this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
72 points (95.0% liked)

196

3030 readers
2361 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 

So a recent post garnered some comments and reports for being AI art. In light of this we should all have a little conversation about how AI generated images should be handled in the future.

I think we all agree that AI images that are "garbage" or don't add anything should be removed, but clearly some feel very strongly that all AI art should always be removed.

It should be noted that the rules as written and as agreed on by the community does not blanket ban AI, it merely says AI art should be avoided, while many other rules say no this or that instead.

Things to discuss:

  • Does it matter if an image is AI? Does it always matter?
  • What about images that are AI generated, but have been modified by a human?
  • What about images where it's hard to say for certain that it is generated? Me and the other mods did not agree on whether the recent image was AI f.ex which makes it hard to make a decision on whether or not to remove it.
  • It can be stressful to artists to be accused of having used AI. If we are too militant on weeding out AI art it could be harmful as there will no doubt be some false positives.
  • Should AI posts require being tagged in the title? (and of course be required to be of a certain level of quality)

I think a lot of us mods feel that AI should be allowed so long as it is not low quality and serves some purpose (being entertaining f.ex), and that the community should not be flooded with AI. What are your thoughts?

Edit: Thank you all for your input! Most of the others are sleeping right now I think, so nothing is likely gonna happen until later today.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm fully against it's use here and completely support a ban.

I'm not fully against AI but it's essentially the same as an artist tracing art something well known and hated in the artist community. All AI art must take every piece from somewhere. Every section is traced. That's scum behavior.

If, let's say, one were to use an AI generator that only used art it had permission to use, that's fine and lile tracing cc0 art. It's lazy as hell, and going to likely look terrible, but no moral issue. Currently however you're just stealing other peoples art.

As for the "we already do this for shitposts" argument:

1.) It's reasonably easy to still find the original artists ifthe image isn't generated by AI.
2.) Using it just supports this awful practice.
3.) An insane amount of electricity and water are burned to get that image.
4.) Just find some random, already available image if quality doesn't matter. Photoshop it to fit if you have to and who cares if your skill is trash that makes it so much more funny.
5.) You should put a bitmore effort into your shitpost. Make it a nice, long, fiber filled log of a shotpost.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Personally I feel like AI should be allowed if the memes and content are high quality and that they aren't being spammed rapidly.

What I do think should be done regardless of the outcome to ban AI or not is heavy policing on anti-AI harassment, trolling, witch-hunting, and bad faith arguments. I was just harassed by an idiot and still haven't fully recovered but this shit is unacceptable. So if we ban AI or not we need to ban the idiots trolling and trying to hunt down people they suspect of using AI. These people are toxic to the community and will hurt the community more than even low-effort AI spam will. I'm not going to provide names of people because they will accuse me of harassing them and probably harass me in return (just like the idiot earlier).

[–] TheCoolerMia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

yeh agreed on the harassment thing, pointing out that something is ai or respectfully discussing is fine but attacking people over it is absolutely not

btw if that happened in this community u can report the comments or dm me or another mod the details and they would be moderated as needed

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

AI image generation in particular is something I think should absolutely be banned completely. Giving the benefit of the doubt is okay, providing sources makes the poster a god imo.

Those tools are able to create non-consensual pornography, it can be used to create CP. It also steals from artists, plagiarises their work and enables some really problematic scams that I've been constantly fighting to keep out of an online safe space I maintain.

It's important to take a stand against exploitative shit, if only to show some basic solidarity with those screwed over by it.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but I will point out that Photoshop can and probably has been used to create non-consentual pornography and scams as well

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah someone said this in another thread and it's just like, completely meaningless. Just because a thing that can cause harm already exists doesn't mean we should normalise the harm, especially when a tool like this makes it more accessible and far easier for that harm to occur.

So far as I see it that point is just another negative towards AI, it means people want to do harm, taking all of the effort out is necessarily going to worsen the issue. I'm not going to comment on what should be done about Photoshop because this isn't a discussion about Photoshop.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I do think the positives of image AI just aren't really there right now. Outside of maybe DLSS.

[–] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think memes are like the one place ai works for. I don't care much either way, just please lean on the side of allowance when it's hard to tell.

[–] StellarExtract@lemm.ee 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think whatever your stance on the ethics, trying to ban AI as a method of production is futile. Images created using AI are nearing the point of being indistinguishable from images created using other methods. Jokes from last year about how AI can't get the number of fingers on a hand right already seem outdated. It will soon become impossible to tell the difference between AI and non-AI imagery with any certainty, and we've already crossed that threshold for some images. That means a ban is ultimately not going to work. There's obviously lots of bad quality AI content out there, but there's also lots of bad quality content out there in general. I think focusing on the quality is more relevant than the method of production.

I agree, I fear that we're going to see a lot of gaslighting and accusations of AI generated content if we try this route. I've already seen this happening with people accusing others of AI generated text and it's shitty. I can recognize the risk of people being shitty and evil and I think that's something that needs to be fought against directly, not enabled by just yelling "AI bAD" and leaning into Ad-hominem and personal attacks.

I don't have much opinion myself since I've never used it, I feel like if it's not low quality and is properly tagged as AI it should be allowed. Maybe it should only be allowed on specific days too. Since people can pump out a lot of it. Probably should be limited to less of it if we're going to have it at all.

Maybe also make it so only base images can be AI, but you shouldn't generate whole memes with it, since that way they would at least still be original memes to an extent. Not really sure, though the witch-hunting and tribalism and lashing out at people needs to stop regardless. It makes this community feel unsafe to be in.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I understand all the reasons why AI is bad, but like... Memes are largely made of remixing popular culture anyway. A Spongebob meme is not an original work, it's literally using pre-made assets (in a Fair Use manner). Why should AI be dismissed for a throwaway meme/shitpost? Nearly all memes already exist as an exact copy of someone else's artistic work, slightly remixed.

AI in general is terrible, especially when it displaces the paid labor of real artists, but I feel like dumb shitposts should be the one place it should be accepted since memes are already remixing pop culture anyway. Why should a more advanced remix of pop culture be treated differently? It's just a shitpost? Nobody is making money off of it (at least if it is generated locally and not via a paid service), it is not displacing artists. Why treat it different than memes that crib popular culture already?

[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

I had to teach a class using modern photoshop two years ago and the AI features in Photoshop are inescapable. Of course, people will turn them off (I did because they’re annoying on an interface level if nothing else) but judging by the comments here, I doubt people have any idea how much AI is in the work they see, since they don’t seem to understand the scale at which its employed in regular graphic design tooling at this point.

Aside from that the question of whether something’s art or not is just silly and gatekeeping. If someone put a bunch of low quality sketches that was their shit web comic (I seem to recall some guy did for like 2 days here) people rightfully tell them to get that shit out of here. No body likes bad art, whether it comes from an AI or not. If people want to make it ideological, given what I mentioned above, I suppose it depends to what level moderation wants to succumb to ideologues.

[–] meh@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 days ago

a human manipulating a generated image still doesnt make it art. it can be a nice picture and the tech behind making it can be neat, but it's not art. that said i just dont engage on posts i know are ai content. presenting a generated image without being clear about it is just being a dick. it dosesnt have to be in the title but it should be aknowledged. i dono if a full ban is needed but if i wanted my feed full of slop i'd be subbed to communites for ai, or .world's 196. this place seems more about snark and joy, which ai rarely brings out.

[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Until there are viable options for ethical AI generation (that is, all training data is used with the authors' and artists' explicit permission), I'd suggest banning it, but erring on the lenient side when people aren't sure whether an image is AI-generated.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Do I need Stephen Hillenburg's permission to post a Spongebob meme?

It feels like splitting hairs to me when it comes to memes, specifically, which are explicitly made from other people's art as source material.

[–] MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don't agree with this. Copyright and Intellectual property arguments like this are the modern day equivalent of "Think of the children" but with IP holders instead of children. I'm an avid believer in piracy and information access and this sounds like pro-copyright dogma to me.

What I think is a better solution is to have open-source and self-hostable models like AIhorde which aren't corporate in nature and don't make money. They are open-source projects that anyone can run or contribute to. But screw copyright and screw IP gatekeeping, I'm not going to justify or rationalize this with what are ultimately the same slippery slope arguments used against piracy

[–] RandomVideos@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What are the large corporations being hurt by AI copying the artists they hired art style that would make that argument similar to "Think of the children" argument?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] smiletolerantly@awful.systems -2 points 1 day ago

No, AIHorde still uses corporate models. The only open source part is distributing the computation.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I think a lot of us mods feel that AI should be allowed so long as it is not low quality and serves some purpose

Pretty much sums up my view of it. It's a shame it's vilified since it's good at making short comics and memes. I'd also rather original ai content then reposts personally.

I can understand certain subs being against it, like traditional art subs and subs relating to shows where movie stills are preferred (the star trek ones for instance). But in the end, this is a meme sub.

That being said, it's seriously polarizing and every post with even a hint of AI turns into a fight. Tagging is at least a small compromise but I don't think it will do much without filtering. Maybe an option would be to ask users who wish to post AI content to use an alt classified as a bot, so users can filter it that way while we wait for a proper flair system.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 6 points 2 days ago

I'm more lenient than most of the other posts, mainly because at this stage I think filtering and moderation is difficult to do. I also think arguing about if AI art is bad or not is a bit late now given it's everywhere in the open public domain. Was it wrong in how it was generated, absolutely. I don't think at this point using that as a rallying cry is useful, especially since so many memes do the exact same thing, piggybacking on someone else's work.

So I think stick with original rules of higher quality and don't try to chase the impossible path of determining origins. If anything have in the rules that AI generation be labeled as such to let those who want to avoid it for whatever reasons be able to filter them out. I don't think the mods should have to become experts on AI detection (like anyone is at the rate it's going).

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think AI art should be allowed. It doesn't matter if a shitpost is AI or not, and witch hunting should always be punished. There are too many people out there harassing and hurting people online. Their behavior should be discouraged.

Edit: It should be allowed just for the reason that people don't need the excuse to act out. I can't state an opinion without them feeling like they need to downvote to punish me.

Edit: It should be allowed just for the reason that people don’t need the excuse to act out. I can’t state an opinion without them feeling like they need to downvote to punish me.

People should be banned or punished for acting out regardless of if it's banned or not, them being allowed to just act out makes the space tribalist and hostile. It makes people (especially neurodivergent people) feel unwelcome. Which as an inclusive community which has many vulnerable people is the opposite of what we want. @will_steal_your_username@lemmy.blahaj.zone Please take note of this because I think the safety aspect here is something that is seriously overlooked. No one wants to come into a community and be yelled at because someone thought their art was AI, people who do that should be banned on the spot whether we allow or ban AI itself.

[–] Smorty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (10 children)

oki, here's my stanc

~(gen-pics~ ~mean~ ~ai~ ~images~ ~here)~

  • i wud enjoy gen-pic ban

  • bt its almost impossibl cuz gen-pics r supr gud now n hard to tell if fake
  • new image gen is not prompt -> result anymor - but mor lik an LLM puts together multipl elements n iterativli improves images, lik specificlli addin text to onli smol bit--- "source" here
    • this makes it evn hardr to tell if imag is gen pic... which i thinksies is bad
  • mayb we employ som gen pic detector if we're unsure? seems lik best option, cuz evn i, who kindsa knows how stuffsies wrork, cnt tell anymor ;(
  • bannin gen pics alsuu removs funi shrek stealin from white house found footag... which... im oki with- bt its kindsa a loss kindsa

so yis, im for gen pic ban n alsuu wan to hav detection tools if were unsur - if u wan ai 196 head ovr to lmmi wrorld i feel...

alsuu - if gen pics wud be fulli allowd - id hav to go outta my way to hide evri singl one when i see one... which i dun lik ;(

a gud way to think bout it is dis:

  • when i read text n go "oh... dis is llm genratd" i immediatli stop readin
  • samsies for gen pics
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] ThisIsAManWhoKnowsHowToGling@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think the strongest argument against a blanket ban is creators like Obscurest Vinyl who clearly have actual talent and vision that lets them put out 100% ai generated art that is actually art. It seems to me that it's harder to make AI images that are actual art, and I'm personally okay with a flat-out ban on AI-generated images, but this also cuts out stuff like ai-generated Pixar movie posters or security footage of Yoda robbing a gas station.

As for false bans, thats why ban appeals exist.

[–] stray@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Are you telling me a robot made I Glued My Balls to My Butthole Again? It wouldn't be the first AI song I adored. I'm especially find of this one: https://youtu.be/EWxmm9ibC8U

I also really love that Seinfeld standup bit where the AI accidentally roasted the hell out of transphobic comedians. I think the fact that these things happened as largely random chance rather than by intentional design makes me appreciate them more. It's like when a cloud looks like something. I think the more advanced AI gets, the less interesting it will be. I'm here for the rabbits with tumor-babies growing out of them.

Totally agree. My favorite is It's Time to Take a Shit on Company Time. But the reason I pointed out these is that someone did the creative work of writing the words and probably wrote the song as well.

I do miss back when AI was really terrible, and people could do stuff like feeding a bunch of their videos into an AI and acting out what it spits out with unintentionally hilarious results.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›