Petitssktl;dr: AI-generated items are being banned until further notice.
For those who prefer a more sophisticated and eloquent approach to conveying this message, please see below (thank you if you do!):
Hello, everyone.
Thank you for your recent input on the outlined matter in articles, alerts etc. and also for using the site in general.
In consideration of both the fact that the subject matter is being discussed rather controversially as well as the recent appearance of what appear to be AI-generated images slapped on various merchandise to then, presumably, be produced on a made-to-order basis, we have extensively discussed the matter among staff as well.
Originally, while we already banned the upload of AI-generated articles and pictures some time ago, we were not going to start going after AI-generated items, as evidenced by the fact that such entries (books, for instance) had been added already, as we repeatedly emphasized.
Overall, we felt that, despite the landscape of this hobby possibly changing significantly due to the emergence of AI being used as a tool to create artistic works, we, being a database, should remain objective in spite of the fact that hardly anyone among staff considers AI in its current iteration a boon to this hobby.
However, in consideration of the appearance of said items that, technically, would be eligible for addition to the database, as well as the fact that several sites such as DLSite, Toranoana/Fantia, pixiv/Fanbox have begun banning digital sales of AI-generated works, we have reevaluated the situation.
Conclusions
AI in its current form is subject to too many issues, mostly of ethical nature, tying in with being firmly grounded in grey territory even as far as its use being considered a possible copyright violation is concerned.
While detractors do argue that AI is just doing the same as other artists who base their style on that of other artists, which, technically, is true, this logic disregards the fact that even such "copying"/inspiration requires hundreds, if not thousands of hours of practice and work on said artist's part.
Due to that, this is not being considered an issue and, if properly done, original artists are being credited anyway, depending on how far the alleged usurper dives into the style. While the same could be done for AI, the fact that there is no hurdle such as the massive amount of practice being required, there is the very real danger of cheap knock-offs flooding the market due to little to no practice being required.
However, we can also conclude that AI can be used in positive ways to improve work processes of artists - cases in which artists train an AI based on their own work to help with specific steps of the creation process, for instance, would be interesting to behold and possibly subject to less scrutiny. However, as of yet, no such checks or information standards exist, which means it is impossible for us to determine the extent to which an item has been handled by AI and based on whose art.
At this point, it is hard to accurately decide which ratios we'd be fine with; should we consider 100% AI-generated, mass-produced images/items based on a specific artist's style fine if they are being generated by said artist themselves? Can we actually determine whether no other artist's work was used in the process?
At present, there are too many unclear factors involved here. Coupled with the appearance of the above-mentioned mass-generated items in a certain store, it has become safe to conclude that all of this can happen. While likely that it is but a test run, we feel that we should remain cautiuous, step in early and go with a preventive approach, rather than a reactionary one.
We want to see how the technology develops, whether the current issues can be solved and whether it can be used without threatening the core of what we as collectors embrace by flooding the market and basically threatening the existence of the artists who have made this hobby possible for us to enjoy in the first place. We do also want to embrace the potential this technology gives us, but in this early stage, the risks far outweigh the gains if used improperly, which has lead us to decide the following.
Future handling of items based on AI-generated artworks
No items will be allowed in the database that are based on AI-generated artwork, whether that's figures, illustration collections/books, goods or other items.
This will remain in effect until the technology is at a point at which we're either comfortable with using it or at which we have the means and processes to confirm whether an image/item has been created in a manner which we would deem unethical.
We do realize that we will more than likely encounter cases such as videogames of which only parts were based on AI - for instance, AI-designed characters in what is an otherwise ordinary game. However, we will decide on those as we come across them.
For those who prefer a more sophisticated and eloquent approach to conveying this message, please see below (thank you if you do!):
Hello, everyone.
Thank you for your recent input on the outlined matter in articles, alerts etc. and also for using the site in general.
In consideration of both the fact that the subject matter is being discussed rather controversially as well as the recent appearance of what appear to be AI-generated images slapped on various merchandise to then, presumably, be produced on a made-to-order basis, we have extensively discussed the matter among staff as well.
Originally, while we already banned the upload of AI-generated articles and pictures some time ago, we were not going to start going after AI-generated items, as evidenced by the fact that such entries (books, for instance) had been added already, as we repeatedly emphasized.
Overall, we felt that, despite the landscape of this hobby possibly changing significantly due to the emergence of AI being used as a tool to create artistic works, we, being a database, should remain objective in spite of the fact that hardly anyone among staff considers AI in its current iteration a boon to this hobby.
However, in consideration of the appearance of said items that, technically, would be eligible for addition to the database, as well as the fact that several sites such as DLSite, Toranoana/Fantia, pixiv/Fanbox have begun banning digital sales of AI-generated works, we have reevaluated the situation.
Conclusions
AI in its current form is subject to too many issues, mostly of ethical nature, tying in with being firmly grounded in grey territory even as far as its use being considered a possible copyright violation is concerned.
While detractors do argue that AI is just doing the same as other artists who base their style on that of other artists, which, technically, is true, this logic disregards the fact that even such "copying"/inspiration requires hundreds, if not thousands of hours of practice and work on said artist's part.
Due to that, this is not being considered an issue and, if properly done, original artists are being credited anyway, depending on how far the alleged usurper dives into the style. While the same could be done for AI, the fact that there is no hurdle such as the massive amount of practice being required, there is the very real danger of cheap knock-offs flooding the market due to little to no practice being required.
However, we can also conclude that AI can be used in positive ways to improve work processes of artists - cases in which artists train an AI based on their own work to help with specific steps of the creation process, for instance, would be interesting to behold and possibly subject to less scrutiny. However, as of yet, no such checks or information standards exist, which means it is impossible for us to determine the extent to which an item has been handled by AI and based on whose art.
At this point, it is hard to accurately decide which ratios we'd be fine with; should we consider 100% AI-generated, mass-produced images/items based on a specific artist's style fine if they are being generated by said artist themselves? Can we actually determine whether no other artist's work was used in the process?
At present, there are too many unclear factors involved here. Coupled with the appearance of the above-mentioned mass-generated items in a certain store, it has become safe to conclude that all of this can happen. While likely that it is but a test run, we feel that we should remain cautiuous, step in early and go with a preventive approach, rather than a reactionary one.
We want to see how the technology develops, whether the current issues can be solved and whether it can be used without threatening the core of what we as collectors embrace by flooding the market and basically threatening the existence of the artists who have made this hobby possible for us to enjoy in the first place. We do also want to embrace the potential this technology gives us, but in this early stage, the risks far outweigh the gains if used improperly, which has lead us to decide the following.
Future handling of items based on AI-generated artworks
No items will be allowed in the database that are based on AI-generated artwork, whether that's figures, illustration collections/books, goods or other items.
This will remain in effect until the technology is at a point at which we're either comfortable with using it or at which we have the means and processes to confirm whether an image/item has been created in a manner which we would deem unethical.
We do realize that we will more than likely encounter cases such as videogames of which only parts were based on AI - for instance, AI-designed characters in what is an otherwise ordinary game. However, we will decide on those as we come across them.
Comments95
i haven't been very happy with the changes being made on here this year, but i completely agree with this. AI "art" is an afront to the time, work and money actual artists spend on their craft. as an artist i find it deplorable.
Samariah • 8 days ago • #125393290Seeing how this "art" is generated off of already existing pieces, I cannot see how monetization of AI art is even acceptable. It requires no talent OF VALUE to generate these images, thereby nothing of value should be exchanged for them. It's not much better than art stealing and slapping it on x product and calling it yours to sell.
AI image generation, though neat in its own way, is worthless and should be shunned, banned (for monetary gain), and discouraged as much as possible. AI images can't be copyrighted anyway, so to see them sold is a joke and should be available free of charge. Piracy of such materials is not only legal but should be condoned.
At least we still get stuff like this so we're far from the singularity:
I think the article is talking more about the tapestries that have been appearing on Melonbooks and other retailers recently
Same, but I get where they’re coming from bravo on whoever wrote this article