Huh, was not expecting Fur Affinity to be a poster child for such a ban.
The surprise is not because it’s furry — the art scene is such a large fraction of the furry economy that the introduction of AI art is approximately equivalent to introducing modern farming to, IDK, the 1850s or something — but rather because of that site’s lack of reputation with regards to technology.
Although, perhaps that explains why the quotation is “That content generated can reference hundreds, even thousands of pieces of work from other artists to create derivative images.” rather than the billions in the training sets.
This was actually predictable, if one was listening to the buzz around the different communities when the "this waifu/pony/fursona/etc. does not exist" generators were first introduced. Every community seemed to love the spectacle, except for the furry community, who were noticeably more on edge about it.
I still don't really know what to attribute the attitude to, but it seems to be a pattern.
Interesting one, thanks. By the nature of it that art community excludes huge areas of art (concept art, performance art, land art, …). Basically anything that is not a 2d image (sometimes animated) on a screen. To me it matches exactly what I meant with the first type of art, although I admit it is a crude categorisation.
If they charged a small amount per submission probably the would stop users submitting 40 images per second.
The surprise is not because it’s furry — the art scene is such a large fraction of the furry economy that the introduction of AI art is approximately equivalent to introducing modern farming to, IDK, the 1850s or something — but rather because of that site’s lack of reputation with regards to technology.
Although, perhaps that explains why the quotation is “That content generated can reference hundreds, even thousands of pieces of work from other artists to create derivative images.” rather than the billions in the training sets.