What's the difference between Ponerpics and Derpi, Twibooru, and Ponybooru?

@Wallbeige
good? what good can the camera do? kill off.. painters?.. bro what???! "A fool and his money are soon parted" instead of paying real humans for art, they'll just buy advanced cameras.. instead of One or two or three shitty vile fetish art dumped on the internet, you'll have hundreds or thousands uploaded. are you stupid?

I will still respond to each of the points, but I do find it hard to find the time. Regardless, I find the arguments retarded because it is all about how the technology is used and the personality behind the person uploading, just like how the camera can facilitate spam through taking pictures of faces, food, and blurry captures of random scenery. It is still art when done properly. Thousands of trash images being uploaded is already covered with the spam rule. Just report spam. If someone uploads AI not as spam, it is kept just like how someone using MS Paint not as spam is kept and someone taking a picture of a pony plush is kept. There is no argument here based on the existing ruleset. You will need to argue why our current ruleset should change.

@Megalith
LMAO CAMERA. biggest false comparison. pictures do not exist soley to mimmic human artwork. can they be used to photograph paintings? share with others? yes

but do cameras, is there existence due to theft of art? were cameras made by taking thousands of real pieces of art and smashing them together in some sort of grafted uncanny horror? no, was ai art? yes
Ai cannot create, it can only mash things together in something I cannot comprehend how nobody else finds it all so disturbing and creepy to look at.

Cameras may have replaced the old portrait paints, but did they replace the artist? no
AI replaces the artist entirely. and ai prompters often pretend that they themselves made the art, that there is any skill in typing words to a program equivilant to that of REAL art creation. what is real art? it takes time, passion and direct CREATION. AI is not direct creation but indirect. you ai fans aren't creating. you're creating a machine that creates for you "I use AI for inspiration!" "no no I just use it for references!" you're replacing the humanity at every step. I'm sure many use AI text tools to write image prompts for them too. It's inhuman and that's ultimately what I love about art, The human side of it

Ai can replicate, it can fool, but YOU and no other Ai prompter ever, ever creates. IT creates. you're nothing "Oh but a came- haha NO yet again. you view your image through the Lens and capture that specific moment in time,that angle. your choice directly all of it. exposure contrast time of day weather location! all your choice. AI does whatever and nobody even knows why.

The fact that you're a site mod running a human art based site constantly argue for AI is baffling. You're not an artist, you do not create. at most you've uploaded edits and that's a good start, keep going and maybe one day you're realize the true extent of the AI horror when everything you've ever made is ignored and replaced by some stupid little kid spamming thousands of words into a program. because everyone else is too stupid to realize we're killing our own humanity with this stuff.

I have nothing else to say, I've said it all. I will not argue or discuss further, if you guys can't see how this shit is inherently awful and degenerative on the microscale of a pony booru or the macroscale of society itself then I can't help. you're just going to have to wait and see, Everyone with any sense warned you retards

@Wallbeige
>but do cameras, is there existence due to theft of art?
At one point, yet. It would be disingenuous of you to suggest that the invention of the camera was not despised in the art world in the same way as AI is now, stealing commission work from artists when people can push one button and get the same result instantly. All of the artists that dedicated themselves to painting people sitting down or life-like scenery were now competing with a machine that did the same thing. And just like with AI, there is room for both to exist and still call one superior to the other in terms of artistry, complexity, and effort.

>Cameras may have replaced the old portrait paints, but did they replace the artist? no
Literally yes. When you have a wedding, business meeting, or any other gathering, do you contact a painter? No. You contact a photographer. The artist has literally been replaced in this field. It doesn't mean that the painters have ceased to exist, or their art is now not valuable, but it literally replaced them in many ways and they would have to actually become better artists to compete in the market. Sucks to suck, but cameras are literally better for the common man to both afford the picture and pass it around.

> can replicate, it can fool, but YOU and no other Ai prompter ever, ever creates.
Correct. But just like a picture, it is for the common man now so we can afford nicer things, like a picture, without spending hundreds on commissions. Sorry, but that's how it goes. You are just going to have to prove your worth to get commissions instead of assuming it will be that way because there are no other choices.

>The fact that you're a site mod running a human art based site constantly argue for AI is baffling. You're not an artist, you do not create.
Once again, you prove not only my point but why people gravitated to AI to begin with. Elitism. Instead of using the momentum to draw people into art, using people interested in AI to grow not only the community but grow people's artistic potential, you attack and deride people, which isolates them and pushes them further into AI and the replacement ideology. You bring it on yourself artists. You do need to actually see other people as human if you want to persuade them. If you choose to label others as non-creative, that choice will give you what you want, a site that only has art, but it will only break apart into various factions.

Tell me, do you support digital art? Is working with vectors and electronic art ok? It has massive advantages with instant undoing, complex layering, and you can make minute changes to the work such as color and the hair layer and make brand new artwork for commissions. Do we need to get rid of the digital plebs and only have hand-drawn art in the community? Should people that only draw in pencil be removed too? It is so childish and unrefined.

You may instantly think that is unfair, but it is the natural result of the mindset. Happens all the time. You are allowing negative tendencies to win over through kneejerk reactions and emotional reasoning when a different approach can get you most of what you want and more people that enjoy being around you. My stance on AI is that it should never be uploaded without you having edited it through photoshop at the least, if not traced and redrawn or reworked as inspiration. Regardless of this opinion, I don't enforce this because it is not the ruleset of the site and would cause needless arguments about if something has been touched up or has been regenerated a few dozen times. It doesn't matter. It is a pony-related image, an uploaded file of pixels that represents a pony. If it is not spam, it stays.

>I have nothing else to say, I've said it all. I will not argue or discuss further
Which is the problem. If you aren't willing to discuss, the site will not change. You have not provided sufficient reason to change the policy of the website so it will remain as it is. This site is not a modern democracy that will bend to the feelings of others over actual input and discussion to form the best ruleset of a booru. If this is something you actually cared about, you would be willing to put in the time and effort to make cogent arguments and put up with counter arguments and examples, lest a rash decision backfire and sink the site like derpi did.

@Megalith

I’ve been a long-time user of Ponerpics,I do appreciate this site and been there since the first day, and I want to start by saying that this site has been a sanctuary for artists and art enthusiasts alike. It’s one of the last places I had genuine hope for, But lately, with the massive imports I am starting to lose hope. AI-generated content, from Twibooru or Tantabus is creeping in, and instead of addressing this growing issue, you seem to be ignoring it. Why? Ponerpics was supposed to stand for something more. It was supposed to be a platform that upheld the values of real artistry—dedication, freedom from Derpi and more censoring places, valuing skill, merit, effort, and mares.
No, AI generared is not art. It’s barely even a tool, and certainly not one that belongs on a site like this. Photography can also be art, I am a photographer myself. Please don't use this comparison again ever. Even worse with digital art, I can't even believe you are serious with that argument!
At its core, AI-generated images are parasitic, feeding off the work of genuine artists without their consent or effort. They lack intent, vision, and the spark of humanity that makes art what it is. Allowing this to proliferate on Ponerpics is not just a disservice to artists just to please some miserable, insufferable barely grown homosexuals in need of clout, who want to believe they will be artists by generating absolute abominations typing words on a text box and pressing enter.
It’s a betrayal of the very purpose this site was built for and seeing a staff member defending this is worrying me. So I must ask: have you forgotten what brought us here? Have you forgotten what this site was meant to represent? It’s not just a repository for images; it’s a community. A place for people who care about ponies and art. By letting AI content take root, you’re letting that community wither and the mares disappear behind meaningless smut images, I see this a form of censorship.
Your recent dismissive tone has zero professionalism. Instead of fostering understanding or addressing a few previous posters's legitimate concerns, you’ve chosen to mock and insult with logical fallacies. That’s not leadership. That’s not what this site needs. Moderation isn’t about shutting down voices; it’s about listening to them, even when they challenge you.
So I’ll ask again: why are you ignoring this? Why are you agreeing with letting AI content infect this space when it so clearly undermines the integrity of everything Ponerpics stands for? You and others have a responsibility to the community that built this site, and it’s time to take that seriously. Please, don’t let this be the beginning of its decline.

@Background Pony #1B91
Explain how my comparison is flawed. Quite seriously, explain why I can't make that comparison because the effects are completely the same between a camera and AI on the artistic world at one point.

>I am a photographer myself
Then you should know that before cameras were widespread and accepted as art, they were not accepted as art. It was not drawn by hand and a human did not generate the art; light did. Light bouncing from the existing material created the art in the camera, not a person. A person merely pointed the device in the right direction as was argued. Since you are a photographer, you should know there is much more involved, and it is art when done correctly. Just as you should know that there exists so many photos taken by people that you would not consider art, like a picture of someone's meal to post on Instagram.

If you believe that my comparison is offensive, explain how. I just argued that your art form should be accepted and not devalued for not being the pinnacle of human artistic work through effort, such as painting for hours on end. Though I would say that the art of painting is superior to the art of taking a picture, taking a picture is art and there have been many good pictures both in general and on this site.


>At its core, AI-generated images are parasitic, feeding off the work of genuine artists without their consent or effort
Good. Consent from an artist is not required as each and every single artwork on this site is derived from My Little Pony without consent from the original artists. This is why we are here, to have fun with art. We don't need to ask for permission to have this fun.

>t’s a betrayal of the very purpose this site was built
No. This site was made because derpi banned Aryanne and said you can't make art of Aryanne. You are saying that you can't generate AI art, which is more against this spirit than what you suggested. However, you can argue that it might be against the spirit of the Featured Image slot if it is allowed there. You actually have some room to argue that one and I will be willing to hear that. I am also willing to hear this argument as well, even if it is retarded.

>Your recent dismissive tone has zero professionalism
Please explain this one. I disagreed with the concept of banning AI. This now means I am dismissive? How? I am not dismissing, I am actively engaging with the argument by opposing it and saying why I am. I am not just saying AI good now shut up. I am actively trying to explain why. How is that dismissive in tone? How is this not professional?

>Moderation isn’t about shutting down voices
I literally never deleted a comment saying to ban AI. Am I supposed to just accept all positions that people have to be considered as accepting voices? What is this rule that I now have to follow?

>Why are you agreeing with letting AI content infect this space when it so clearly undermines the integrity of everything Ponerpics stands for?
It doesn't. This is exactly why Ponerpics exists: because people did not want to filter what they hated and asked staff to ban what they hated.

>You and others have a responsibility to the community that built this site, and it’s time to take that seriously.
Besides being untrue, I have taken every single AI argument seriously by responding to it and if I haven't responded, like with our other staff member who is in favor of a possible ban, Darkdoomer, then I intend to but have a lack of time to respond to each point.

>Please, don’t let this be the beginning of its decline.
That's just it. We didn't change. You are the one pushing for a change. If the site declines, it will not because of an inaction, it will be because the artists have such a hatred for something that they can either argue effectively to push for a change or put up with something they personally disagree with through the use of filters.

@Megalith
Your response is a disappointing mix of excuses and ignorance. Let’s be clear: you are not an artist, yet you presume to decide what art is and isn’t, dismissing the valid concerns of those who actually create. You’re playing with fire, and worse, you don’t even realize it. On a public forum, yes, I hope you are indeed shitposting for fun.
As an artist, I’m grateful Ponerpics exists to host my work. But reading your post, filled with terrible takes and misplaced confidence, is a slap in the face to every creator here. Instead of addressing real issues like duplicates, bugs, moderation gaps, and making this site pleasant to use and recommend for artists leaving Derpibooru, you waste time defending AI-generated content as if it’s comparable to actual art. It isn’t. AI art is not art. Generating an image doesn’t make you an artist, just as snapping a photo on a phone doesn’t make someone a photographer. You lack the knowledge, skill, or authority to speak on this subject, and your attempts to do so only alienate the very creators this platform relies on.
Listen, I don't think you can have a comprehension of the topic. You’re not an artist, not an expert, and likely not understanding a thing about this world. Your opinions hold no weight compared to the voices of the creators you’re undermining in this thread, you disappointed a few before you, I know it may not be your fault, you don't even understand what you are posting. Document yourself, talk to artists. Be smarter. And Stop hiding behind flimsy comparisons and start respecting the community that built this site.
This isn’t about censorship for fucks's sake, it’s about preserving what makes Ponerpics special. If you can’t see that, I don't understand why you are a staff member. You may be excellent with database management or debugging the frontend, but for topics you don't know about like this one, I beg of you, shut the fuck up.

@Background Pony #1B91
>Let’s be clear: you are not an artist
Never claimed to be.

>yet you presume to decide what art is and isn’t
Yes. This is not a magical power. It is a definition. Furthermore, I referred to your work as art, which you claimed as such, and said there exist photos that you would not consider art and gave an example, which I am fairly sure you would agree with. Therefore, I didn't presume what is and isn't art. You did.

>You’re playing with fire, and worse, you don’t even realize it.
Explain what this means. How so? How is allowing something to exist on this website playing with fire? What is the threat? Hard drive space? If that is it, we buy a bigger server. Competition? You don't have the ai tag, which automatically makes you better to everyone that hates AI. Morally? Why would we have a moral imperative to delete this? You haven't explained that. You just said it doesn't count as art. Sorry, but I don't believe you until you provide a better argument than it steals artists' stuff. I don't see any problem with this as artists steal from each other all the time and call it inspiration.

>On a public forum, yes, I hope you are indeed shitposting for fun.
Though I do a lot of shitposting, I don't see why this can't be a serious take as well.

>As an artist, I’m grateful Ponerpics exists to host my work.
Well, now at least I am getting a little bit more of an argument here. You see the website as an art gallery of sorts, a place that hosts you and will display you to passersby. This I can work with, and I will get into it later.

>But reading your post, filled with terrible takes and misplaced confidence, is a slap in the face to every creator here.
How? I just said to filter what you hate or make a better argument to why you want it deleted. Me saying that is a slap in the face? How? Why would this be an insult? Are you Übermensch and your opinion should instantly be put into action and damn those that have another opinion? You aren't supposed to be an elite class above the rest of the userbase.

> Instead of addressing real issues like duplicates, bugs, moderation gaps, and making this site pleasant to use and recommend for artists leaving Derpibooru, you waste time defending AI-generated content as if it’s comparable to actual art.
This is pretty easy to explain. This is because I am not an artist or coder. I am a moderator. My job is to try to moderate the content on the website. If you want a new item added to my list to moderate or eliminate, you have to explain why and show how this will not damage the website. I listed counter arguments, showing how this will not be beneficial, will be against the spirit of the website, and overall foster an environment that is more negative than positive. I hate the bugs and problems with the website. I can't fix them though. Thus, between moderation duties, I can occasionally argue about site policy, because that is my job.

>AI art is not art.
But it is. It is in the name. You can say it is bad art, but it is art. This is a quality issue at the end of the day. You hate the art because it doesn't have the quality of effort, not that it doesn't exist as art. Saying AI art is not art is low effort propaganda. You may kneejerk at this, but it is true. You saying it isn't art is not true. You saying it is not good art is true. Learn the difference.

>Generating an image doesn’t make you an artist, just as snapping a photo on a phone doesn’t make someone a photographer.
Woah woah woah buddy. Think about what you just said. Someone that takes a photo isn't a photographer. This is on the same level as saying someone that draws an image is not an artist. By definition that is not true. Anyone that takes a photo is a photographer, just not a good one. Again, this is elitism. You are not among the only photographers in existence, you are among the only good ones. Learn the difference.

>You lack the knowledge, skill, or authority to speak on this subject, and your attempts to do so only alienate the very creators this platform relies on.
Ah, so I can't speak about art at all then? Fascinating. I guess that means all of the upvotes images get are not real unless it comes from an artist and should be deleted, because someone liking an image is them speaking out that they like something. What a fucked-up thing to think.

>listen, I don't think you can have a comprehension of the topic. You’re not an artist, not an expert, and likely not understanding a thing about this world.
Sorry, superior life form. I did not mean to step out of my slave role. I will shut up so the actual people can dictate what is and is not allowed on the website.

>Your opinions hold no weight compared to the voices of the creators you’re undermining in this thread
Again, you haven't explained how this is a thing. I disagreed. This doesn't undermine anything unless you are acknowledging I am right and those that are wrong are not stacking up. I didn't say I was definitively right, even if I believe I am. I specifically said I am hearing out the arguments and arguing why I don't agree.

Another thing is, I am not the end-all-be-all to the website. You already have one staff member in agreement. You just need to convince others if you think I am not worth any effort anyway. I am the counterbalance that is preventing total artist tyranny here. And make no mistake, you just showed that you believe in artist tyranny through superiority. If you are superior, argue against what I am saying and make your case to the owner of the website.

>Document yourself, talk to artists. Be smarter. And Stop hiding behind flimsy comparisons and start respecting the community that built this site.
I literally documented every argument by posting and I am talking to artist. Just talked with Wallbeige, an artist. I am being smarter by not simply ignoring what has been said and doing things my way without the opportunity to allow for pushback and a change. And making a comparison is not hiding in any way. It is showing my thought process and what I think something is like. If this is not the case, you need to tell me how it isn't like I think. It helps find my error and point it out.

>This isn’t about censorship for fucks's sake
I am sure derpi thought deleting a nazi horse wasn't censorship either, because they saw it as a symbol of hate that people would support deleting. They saw it as a moral imperative to get rid of. How is this different?

> it’s about preserving what makes Ponerpics special
You know what would make the site really special? If we delete all images except one. No pony booru that I know of does that. This example exists not as a serious suggestion but displays my thought process in that being special in itself is not a reason to implement a policy.

I get you want the place to be special. I do as well. I had an idea to expand the featured image to multiple images so we can display several different artists that use the website. But I am not a coder, so I can't make it happen right now.

>You may be excellent with database management or debugging the frontend
Oh no, you overestimate my usefulness. I am just a guy that deletes spam and argues the site rules so the site doesn't implode derpi style. This is why I don't even make the rules. I just argue so the guy that makes the rules doesn't make a kneejerk decision. If you argue better than me, he will listen to you and not me.

>but for topics you don't know about like this one, I beg of you, shut the fuck up.
Now you do the very thing you accused me of doing, silencing voices. For shame Mr. Anon. For shame.

>thinking reasoning with dumb retards ever going to work
You should be mocking them instead of wasting your time attempting to reason with them. I bet they would be the kind of people who were thinking photography isn't art back when photographs were invented.

@Megalith
You don't know shit about this topic.
You never made the effort to draw anything.
Now on a public place defending your views, poorly, with the photographer or digital art fallacy you put artists, reading you, putting you, a staffer of poner as the same as a prompter.
You are an embarrassment.

@Wallbeige
if AI gens were rare, ok it could be a filter but the reality: Amount of AI gens are shadowing art.
My idea: Make it a default filter. Just like adult/hard/foalcon is filtered, to each their stuff.


@Wallbeige

I think he were sarcasrtic. I …hope?

"Real sculptors mine their own materials with a chisel and tears."

"Using a camera? Pfft. True art requires a 12-hour oil painting of a fruit bowl. Anyone can just click a button."

"Photoshop? Real painters make their own paints and get lead poisoning like the Renaissance masters intended."

"Writers who use Word are frauds. Authentic literature is written in real ink."

"Sampling music? Beethoven rolled over in his grave. Real composers use actual bird squawks for their symphonies."

"Architects who use CAD software are hacks. Sketch your blueprints on papyrus or GTFO."

"Electric guitars? Unplug that nonsense. Real music requires blisters and broken strings."

"Spellcheck? Shakespeare invented words by drunkenly yelling at quills. Be better."

"Pre-stretched canvases? Posers. Real artists weave their own flax."

"Tracing? Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel upside down while eating asbestos. Try harder."

"Real animators draw every frame BY HAND. If your wrist isn’t permanently cramped, you’re not an artist."

"Lens filters? Ansel Adams waited 17 years for the perfect storm. Your presets are participation trophies for photons."

@Megalith

It looks like the mod is a clueless fag so I'm going to clue you in.
First: Stop being a semantic fag. Photography and just photos are totally seperate in artistic merit. "Taking a photo doesn't make you a photographer" is a true statement, a very clear distinction; no one gives a shit about your selfies and you can't make a career off it with terrible motion blur shaking and so on.

But a photographer understands what makes a good photo appealing, interesting compositions, and subjects, may seeks to either find interesting ways or moments that are out of reach to the norm to take a photo or creates it themselves in photography studios. This is what makes photography an art. Taking photos with a doesn't mean you're automatically a photographer in the same vein that should be respected with people who actually took the time to make the best photos they can.

Keep these real world definitions and differences in mind when you're trying to approach defending something like "ai art".

@Background Pony #3744
Only I'm allowed to define art!

@Wallbeige
you are not thinking clearly, Art is for the creator, not the viewer. The joy I (and hopefully you) get from drawing is second to none and its all ours, it's our way to express our deepest desires and connection to our passions. as art fags we will be fine but the rest will have to go, the grifters, the fakes, the Jews.
they will all go away and fast, bye bye tamers, so long darkdoomer! ai will kick them all to the curve and good riddance.
its only a matter of time and they know it.
You take offence but I don't know why, enjoy what art brings to you on a personal level and focus on that.
be it your dark souls or my Applejack <3

@Background Pony #38E9
nigger suck a lead pipe

@Background Pony #3744
No. The definition is "one who practices photography, especially one who makes it a business". This does not say exclusively makes it a business. Furthermore, the definition of photography is "the art or practice of taking and processing photographs" which is not pretty or professional in nature. Anyone that takes a picture is a photographer by definition, just not a good one. These are the literal and real-life definitions. Though you would like to limit who can be to better suit your argument, it is not true. A photographer is someone that takes pictures. A good and professional photographer is one that rises above mediocrity and is a good photographer. The simple act of taking a picture is art. It just isn't good art without framing, color, focus, the three-thirds rule, ect. I don't understand why artists wish to argue this so hard. Just call yourself good and professional, above AI art in skill, not the only artists possible. Anyone that pushes a button is an artist by the definition of photographer, anyone that scribbles lines on a paper is an artist. If they aren't, you need to redefine what an artist is.

Do you suggest that making money is what makes an artist? Then if I pay someone that generates AI art, does that make him an artist? If the generator understands artistic principles such as color theory and realistic proportions, does that make him an artist now? Just accept that an AI artist is simply a poor artist and move on.

@Megalith
Your line of thinking is way off in fantasy land, there's no reality. I've taken pictures in school for a photography class and it's worlds apart from taking random photos with a phone or snapping throwaway shots with a camera. At the same time I don't consider myself a photographer when I took a pic of my plant the other day to show it to someone else, because all I did was capture the subject. No further artistic intent or technique behind it.

Absolutely nobody artistic agrees with you, in any field, no matter how much you type out walls of text. You don't see every single randos shooting photos on instagram calling themselves photographers in the same vein as a real photographer because the world knows the difference. You're honestly completely clueless on what's art since you're just repeatedly talking from a semantic meaningless stance and lack all experience in the subject.

The fact you think the prompter knows anything like artistic concepts such as color theory when the machine does all the work says a lot. You don't even know how these things work, you're just soyfaced over a prettyish looking picture and making yourself look like a clown in the process.

@Background Pony #5C42
You clearly never touched a pencil, a tablet's stylus or a graphics software tp come up with a shitpost like that.
AI crap, for the retard is:

>I order from Deliveroo, I'm a great cook

>I heard a philosopher said words on the radio, I must be one now if I repeat the exact same phrase

>I don't know how to play guitar, I'm gonna plug a walkman with Mark Knopfler cassette and pretend I'm playing

>I have seen a few gore videos not twitching on theYNC, and there's a site, pubMD or Researchgator or something with procedures explained so I can be a surgeon, it's not rocket science! Yeah i know rockets can't go to space because of the firmament, give me the job contract and my first patients ok?

>I don't know how to draw so I'm going to grab images from my folder based of the words I have in mind and put them together in photoshop and call it art.

Don't forget to shout trans rights, cause PDV6 and the AI slop you use is developed by furry trannies, most of which fuels an AI thread on /mlp/ with artist style data-sets, to replace you. They don't hide it, this is on an adversarial optics they do that.

@Background Pony #3744
What you consider yourself is irrelevant. A definition is a definition. If you want to make a new definition to go off of, please state what exactly makes a photographer if it is not someone that takes pictures. The standard definition explains why there is a difference in the person that takes a professional photo and one that takes a casual image in that one is skilled and good, and one is not and bad. If you say that someone that takes a picture is not a photographer, what is he? What do you define that person taking a picture? Is he nothing? What makes him nothing if he does the same thing as someone who takes pictures but actually does it good? Someone that plays baseball casually is still playing baseball and is a baseball player. This does not mean the casual is a professional. This does not mean that the casual is not actually a player of the game baseball.

>Absolutely nobody artistic agrees with you
I am perfectly fine with elitists not agreeing with me. Why would I want your approval if someone like me has no right to speak to anything about this entire website? Why would I ever associate with you or ever want to learn how to be an artist. I don't want to be like you.

>You don't see every single randos shooting photos on instagram calling themselves photographers in the same vein as a real photographer because the world knows the difference.
I literally told you the difference. A professional photographer is better. A casual photographer is not.

>You're honestly completely clueless on what's art since you're just repeatedly talking from a semantic meaningless stance and lack all experience in the subject.
Then tell me the difference, oh untouchable one!

>The fact you think the prompter knows anything like artistic concepts such as color theory when the machine does all the work says a lot.
I never said one does. I gave you a scenario. Did you know scenarios are not real? If I say that there exists a possibility you don't have your head up your ass, that doesn't mean that scenario reflects reality. I said this specifically to figure out your definition of what makes an artist. If a generator should learn this information, does or does this not make him and artist? I would say no because it just makes him have more information and not more of an artist, but I can't know what your definition is because you are just saying something isn't art arbitrarily.

>You don't even know how these things work, you're just soyfaced over a prettyish looking picture and making yourself look like a clown in the process.
Forgive me master! I must bow in awe at your skills of not telling me what your definition of an artist is. Woe unto the poor and stupid that can't see your brilliant argument of "I said so, therefore it is true."

I was never a huge fan of AI because most people that use it are lazy, uploading things that have clear flaws and not working to solve those flaws. The AI artist seeks to settle with ok enough which is not appreciated. But honestly, that mentality is more tolerable to me than what you artists have presented so far. No AI enjoyer ever said I don't have the right to talk about AI being art or not. No AI enjoyer ever told me to shut up and allow the Übermensch to do the talking. If you wanted to sway my opinion, you have done the opposite and solidified my opinion that you deserve AI uploads on this site. It is the perfect counterbalance to your egos.

Regardless of the name-calling and bitching, no one has said what benefit there would be to banning AI other than the personal disgust to being in the same vicinity of it. But I am thinking you feel that way among the users of this site that don't draw either. You don't see them as your equal at all, wanting to enjoy mares and celebrate those that do so as well. You see them as plebians that can't grasp what you do and will never be like you. You don't encourage people to learn art, you don't suggest ways to mitigate your concerns, you don't suggest actions to mediate issues. Your approach is nuclear, which is not ideal for the running of a website. So no, I will not ever support such a position based on these showings, and I hope this display showcases why no one else should support such a request now or in the future.

@Megalith
Have you got an employment, or a hobby you are proud of, Megalith?

@Background Pony #C575
Irrelevant, but I foresee the argument. Having a hobby one is proud of is good. It does not feel nice to have something you are good at be done by those you see as inferior. I argue you shouldn't see them as inferior and actively try to move them away from what you find insulting, but apparently that is above the likes of an artist.

But furthermore, the argument is still irrelevant. Regardless of personal emotion, the policy of a website must be for the benefit of the site and userbase. Not liking something is not worthy of deletion, especially when the option to filter exists. Deleting AI art does not benefit the site, only the ego of the artist should they feel insulted. Please provide a rational argument to the deletion of the content.

@Megalith
Not any of the previous anons and just kind of randomly joining in on the conversation. But another argument that could be made is that having the AI on site would attract AIfags to the site. A problem that persists even with filters. One of the same problems that having anthro and eqg on site has, attracting furfags and barbiefags (though the AIfag problem pales in comparison). I don't see why anons are even complaining. The time for change has long since past and the boorus we have are the boorus we're stuck with.

@Megalith
Holy autistic wall of china text batman!

I can tell you don't know how the real world works, despite your literal bashing your head on the table to get people to listen that every schmuck with a shitty camera should be counted as photography (an art). IF I wanted to be a photographer I would have pursued photography, funny how I didn't though… and nobody artistic or otherwise considers me a photographer, hmm. Elitism? try common sense. And this aren't even about ai use. I can only cringe at what walls I'll see when we go deeper into it.

A casual photographer (Hobbiest) will most likely attempt to photograph something to say. Here's a hypothetical for you using your own definition, putting a camera in the hands of a 40 digit IQ and they clicked it so they are a photographer! To you, yes? That's peak Idiocracy. There's an artistic effort needed in order for something to be an art, almost like the two definitions are closely tied together.

Now I'll address your hypotheticals. Let's ignore the fact if they spent time to learn color theory, anatomy, proportions they probably are more involved in art than just prompts, and wouldn't be prompting…

>Color theory
This is generally useless to prompters, the generations are random picking from a sea of whatever tag is slapped in. Because the models are made from scraping artists who are already good at color theory, so a prompter doesn't have to put a single digit of IQ towards thinking about colors working together, the algorithm in models can just output something that 'just werks'. You can get terrible colors in gens too just part of the norm for this 'art'

>Anatomical knowledge, (realistic proportions).
Now, there's a ratsnest. There's a truckload of terrible anatomy mistakes that are something only aifags will do, because they don't have the knowledge to even know what's wrong or don't care. You can take your pick, they demonstrated they often don't have standards and ai encourages no effort, just gen some abomination that looks flashy, or passable rehash and move on.

Now if they wanted to fix it, are they going to paint over it? Lmao no, fat chance. The process of 'refining' these fucked ai images is just selecting an area, typing in a box and hitting the "try again" button, this is called "inpainting". Where's the art or anatomical knowledge come from that's going to make it better? Nowhere. Just keep pushing the button until you get something better. This is art? This is like guiding a slot machine. Embarrassing.

Protip: You can't just read a book on anatomy, color, whatever and then instantly be able to do that, it takes some work on your end to memorize and replicate what's in the books, internalize the lessons and explore on your own. If someone spent the time practicing these concepts of art on the side of ai that's two completely different interests. They could be an artist on the side, but the pure gens still wouldn't be art. which funny enough is the stance that derpibooru just took.

You talk a lot of bull about artists, and you're incredibly ignorant.
Artists don't encourage people? so you're going to ignore the insane free trove of information on youtube. How about artists making cheaper art courses than collage. Nah, nobody is encouraging new artists that's just artist-propaganda.

I'm not surprised. This is why people tell you to shut up. You're an asshat, thinking it's those 'big bad artist elitists' who are the problem, as you champion destruction of integrity. Since you're autistic as fuck, this is what that guy meant by saying "you are playing with fire". You're on staff making the community site (which artists took a chance to rebuild on) look bad every time you talk about how it's "good" that ai is parasitic, and artists need to be "taken down"

I'd say you should be fired but there's nobody that's even managing the ship around here, it's a ghost town with MIA staff so it explains a lot, nobody would be there to pick up the slack if you were. Yikes.

@Background Pony #CBA4
They don't get it they're too stupid or willfully ignorant just leave this site there must be better elsewhere

@Background Pony #3744
>Holy autistic wall of china text batman!
Hold my beer,


@Megalith
Thanks for asking, I'm going to develop, and I can expand.

1. AI generated is automated edits
AI-generated images rely on training data derived from existing works, of course all of this is done without the consent of the original creators. If you know one artist who consent, if any artist consent to be trained on, let me know, the current number is 0. These datasets scrape art from countless artists, turning styles, compositions, and chunks of images into a file so messy not even its maker can know how it works. This is not inspiration, it’s theft, as the machine cannot create without consuming the intellectual property of others. Artists invest years refining their skills, only to have their work sampled by a machine that produces derivative knockoffs. Imagine claiming a collage made from stolen photographs as original work. That’s the level of intellectual dishonesty at play here. At best they are editors, never an artist. Not even a commissioners, you don't own AI generated art. You own what you create, including fan-made works.

2. Devaluation of manmade art
Art has intrinsic value because of the skill, effort, and creativity invested in it. AI generation is effortless. You enter words that describe an image and the software will patchwork things without a touch of your mouse just like any Pony OC generator or game screencap, don't defend it like you had the idea to put 4, 5 words aligned to form an image and let the bingo machine roll. This is not work, this is not a creative process. We would be fine if it remained like this, a niche, a meme generation machine for some people having fun and keeping it personal or on some dedicated threads. Most AIsloppers does but a growing majority (big word here) don't have that discipline or ethics, or self criticism. Its proliferation dilutes the significance of authentic art, art with a message, leading to a race to the bottom where quantity trumps quality. This saturation diminishes the appreciation of real artists, and what they want to communicate, artists whose works are now forced to compete with algorithmic outputs that lack originality or artistic interest. Furthermore it has an impact on free speech. Artists deserve free speech and AI is the trojan horse that drowns that free speech in tons of artificial, mutilated mare butts.
See it like a valuable information lost in a cloud of fake news. Imagine you have 50 articles about humans causing global warming, and one written by a scientist who studied the solar activity and found a correlation that explain the solar cycles, another one explaining with data from SOHO how this activity has an influence on global temperatures, while the masses will tell you «No, man-made greenhouse gases are the issue, look, there are more articles by some phd student with blue hairs !» This is where we are right now.
Hosting such content devalues the platform and disrespects the artists who built its reputation, and those artists put trust on us to host and preserve their art. This is what engaged me in joining this site and serve them the best I can. I know this is the same for all the staff here.


3. About filtering AI generated slop
Claiming that users can simply "filter" AI content ignores reality. Barely 1% of the users use filters. Or even care about the tags. This is our role to decide what we promote, I'm in favor of making it a default filter, anyone who don't have his dose of mare butts can enable them by unfiltering all AI stuff. Most visitors don't even know what AI art really is and from the thumbnail won't even make a difference when browsing.

4. Economic impact
Artists for most, work and provide art for free, but many find welcome to be able to sell their art and I encourage them to do so, especially in difficult economic times. AI-generated slop undermine this, providing these for nothing or even at some price, bypassing the need for skilled labor. Just with that it discourages artists to have the motivation to make more art. Myself I never seen this as a serious competitor hoping people are not that retarded and notice the difference but no. Artists who pour effort into their work, now face competition from users who generate images with no skill or effort. If it were made with a cheaper labor but original content I would salute the effort, and would get that technique, the problem, see chapter 1, it's theft. And so far we are still in a capitalist economy, with its rules, and one of these rules normally sanctions theft, another one secures private ownership. One more thing on this topic, AI users encourage other AI users to sell AI generated slop and scam people into buying «commissions» (prompts) for cheap. Are we really encouraging such a submediterranean method ?

5. You will never be an artist.
The notion that AI democratizes art is a fallacy. Art is not a democracy. You are not entitled to have something for free. Art or design or many things analogue to creative domains requires skill, vision, and an understanding of techniques and a multitude more of parameters the AI or the average joe cannot comprehend. AI users are not artists; they are operators of a program they did not even code or they barely understand. They lack the ability to discern flaws in their outputs. Anatomical errors, unnatural lighting, or compositional inconsistencies. These obvious issues are apparent to trained eyes but ignored by those who prefer ease of access with genuine creativity, and this is obvious in the output result. They don't even see value in their generated art, they have to make 50 images that are the same and will not regret losing any of it. I have discussed with AI makers too, and asked a few a demo, he don't even look at the output or understand a thing about why the image looks like this. In most cases the signature isn't even erased but have that smooth effect to blend with the background.
It's also interesting when they are asked «Alright I'm going to show you how to draw, it's not hard» and does not WANT to. but insist to show you how to prompt. Spoilers: I take less time drawing something based on an idea than the time it will take for someone to make the image.
Using AI as a model for pose, lighting and more can be interesting and should be aspiring people to draw and create something, just use it as a model, then you can claim the ownership of what you generated, but again we have a generation that don't value effort and have the attention span of a goldfish, unable to work; devoid of culture, or any interest, and this is where I go on the six chapter of this post:

6. AI generation is really here to push a political agenda.
The idea that «anyone can create, anyone can be an artist» is already a fallacy, a growing amount of AI generation fans believe this, like man will believe he's a woman after cutting his dick and taking hormones. This devalues the hard work and individualism that art represents. It reduces art to a generic product, stripping it of its personal and economic value. This aligns with a collectivist ideology that undermines the meritocratic principles of artistic achievement. Art is not a communal resource to be generated at will; it is a reflection of individual effort and talent. What AI users knows they will never have. I would love to take any of them into magma.com and teach em to draw anything, bring tutorial, but again this is elitist, this is too hard, effort is hard. These people want to be assisted on anything, and not make an effort. They don't want to work but expect their minimal wage check to arrive. Your hate about elites won't change a thing, some choose to be part of it and work hard, improve, find ideas, while there are many who don't want you to be better than them and will do everything to discourage you. Hightax the worker who gets up everyday at 6! Behead the billionaires who keeps the country's economy! Replace the privileged artists by algorithms!
Document yourself on the creators and the motives of people who make and maintain AI generated software too. Not the AI or machine learning for research, scientific, industrial, but for little things targeted at a fandom. Normalizing it is stupid, and counterproductive, and will have an impact on how Ponerpics, and other communities are seen. Even if this is built on fun, we must remain serious about the efforts a vast majority put in their work from the /bale/ tier to the guy who will spend hours or days creating a painting for our eyes only, we have the obligation to honor that.

7. The Platform’s Values and the Role of Moderation
Ponerpics was built to support, secure and unify originality creativity and individuality, and resisting against those trying to oppose silencing views of any kind. Allowing AI art to proliferate undermines these principles, turning the site into a repository for soulless, machine-generated content and does not carry any message, any interest. A flood of noise is no different than censorship. Imagine you run a radio station broadcasting information to a totalitarian regime, slamming hard rock and anti woke facts, and the regime put transmitters to counter your signal with noise making your reception impossible. That's what AI generated slop is. Noise masking the genuine message every artist has to pass. Moderation is not about neutrality, it’s about preserving the platform’s purpose, and deciding to affirm which values we support and want to showcase. A neutral stance on AI art is a passive endorsement. Neutrality is choosing weakness. It's voting centrist. It's letting monuments destroyed as «It's none of my business» «I don't do politics» «Everyone does it so it's normal»

The real question is, do you want people to believe you are an artist and believe your art has a message or a value, or do you want to be an artist able to push a message and a value.



As for photography, don't talk about photo either, because snapping an image with a camera isn't art, I don't think a scientific police snapping a crime scene with a $3000 Nikon D5 is here to make art. But knowing how to bracket, depth of field, exposure, aperture, the right ISO value, focusing because you can't trust the motors to do what you see, color balance, color accent, composition, timing, speed, movement, and for being still a noob in photo I tell you there are perhaps many if not more parameters to know in photography than in drawing. And yes it's a lot about the hardware but even a pro can use a pocket camera, and will make with it. When you draw you draw what you have in mind, you print it and eventually correct it. On photo you can't do that, take your wife smiling, one shot she will be looking perfectly happy, one quarter second next shot, you move the camera slightly she will seem moody, depressed and not even understand that after watching the photo. It's about capturing an instant in time, in space, and a lot of things you cannot generate with AI or even draw, these are two complete different things.

You draw, paint, traditional tools or digital tools to create something that does not exist, you take a photograph to stick in the real world and capture the feelings, the vibe or anything of a moment, it's completely different. Graphic design is also completely different but also carries a message too. AI generated images does not carry a message, the only message i want to see from a computer is «All packages are up to date.»