save the reports for the more flagrant abusers i think. if its BG only, i feel such actions could end up hurting artist more than helping them.
Im saying this both because its possible this may overload admin work, and because those artists could be better guided to not do that than reports.

2.13 Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Content made using AI, machine learning, or similar generators is not allowed, including derivative works created from it (e.g. stories, audio, backgrounds, paint-overs, using one's own content to generate new content).

It's not allowed. Period.

This policy is very poorly written. As a hobbyist astrophotographer, this completely outlaws me sharing any of my work. My data is gathered with the assistance of machine learning (a pointing model to increase guiding performance), and tools such as BlurX, NoiseX, and StarX allow you to manipulate the data in ways that you couldn't otherwise. All machine learning. You need to work on the stars separately from the rest. You need to remove noise and sharpen the image a bit, as the atmosphere limits you.

I'm of the same opinion of Nicole here. It's a tool. Faking data, art etc is frowned upon (cough BRAY FALLS), but it should at least be disclosed when it's done.

Just draw the background then? There's no bending the rules for this lmao. If it's against TOS, then...don't use it? Other artists who have to manage both the characters and the background don't use tools. It's kind of a copout to have to excuse yourself to be perfectly honest in my opinion.

I don't think you understand. There are no tools to do this. Drawing is HEAVILY frowned upon because you're faking data. These are real photos, processed like the Hubble team did. It's not drawing, it's photog. Machine learning has been around for decades and is very much so NOT AI. It's something heavily used in the real world.

That's a bit hair splitting I believe. The discussion revolves around generative models which have been trained on billions of data by not only creatives but actually all of us. All our collective data has been scraped of the net by companies like OpenAi, for their own benefit, without any consent or transparancy.
If the models you use, do not share this issue I would suggest that you go and ask a moderator for clarification on this partiuclar issue. However, the ovewhelming majority of Ai generated "images" out there use generative algorithms that very likely violate not only copyrights but also data privacy.

Aye that’s not a bad idea. I’ll poke one on discord whom I’m friends with.

Yeah, machine learning by it self isn't the problem of course. Those algorithms have been around for decades, I believe. What has changed is the computing power and the availability of data. Like Laion5b which contains like billions of links to websites, informations and the like. Almost all of the generative models, like Midjourney, Dall-E and so on, use it.
So if you could prove that the algorithms you are using are solely trained on ethically obtained data, that should be alright. LIke I don't know, NASA devloping their own algorithms based only on their own images.

Speaking of, those are open source now and I use one called Drizzling sometimes. It’s a super clean way to 2x2 or 3x3 upscale images during stacking. Pretty interesting stuff. Useful if you’re not sampled properly.

This policy is geared towards more "traditional" art, and supports the artists who don't want bits and bytes of their work stolen by generative AI regurgitating things. Your work seems to be of a niche that, while not less valid, is not the focus of this policy. But it is governed by it, as exceptions will create more and more loopholes for more and more edge cases.

However, I am not an administrator. You would need to talk with them to see if an understanding can be reached. As a layman, to me it sounds like you're using a very modern sextant to locate a star's location. I don't know those programs. They sound like NASA stuff. I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around this, though. The data you are manipulating (using a lens filter or red eye reduction, very basic comparison) is before you, yourself, take the photo. The machine helps *you* take the photo. It doesn't take from other sources to compile a photo from a stolen dataset. Is this a fair analogy?

It may fall down to what this "manipulation" is actually doing.

Now do not take this comparison wrong. Photos can be manipulated or "tricked," but the person still takes them. Photoshop exists. But the person does the editing...with the program. Proper disclosure is key, or the photographer loses credibility. But you are citing what you're doing, correct?

So is the program taking data from elsewhere to put in your photo, or being used as a filter, layering tool, etc? Where is this imagery coming from? Is the program making this image from what you see or what is there when *you* press the shutter button?

Computer targeting may be outside the generative AI context, but I doubt they'll make a specific carve-out for this. But if you, yourself, control the process, and the image is actually "there" when you take the photo from what nature has presented you...I'd be of the uneducated opinion that you're not stealing work from other artists or letting a machine do all the creation and pulling from work others created, mashing stuff together to make an image.

But I'm just a plebeian. Your best bet for now is posting it elsewhere that allows it, linking to it from here, disclosing and describing what it is/does and does not do.

But if the AI is making the pretty stars, nebulae, etc completely from scratch or bits of things it's seen before...it isn't and shouldn't be allowed here.

In this case, we're not citing what we're doing because it's a workflow that everyone does, it's standard taught. In every processing tutorial. Skilled users also are EXTREMELY cautious when using these tools to make sure that you're not creating any fake data, signal, or structures.

The standard workflow for an advanced imager is:

Acquire monochrome data, usually hydrogen alpha, oxygen 3, luminance, and R G B, Sulfur 2 is popular but not useful for all targets. You get these in the ratio you want. Flatten the backgrounds, clean them up, etc. Then you send them all starless, while SAVING the RGB starless. Process the RGB starless as you see fit.

Then you'll want to decon (blurx) and denoise (noisex/deepsnr). After that, you want to de-stretch your images generally to the noise floor, combine with the palettes, continuum subtraction you want etc. This is easier said than done and often is a lot of trial and error. You can also optionally build an LRGB base and do single channel addition with scripts. I've done both. It's target dependent. Then you mess around with curves, keeping the noise level reigned in. Then finishing scripts, double check noise/artifacts/etc. Combine with star image. Done.

Edit: If you go in and hand paint/airbrush or even just cook data too hard (look at Bray Falls), you get memed out of the community unless you're huge like him. So you then just get memed instead. His photos are fake. I've reported every single one of his new discoveries to the catalogue team not for being invalid (they exist) but because he submitted airbrushed data as 'raw'. That's a huge nono.

Here is a guide written by a friend of mine. His data examples are particularly crunchy but, it shows how these things work. You can also see his gallery on that website.
https://www.nightphotons.com/guides.....annel-denoise/

The term 'machine learning' is the issue. Adults in the real world use it ALL the time. And have for like 30 years. Machine learning =! AI. It's also out of scope of what they're trying to moderate.

Yep, that sure is a heap o' words! XD

It's a bit much for my limited understanding and zero experience. Even if you contact a site administrator you might need to simplify it more or define the programs. They won't be familiar with these compared to say Krita or Blender.

"Standard process" for a field as specific as astrological science purposes is not equivalent to an art site for people painting with digital or watercolor paint. Here, artists understand using a stylus they push and select colors with. What you're doing sounds like machines do a lot, lot more. To artists/an art site for this type of artist, what is "not AI" to you sounds an awful lot like "it's AI" to them. You're going to have to prove otherwise. They probably will not want to make exceptions for one kind of machine learning, or it defeats the purpose of the ban. It's hard to keep loopholes tight.

This is a different kind of site from what you're used to for astrological work. It might not be tailored to your specific work...and that's okay. Not every art site can cover everything. Even Walmart can't carry every kind of consumable. Someone in management makes a decision as to what they have or do not. FA has decided to cut out AI and machine learning to protect a type of creative artist that is the base of who they mostly serve.

I have no idea who Bray Falls is, but sounds like the equivalent of using Photoshop on a real photo, and calling it "unenhanced."

Also, I'm not belittling you, here, but..."adults in the real world" is condescending and implies that the people you're trying to convince that your machine learning isn't AI, aren't intelligent. "It's used ALL THE TIME" doesn't define why it should be allowed here, on a furry art site that has allowed non-furry art, and already has a broad range of art. "Billy does it ALL the time at his place in the real world." is not explaining why mom and dad (FA) should let you do it in their house (site). It's going to be viewed as whining that your specific thing (dog, fetish, discussion about politics, photos of outer space using a heap-ton of computin' power) isn't allowed in a space they control, or that others are comfortable in.

It is entirely within their scope to not allow machine learning creations on an art site devoted to human made art. It's their site, and they can disallow art made with machine learning, AI generation, an amalgamation of the two, or elephants painting with their trunks if they say so, because someone has to draw a line and say what they view is "created by a human using their own skills with tools that do not do the bulk of the work."

Not all art fits what FA is about. You have to make your case to the owner, board, mods, admins, and then users. Not all of us are versed in what you are. It's up to you to prove that machine learning =/= AI generation to people who are being replaced by "fast & cheap AI slop." That it isn't replacing the human hand or imagination in the final product or process. How much of your work is machine...how much is actually "you."

Just use small words and cite the work for people not in your field. Otherwise your work is primarily seen by artists with paintbrushes and colored pencils as AI.

Aye, sorry for the rambling. I’ll keep my reply here shorter.

1. Yeah, standard process is relative of course. Machine learning is different from AI so I’d hope they just rewrite the policy in a way that bans what they want without other things catching strays.

2. Yeah basically- Bray Falls will image a nebula, then airbrush all sorts of structure and detail into it that’s not real. It tends to be very obscure nebula that takes 50-100+ hours of data so people don’t fact check him often. But there’s been a many cases of people imaging the same target and being very confused.

3. I worded it in a condescending way on purpose because I’ve been blocked by multiple people for my equipment using a pointing model that it makes. The entire side of the argument I’m on has extremely childish, immature, and uninformed opinions. AI doesn’t have a place on FA but I’m apparently a reincarnation of Stalin for… checks notes, photographing stars at different positions to train my equipment. It’s asinine. People with actual technical knowledge about anything would understand that it’s two entirely different things.

To expand on #3:

Almost made in the 21st century in the real world that’s worth a shit is made using machine learning. Either the tools that make it, or the thing itself.

1. It's probably unlikely. Machines require a sort of artificial intelligence to learn, though experience, exposure, or compiling data, correct? It's probably going to be understood as a different kind of AI / machine learning. Maybe not "bad" like generative AI vacuuming and regurgitating bits of art, but from a technical standpoint I don't know how to differentiate it. About all I can guess is that the system is more specialized, closed, and not creating things that aren't there. So perhaps not "generative" is the most discernible difference?

2. Sounds like someone most wouldn't care to meet in person. They should be making science fiction novel cover art instead.

3. It sounds like a different use of similar technology. You do have an uphill battle ahead of you, though. So many artists have been violated without permission by the scraping and generation of images, it has poisoned any use of imaging tools, even if said tools don't create. I understand "some" machine learning is good, like NASA imaging, robotic surgery, etc. (Though I would be hesitant to undergo it myself.) But again, on an art site of creatives threatened by the bad usage of it, it will take a lot-lot to get any caveats for anything an AI or machine has much to do with.

On your expansion...just don't include vehicles made this last decade. Either the machines got bad data, the engineers think nothing ever needs repair, or profit is placed over reliability and repair. Probably all combined.

then you have to report to policy change to request a more discriminatory language. idk if the filters are generative AI, more like a enhanced form of Noise reduction and gausian blur.

unless it is "AI" and you cant prove without a shadow of doubt their slopX tools are not created with stolen content, you should not be using that in your work.

lmao i didnt say it wasnt against the rules m8 i was saying about the efficacy of reporting it. This isnt about arguing about the rules so bringing them up is irrelevant. this is about whether one should report someone they suspect of using ai for BG art. and im pretty clear on my stance against the use of ai for "art".

chill.

Efficiency doesn't preclude reporting it when the administration has stated they do not want it here.

I may have misconstrued your point, and apologize. But I still say it should be reported. Like every other ticket, they'll get to it when they can.

the big problem with AI is the unethical training models. the AI is essentially just plagiarism laundering. the model has been trained using artist's work without their permission. So yeah, I am very much pro reporting. It's not just guideline violation, it's also unethical to use it in your finished work.

'w'... Hm... Do you have physical evidence of them doing this? If so, I'd say report it via Ticket and let the administration decide what to do with them.

If it really bugs you, maybe say something to them about it?

That's what I do when I spot AI art here. I don't report people for it. It doesn't personally bother me.

I don't really see the difference between that and using a photo background.

I feel like a direct conversation with the artist would be pointless. As an artist, I think it's impossible to be unaware of how much hate ai gets. Yet they still chose to use it. I can't see changing anyone's mind by coming in dms with "btw this is against the site's rules". And I don't like confrontation

Are you SURE that it's AI?

Pretty sure

Any chance you could note me some links so I can see for myself?

Personally, I've found that contacting artists and warning them about the rules here when I've come across AI art has always worked, at least so far.

I don't consider it confrontation. I consider it fair warning for their own good.

No, I wasn't suspended.

I was uploading AI art for a long time before it became against the rules here.

It would depend on the context. If in any usage they declare that it's AI then no harm, no foul; nobody is misled. If it's just a background behind characters/scenes they did in fact draw, it's really no different than when artists use a photograph, VR chat screenshot, video game world, etc. as the background for their scene, and it's really not worth reporting unless they blatantly claim, "I drew this background." And if it's nothing more than a background/view/scene without foreground characters to act as the main focus of the piece, then it probably should be reported as AI artwork unless the person specifically declares it to be AI.

However, if you report something as AI, you need to be able to provide evidence showing that it is in fact AI, and considering how talented some people are with Blender for creating worlds I don't know how it would be proven.

2.13 Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Content made using AI, machine learning, or similar generators is not allowed, including derivative works created from it (e.g. stories, audio, backgrounds, paint-overs, using one's own content to generate new content).

It's not allowed. Period.

A lot of people do feel very different about photo/vr screenshot use and ai use. And declaring use of ai on a platform with a deliberate ban on ai is a bit silly. You're just asking to get your work deleted.

As for proving something is ai, no clue how FA operates, but sometimes it is just very blatantly visible. And once you see it on one image, every other artwork becomes suspicious too

>>. If in any usage they declare that it's AI then no harm, no foul; nobody is misled.<<

The harm has been already done. I do not see every Ai user as evil or someone who's using those algorithms to cause harm. But those algorithms scraped all our data. Not just creatives. And they did it without consent or any transparancy. To this day it is not entirely clear what's actually being done with all our informations.
It's very possibily a violation not only of copyrights but also data privacy. It just happend on such a large scale and in such a fast way that a lot of people didn't realise it. The potential damage here and the negative effects are quite severe though.
It's not illegal to use those algorithms. But I would really urge everyone to consider if it is worth it. Not just from an ethical point. But with using those algorith one is outsoursing their "skills". Skills which will degrate if they are not being used and honed. And all of it in support of companies that do not care who they are harming in the process.

Agree so much with you. The blind wide tolerance of this in almost every corner globally gives massive control to wrong greedy rich business vultures (criminals using legal loopholes) to do what they please with our world.

Yes. Totally true. It's being shoved down our throats while not only beeing very questionable from an ethical and legal point but also if it's even really usefull considering how much resources it requires. None of the Ai companies is profitable for example. And yet, they get billions in investments. It so crazy when you get in to the details of it all.

You're right. I forgot about how AI learned and I hadn't considered that. Thanks for the better perspective.

It doesn't matter if it's the background. It's part of the art uploaded and violates FA's Upload Policy. Report it. The staff absolutely does not want AI here, period. AI steals bits of art from artists who actually make something. It's like just stealing your pocket change you worked on earning. That's acceptable, right? No? That's theft?

Don't let it slide. Report it. Big name or no, it doesn't matter. They aren't better people than anyone else, so do not get a free pass.

hard agree

Thank you for your opinion.
I think ethically it's debatable if it's stealing, at least people sure are debating. Personally I'm not sure where I stand on this particular topic, so I'm less inclined to action (unfortunately, I think?)

It is literally theft of artists IP and mashing it together. See other opinions than mine.

That is indeed unfortunate to hear. If you're actually able to discern what is AI, aa it is against the Upload
Policy, it's a responsibility as a user of FA's services to report. Otherwise you're telling me you wouldn't report someone selling fake goods offline if you looked at their wares. It's the same thing.

Some of us aren't as perceptive to knowing AI when we see something but still do not support its use. So consider reporting it as looking out for others who may not be able to spot fakes.

It's not only a debate, there are actually quite a lot of pending lawsuits on the legality of it. And there are, in my opinion, strong legal cases to be made for creatives here. Even OpenAi themself admitted, they could haven ever created their algorithms without the use of coyprighted content. There was also recently a case where they argued that all work is free use simply by being uploaded publicly on the internet. A judge ruled that this is not the case. All ethical debates asside, the legality of it is extremely questionable, I quote :

"Data scraping directly affects creators and owners of IP-protected works, especially when conducted without consent or payment to rights holders. Scraping activities can implicate several types of IP and similar rights, including copyright, database rights, trademarks, trade secrets, publicity, and moral rights"

And that issue is complicated further by the fact that those algorithms can infact be used to create almost identical copies of the work it was trained on. If an individual would do that, they could be sued by the copyright holder. For us as creatives, this is truly a nightmare.

I am aware, that is why I said "ethically". Legally it's up to the judges, there isn't much to discuss here. I'm eager to see how the lawsuits are going to conclude and I am hopeful.

Where is this judge's ruling so it can be viewed, if possible? I hadn't heard this, but it's good to hear and I hope it's upheld.

There is this one :

On February 11, a judge in the U.S. District Court of Delaware issued an opinion in a long-running AI copyright infringement case, rejecting the defendant’s fair use defense and finding it liable for direct copyright infringement. The case was one of the first brought by a copyright owner for the unauthorized use of its works for AI training, and, after many twists and turns, it’s the first to provide an answer to the fair use question. That answer is a clear rejection of the fair use defense as applied to AI training.

https://copyrightalliance.org/ai-tr.....-not-fair-use/

Here is some information on the ongoing case against Metas AI :

""You have companies using copyright-protected material to create a product that is capable of producing an infinite number of competing products," Chhabria told Meta's attorneys. "You are dramatically changing, you might even say obliterating, the market for that person's work, and you're saying that you don't even have to pay a license to that person."
"I just don't understand how that can be fair use," Chhabria said."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litig.....ts-2025-05-01/

Thank you!! That's very helpful!

If the artists aren't up front and honest with the usage of AI to their clients, I feel like that in of itself is reportable. I would hate if an artist lied to me about whether they actually made the product I had paid for.

The use of AI-generated art is emotionless and thoughtless. I would report only the "artists" whose posts are completely AI-generated.

2.13 Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Content made using AI, machine learning, or similar generators is not allowed, including derivative works created from it (e.g. stories, audio, backgrounds, paint-overs, using one's own content to generate new content).

It's not allowed. Period.

As petty as may come across, it's a slippery slope until these people start charging extra for the AI backgrounds and that will never sit right with me. It's also a crutch to artificially inflate the value of their work for commission prices. Lastly it ultimately stunts the artist from learning perspectives and other what not to properly draw backgrounds in the first place. There are no winners, only losers.

In my opinion: Yes.

Especially when they are commissions. I've done it in the past, I will continue to do so and I have no respect for people who cheap out like this.

Ive actually had beef with an artist on here who hid the fact they used AI from their customers and later deleted the evidence. Some images are still up tho and I was then attacked by the people who owned these commissions so I do have a bit of a personal vendetta against these people...

You were attacked by commissioners for saying the art they commissioned has ai in it? Did they just not believe you or?..
Understandable vendetta :'D

Exactly. Except for one. The customer then confronted the Artist and the image got deleted later on so it proves I was correct.

So yeah, I would report it, simply because AI art is theft in my opinion.

I see, that's so weird

I'd say yes. It's hard for me to notice when backgrounds are AI since my focus is usually on the characters, but the rules on the site are pretty clear about AI and I'd rather not normalize the use of it at all, or at least slow the process of normalization as much as possible.

Fair, and thank you for your response! For me spotting ai is like a mini-game, I spend some time analyzing the picture, if I get the ai vibe. Which makes me wonder how other people are, if ai is at all noticeable

Should be reported, yeah, in my opinion.

Slippery slopes are very iffy here. I hate narcs but any amount of tolerance would set a worrying precedent. AI-free spaces deserve to exist to preserve the human made stuff for us to enjoy. Freedom from AI content doesn’t seem so unreasonable.
If someone wants art of their OC from someone but they also want an AI background to save themselves money then they’re free to upload the art on a site that allows it. I’m sure there’s plenty of other online spaces that allow such things.

This so far has been the most convincing point for me. I was really happy to see FA, contrary to let's say deviantart or artstation, to actually prohibit ai altogether. Still skeptical on the proving ai inclusion side of things, but it would be nice to to have a place with as little ai as possible, you're right

Yup, do it....especially if they are using it for making money.

Who are some examples? It would be good to at least increase awareness of this

Naming people would defeat the purpose of me asking about this. Someone will just report them. Plus I think it would count as harassment by FA's standards

I know several artists who have trained a LORA on their style and finagle/paintover it even. It's getting more and more common. If the client gets what they want, seems fine.

If the AI pulls from any person's work to generate "art," even that person's own, it's still the AI making it, and not allowed here.

2.13 Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Content made using AI, machine learning, or similar generators is not allowed, including derivative works created from it (e.g. stories, audio, backgrounds, paint-overs, using one's own content to generate new content). (color added by me)

Oh I'm aware. I was just saying that I know an artist or two that does. They have that plasticky style AI is known for already so nothing really changed.

Probably you already know, but none of these LORAS and similar are purely a single person's data. It's always only FINETUNING of the same regular misanthropic AI products.

(Unless the AI results is truly abstract ugly ass pixelated bullshit. Then there's a possibility the dataset is a small personal one. But no one is happy with these.)

Was gonna say the same, but you beat me to it x)

I'd say, report it. As others have stated, any usage of generative AI is against the FA upload policy. Even if it is "just the background"

NuttyMutton also made a very good point. FA is one of very few sites where gen AI is not allowed. There's plenty of other places that allow it, so it'd be nice to keep it off of here regardless of anybody's personal stance on the matter

That being said; only report if you're absolutely sure. I think there's been a few cases where people that have gotten banned just because they have a style that AI has a tendency to copy

Yeahh I remember specifically johisart defending themselves on twitter in regards to their artwork submission for a pokemon contest. While having years of work in their gallery, way before ai looked like anything worthwhile. In that sense seeing the whole gallery is important to identifying and proving ai usage

Otherwise, I've agreed with NuttyMutton above, it is indeed a good point

report it. its against upload policy. and speaking personally, i would be livid if i bought a commission and found out generative AI was used in it at all.

AI is AI

I'd say if I got a commission and found out it has AI in it I would feel robbed. I'd be thankful if someone stopped it.
If they're open about it, maybe it's not so bad though.

I reported someone who was using AI backgrounds. It was approved and taken down. There is no room for AI on this site.

Could you please tell me, if you know, what is the punishment in practice? Do the submissions with ai get deleted? Or is it an account suspension or a ban?

While I cannot speak to the actual guidelines, in the case of the artist I reported, they seemed to be given a warning, their AI art taken down, and they could resume posting. I imagine it's a warning(s) -> suspension -> full ban type system.

Okay, thanks a lot!

I report *ALL* AI, regardless of how it's used. FA is one of the only places left that hasn't been polluted with AI slop. Artists that both use it and upload it to AI-free websites destroy their reputation because I can't trust anything they create is pure anymore. Save the slop for slop sites like InkBunny.

I have unrelenting, unyielding, undeniable HATE, HATE, HATRED for AI. It's Pandora's box and it should have never been opened. AI is why I have dropped any stupid ideas of making a living at art, shelved my projects, and went back to school.

No AI background. If it's ok for BG, it'll look ok for anything else.

Its straight up against FA policy. So yes. Any AI generated content is to be reported. They don't belong on here. No REAL artist uses it.

2.13 Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Content made using AI, machine learning, or similar generators is not allowed, including derivative works created from it (e.g. stories, audio, backgrounds, paint-overs, using one's own content to generate new content).

It hurts actual artists in a couple of ways. 1. Most generative AI steals from other artists. Some do make the argument that they train the data on their own, but I've yet to see any evidence of this. 2. It takes away work from photographers and real asset artists. They could've supported another small creator and paid the fee to use a background but instead decided to generate one. 3. It takes almost no time at all, so it's quicker and cheaper and could take work away from other creators who will never be able to work that fast. You could always argue that the clients will buy from whoever speaks to them, but the time it takes to churn out an illustration, especially with a background, will always have an effect on the client's decisions.

Whether or not artists think AI can be trained ethically and used properly as a tool, it was rolled out as a replacement for creatives and stole works to train it in the first place, and now it's got an awful enough reputation that the majority of creators don't want it in their spaces any more. There are other places out there to post it, spaces made by and for artists is no longer one of them.

Honestly don't think it deserves tolerance.

Yes. Even minimal AI usage is AI usage, fuck anyone who makes excuses, every 'but' and 'if' has been discussed to death thousands of times already on 'ethical' use of AI. A stock photo with gaussian blur is hundred times more acceptable.

I think my issue with the policy as a photographer is that machine learning is lumped in with the rest. If I want to provide a realistic space background for an artist, or real stars for a piece, I cannot. My equipment IRL uses PEC and a pointing model. That’s machine learning. Stacking the data uses algorithms for rejection. Processing uses machine learning for noise reduction, decon, etc. None of this is the type of thing I think the thought process behind the policy bans, but it’s still banned. FA should be a safe space for creators. Including this. Excluding AI.

Edit: This is ethical use of “AI” if you consider machine learning AI. :P

The AI that the policy is about is generative AI, which specifically scrapes the photos and artwork other people have made to mash it together into slop trying to look real. That is very different from noise reduction and things like that.

There is no ethical use of that kind of AI, unless you literally make your own and train it only on your own things - and even then it could be argued that the power AI often uses is a pretty unethical use of it just to skip out on work.

Nice job blocking me Greeneyed! You are part of the group that I cited as being unable to understand the differences between AI and machine learning. Go back to reddit. I was trying to reply agreeing with you, because your reply makes it seem like we agree, but you blocking me shows that you’re a muppet. Lmao

I doubt photographers or anyone ever felt as threatened by astrophotographers as much as by the deepfake-loving recent waves of AI bros haha. So I guess some take offense, thinking you "play dumb". AI is truly such bullshit word, but AI product bro's love it so much, they almost automatically tied it to themselves now. It's hard to not read it in automatic context to their whole bubble. Could definitely be better by FA to define what falls under umbrella of parasitic harmful AI bro products.

Anyway, way of them to sabotage a basic discussion lol. But I guess people are tired.
As bystander I am glad you still agree that painters have a point where a type of rejection/defense is justified and it's unfortunately just that definitions are still quite so messy.

yes, report

I would definitely report it. It is strictly against FA's policy on AI generated content. Doesn't matter if its "just the background." Fact of the matter is that AI was used and it is a part of the submission.

As a personal opinion, I come to FA expecting to see art that is made 100% by humans. And if anything made using genAI is let through because its "not that prominent" then it defeats the purpose and spirit of not just the policy, but the site itself. Not to mention how genAI models and datasets have been unethically built on stolen artwork. FA has good reason to not allow such things on the site.

If you are worried about legitimacy, you can always link to the submission(s), any evidence, and keep it to the point. FA staff will look over it and do what they need to do. I have already reported clear AI usage and they take care of it as soon as they are able.

Yes, you should make a report.
Using AI is against the rules of the site, even if it's just a background.

When filling out the TT, you must provide links to materials that are made with AI. There is a special option for AI.

This is a quick process and the actions don’t take much time.
You should get an answer within a few days.

I have already done this 5 times and the scammers were always banned.

As a bonus, the moderator will even pat you on the head and thank you for being part of the community.



If you don't want to do the reports yourself, I can do it for you. Give me the links and I'll check the images for AI myself. After confirmation I will make a report.

I have worked with Stable Difusion (SDWebUI Automatic) and know their patterns, models, loras and embeddings very well.

No need to show emotions to them. They are just scammers.
At the moment, there is no AI that uses ethically acceptable training. They are all based on theft. Even OpenAI and Adobe Corporation officially confirmed this

"These aren't fresh ai spam accounts with anime titties. These are artists who have thousands of followers, who do commissions and have been for years."

Irrelevant. That doesn't make them better than anyone else. If other people are to be held to account for AI use, so should they.

Agreed. If anything that makes it worse, especially if their viewers and commissioners don't know about it - which they most likely don't.

I'd be pretty pissed knowing that art I paid for used AI slop made from other people's hard work just because the artist didn't feel like making the background they were paid for. They should know better.

I wish I could like messages, because I appreciate everyone's feedback, but I don't always have something to add in a reply. So just thank you guys!

Objectively, going by the guidelines of Furaffinity - yes, you should.


The upload policy states the following:

2.13 Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Content made using AI, machine learning, or similar generators is not allowed, including derivative works created from it (e.g. stories, audio, backgrounds, paint-overs, using one's own content to generate new content).


They know what they are doing. They know that it goes against the policy. They know that them using AI slop for backgrounds steals the work of other artists, whose actual work gets scraped into the machine without consent.
Doubly so if they don't let their fans and commissioners know that it's AI, which - considering it's directly against FA policy - I highly doubt they do.
Them being big artists with lots of followers doesn't make them better or less deserving of a report than the blatant AI anime tiddy posters. If anything it's worse, because they should know all the better, having been on the site longer.

I would say so. If it's not allowed on the site they shouldn't post it here, same as anything else. They may not personally see anything wrong with it but then they're also free to use another site.

Doubly so if they're intentionally not mentioning it while taking commissions from people who may be under the impression they made the whole thing. That's just scummy. People should know what they're getting.

I think you have to be consistent. So, that points towards reporting.