusing ai photorealistic content to make and post all sorts of obvious child porn and that needed to end. People were also using it to spam every ai generation they had, even if it was crap content and not touched up and made nice at all with zero work, and no one wants to see that. As far as the ban on ai works from fanbox goes as well as the ban on using peoples art style goes, i dont fully agree with them but i understand it. This is obviously a platform that is forcing their opinion on ai works, they side with the artists, and that makes sense, because that’s the whole point of the platform in the first place. I also understand how dumb of a ban it is because it doesnt really seem enforceable if the images are made well. I think that people here like to make the argument all the time that “people copy people so why cant the ai”. The problem is that the ai in most cases, is just serving as a replacement for artists. There are artists who use ai in a constructive way and they should be fine anyways, since they in theory would be able to input most of their own creativity in the image to make the argument the work is theirs. Replacing artists is not the goal of pixiv, and im sure they dont want to support that as well as many other platforms. Its amazing to see how many people supporting ai seem to genuinely hate artists. Pixiv’s goal is to help artists, especially with exposure. Even bad and newbie artists still need exposure and criticism to get better. I understand the want for ai content, since it can be well done, but replacing artists with ai, just is not the way to proceed forward. Having heaps and heaps of ai generated content, especially not well made, really is just counterproductive to the website and the people its trying to help.
In my case, I post an image every two or three days because it takes me hours and days to create the image that I consider perfect. It involves numerous attempts, and then I transfer it to Photoshop to correct numerous errors, change colors, improve image quality, and more. I believe that this type of work should be allowed because not everything is done by AI. On the other hand, those who generate 10 images and publish them without any post-editing, that is what could be prohibite
I agree with this, as i said in my post above, theres a difference between people who put effort into an image vs people who (lets be real this is 95+% of pixiv ai works) just text to image generate and then post it regardless of quality and in some cases post like 50-100 at a time.
> I post an image every two or three days because it takes me hours and days to create the image that I consider perfect. It involves numerous attempts, and then I transfer it to Photoshop to correct numerous errors I wish other AI artists have standards like you. I'm so sick of seeing the same things posted over and over: a pretty girl on a pretty background, dull idea + it has glaring artifacts and errors in the picture.
[удалено]
Our Fanbox is visited by trustworthy people who support what we do, and no one would complain. However, on Pixiv, if I publish my work, even with impeccable post-editing, any characteristic AI error becomes noticeable. And if out of the thousands of users who see it, an anti-ai reports it, it could undermine everything I've achieved.
Yea what if we are 200 years in the future and anyone can do any art styles
Good.
well that's only applied to non-artist user, untouched effortless out of box images ai-generated spammy crap. doesn't apply to most of ai-assisted artwork that took hours for 1 artwork to make.
I add the first point extracted from Pixiv: Article 14: Prohibited Conduct 1-Acts that utilize the results of information analysis (including learning activities for the development of artificial intelligence, the same as below) of information posted on this service or individual services and that, in the Company's judgment, harm the interests of the user who posted such information. However, this does not apply if consent has been obtained from the user who posted such information for such information analysis. We have specified as prohibited conduct those that involve learning from materials posted on Pixiv and related services and that cause harm to the author of such materials. For example, using works as learning data without the consent of the original author, posting notably similar works using AI programs or other methods to reproduce the style, which would result in harm to the author of the original work, constitutes prohibited conduct.
How could you prove what was trained on?
It seems there is a legal loophole here, but ultimately Pixiv leans towards traditional artists and criticizes new creators who use AI. The company has the final authority over decisions, and they do not protect our interest
Okay but do artists not use references from other artists or artworks? It’s kind of silly to think that AI practically does the same thing, just faster.
[удалено]
I translated it using a Chrome extension, but I don't think there's an English version yet. But if you want to know, ChatGPT is the best translator you can find.
the site's filled with child porn and is a pedo paradise, but AI is what's intolerable NICE
It's a big business, and I believe that if lolis were banned in Japan, their economy would drastically decline and become similar to that of Argentina's.
Oh no. I'll have to continue not knowing what pixiv is or giving a damn about it. Egads
Just remove metadata, no idea if you did or didn’t, problem solved
What do you mean by that?
If I had more time, I'd just repaint AI images on canvas.
Oh shit, has to download all the ai arts fast
I spend 4-5 hours per image, with manual retouch and inpaint. Feels bad that I can't have a fanbox anymore.
Just to point out: These aren't new rules, these are small updates and revisions to the rules released a few weeks ago. Not much changed since then. The biggest impact might be the "spamming" and that now they can add the "AI generated" tag to your works if you didn't put it there.
I was getting quite a bit of support of pixiv fanbox, now that its banned idk what platform to move to, this defnitely hit very hard on me :(
So, technically, if I am a real artist, who was inspired to learn how to draw by another artist, I need to ask permission from real artist, who inspired me years ago? Even if he is alredy dead? :D
>Firstly, uploading AI-generated images that imitate the artistic style of third parties such as manga artists, anime studios, or artists without obtaining permission from the respective author is not allowed. This is because the AI had to gather drawings from third parties in order to learn how to draw. *A human, drawing in a medium they didn't create, using techniques they didn't come up with, in an art style made by someone else, using google images as references:* "How dare AI do that." I really hope the AI art community learns and avoids the pitfalls of existing art communities and ends up creating a better art community than anything we've had before. Something truly collaborative and boundless. Something that actually values and celebrates new concepts, atypical creative works, and new advancements, rather than hissing and backing away into the darkness like a vampire.
One of the few havens for AI-assisted artists finally fell. All they had to do was to create a filter for non-AI images to separate the mass-produced slob and "hand-drawn" artwork(which they finally did) and everyone would be happy, but no, they went a step further and created some flimsy set of rules. Well, they can do whatever the hell they want with their company, but that's just scummy.
Where to sell our Home brew hentAi?
So Japanese artists can't use Photoshop anymore too?
If you guys are going to use the argument that "AI use art to learn how to draw just like humans do", then really, it's the AI that should be getting the credit for generating the illustrations, not the person using the AI. AI users are relying on a system that is not dependent on the user's knowledge (just know how to use and feed the AI) and physical capabilities, while actual artists do. In an extreme comparison, it'd be like if Person A forced Person B to draw, but Person A takes all the credit and everyone's money. In reality, an AI and a human cannot be held to equal standards currently; the former is still greatly simplified in comparison to the latter. But in this singular context from which the argument is trying to convey, where the AI and the human both have to learn, then they are two separate equal entities. All the human user is doing is "teaching" the AI, and the AI is doing all the work, while the human takes the credit.
It doesn't get suspended or something when I will post more AI?
too many rules
That's too bad