Pretty self-explanatory. If this site is really for AI artists, we should be able to call ourselves what we want.
"prompter:" should change to "artist:"
I disagree. Besides the fact that it would be odd and confusing (especially when Derpi will be keeping the prompter tag), I donāt consider myself an artist. Iām just a guy playing around with a program for fun.
@IWTCIPP
Not trying to start drama or anything, but prompters arenāt the same as actual artists.
Not trying to start drama or anything, but prompters arenāt the same as actual artists.
a prompter calling themselves an artist when all they really do is type prompts is quite disrespectful to human artists.
but thatās just my opinion
You know, Iām something of an artist myself, but I think āprompterā is more appropriate here.
Background Pony #36E1
Hard ānoā. This would just pollute the tag for images that are on both boorus. Artists are for the people who make it by hand. Iāve burned away hours prompting and itās just an iteration factory, not like an artist.
fuck no
I prefer ācreatorā.
Iād tend more towards ācreatorā myself, as well, if we were going to change it from āprompterā. Iād prefer to keep the two distinct, because, for example, if I drew a picture of a pony, then generated the background behind them by ai, I would both be the artist and the creator. And if it was a collaboration, where someone else drew the character, I could tag them as the artist and myself as the creator.
Iād also suggest, since this is an ai site, that at least one of the ai tags be required when uploading, the same way that you are required to rate the picture as safe, questionable, or explicit.
Nah. Artistry =\= prompting. Both creating art traditionally and by prompting are creative processes, but theyāre different processes.
I agree, creating art makes you an artist, and the act of guiding an AI to refine an image into something that matches your vision is the same creative process to any other artform.
Just because itās āeasyā to prompt things by comparison to the tedium of drawn digital art does not mean youāre not an artist, and saying otherwise is just a narrative the anti-AI crowd has spun to diminish peopleās work and disrespect the AI artists. Itād be like saying digital artists arenāt artists because itās a far easier process than that of traditional artwork on canvas with oil paints (no undo, no layering, no fancy effects or infinite brush shapes). This is especially true for more involved AI artwork where inpainting and other touchups are done in post via Photoshop or whatever, itās hardly solely just āpromptingā in that instance.
Course I can somewhat understand concerns over tagging confusion and etc, and to be fair also other areas of art have their own terms, e.g. photographer, cinematographer, game developer, but they all are under the āartistā umbrella if you want a general term. No (non-disparaging) specific term really exists for those who leverage AI heavily yet given itās such a new medium other than like āAI artistā which specifies the medium a bit more specifically similar to ātraditional artistā or ādigital artistā, but these are just simplified just to āartistā in terms of tagging on Derpi at least.
āCreatorā may be a fair compromise but I still feel like itās a bit silly to downplay the artistry involved. As the OP said, this is an AI-specific site, so while a blind import of tags may be a bit confusing, in practice one would understand that the āartistā term on this site is contextually referring to AI artists specifically and transform the tags if needed to whatever convention exists on other sites (e.g. if importing from here to Derpi one would replace
artist: with prompter: and add ai content or whatever as in theory that tag wouldnāt be needed here).All that considered I think I still lean more towards āartistā than ācreatorā, but either is better than āprompterā which might as well be an insult in a place like this.
Comparing traditional artistry with prompting is offending everyone, who has spend countless years mastering the art of drawing.
The two are nowhere near on the same level, or at least the kind of prompting that this site is intended for isnāt (As actual art with only some smaller parts being done by AI is still welcome on Derpibooru)
Therefore, the prefix will not be changing. Learn to actually draw if you want to be an artist.
All that considered I think I still lean more towards āartistā than ācreatorā, but either is better than āprompterā which might as well be an insult in a place like this.
I donāt know if you have, but Iād suggest perusing civitAI; there are accounts with 12k images made in just a few months, practically 90% of their images are definitely horrible. Iād certainly not think anyone slapping in 12 words (optimistically) into the prompt box, not changing default settings, and hitting āGenerate Foreverā to churn out 250 images in an hour and do no editing or curation at all on them deserves to be called an artist.
Purely outside of the pedantry of what is and isnāt āartā, itād be an organizational nightmare to separate out the people that do put some work and effort into their creations.
@Teaspoon
Probably worth noting that civitai is running daily contests right now that give you 400 of their on-site currency, buzz, if you submit 20 images using the lora provided. Itās very much encouraging people to spam out 20 low quality images a day.
Probably worth noting that civitai is running daily contests right now that give you 400 of their on-site currency, buzz, if you submit 20 images using the lora provided. Itās very much encouraging people to spam out 20 low quality images a day.
@Lord Waite
So the contest is based on the output quantity, not the quality or popularity? (Daily theme contests on NightCafe are based on popular vote, with only one submission per person)
So the contest is based on the output quantity, not the quality or popularity? (Daily theme contests on NightCafe are based on popular vote, with only one submission per person)
@Delly
Weird, last time I checked you can be an artist the moment your pencil touches the paper without āyears of masteryā. Guess you donāt think very highly of most artists. Imagine telling all the people on Derpi who have only been drawing for a few months āyeah you donāt have countless years of mastery so uhhh you donāt get an artist tagā, just insane lol.
Weird, last time I checked you can be an artist the moment your pencil touches the paper without āyears of masteryā. Guess you donāt think very highly of most artists. Imagine telling all the people on Derpi who have only been drawing for a few months āyeah you donāt have countless years of mastery so uhhh you donāt get an artist tagā, just insane lol.
Also I find it amusing that peopleās standards are essentially requiring 10+ years of AI art experience on their resume to apply to the āartistā job when this sort of generative AI has only been a thing for 2-3 years now.
@Heat Sink
Appeal to popularity is not a valid argument.
Appeal to popularity is not a valid argument.
@Annalee
Correct, that rule is outdated and carried over from Derpi and should be removed which kills two birds with one stone. The only reason that rule existed was a āpeaceful coexistenceā compromise with having both types of artists on the same site. This is a site for AI art specifically now though so caring about what existing digital artists think is no longer a concern as they will not be uploading here anyways.
Correct, that rule is outdated and carried over from Derpi and should be removed which kills two birds with one stone. The only reason that rule existed was a āpeaceful coexistenceā compromise with having both types of artists on the same site. This is a site for AI art specifically now though so caring about what existing digital artists think is no longer a concern as they will not be uploading here anyways.
@Teaspoon
Well I do think they deserve that title because thatās technically what art is. I never claimed it was good art, itās dogshit art. A lot of art on Derpi is dogshit too though if you havenāt noticed, but thatās ok because learning is a slow process.
Derpi always has been more of an art collective and not a ācurated artā site with a quality bar like something such as e621 is, so literally anyone who scribbles on a piece of paper is considered an artist with just as much effort as it takes to generate a low quality image via AI.
Well I do think they deserve that title because thatās technically what art is. I never claimed it was good art, itās dogshit art. A lot of art on Derpi is dogshit too though if you havenāt noticed, but thatās ok because learning is a slow process.
Derpi always has been more of an art collective and not a ācurated artā site with a quality bar like something such as e621 is, so literally anyone who scribbles on a piece of paper is considered an artist with just as much effort as it takes to generate a low quality image via AI.
Anyways to me that seems like something solvable by just providing upload limitations to discourage quantity over quality at least to have some bare minimum standards in what is being produced. Not really the end of the world and not really an argument against why people using AI arenāt artists.
@LemonDrop
no. on this site we ask that you respect artists and their artwork. this is baked into this siteās rules. if that is a non-starter for you, then there are many alternative sites you may use instead.
no. on this site we ask that you respect artists and their artwork. this is baked into this siteās rules. if that is a non-starter for you, then there are many alternative sites you may use instead.
So how about for AI composition images? Thereās a large degree of intentionality in the changes involved in those images that clearly result in a fully realised vision that was being worked towards from the initial generation (or perhaps even before that). Is such a process not deserving of being called a form of art itself? Would you say that with everything I- for example- have made, Iām only an editor and could not be considered an artist in any fashion?
The AI composition tag on Derpibooru asks that the editor tag be used instead of the artist tag, and I donāt think it should, at the very least not here.
@Zealousmagician
For the first month or so probably best to keep the tags the same to make importing-related issues easier. After that, maybe use artist or creatorā¦
For the first month or so probably best to keep the tags the same to make importing-related issues easier. After that, maybe use artist or creatorā¦
Deletion reason: Rule #6 - using this site is a privilege, not a right. If you refuse to follow our rules, please leave.
@Zerowinger
The 400 buzz is the āfull participationā reward. There are also prizes for the three winners, but thatās fairly random, being picked by AI.
The 400 buzz is the āfull participationā reward. There are also prizes for the three winners, but thatās fairly random, being picked by AI.
I typed in āponyā and pressed shift-enter. Default model settings, touched nothing else, you can check the chunk. Does that deserve an āartistā tag for me?
Iād say ānoā. And frankly neither do Jackson Pollock or whoever taped a banana to a wall deserve to be called āartistā. If we go by some āanything can be artā or whatever definition then the term āartistā has absolutely no meaning at all and thus thereās no reason to want to have it in the first place. Outside of some revanchist sentiment, I guess.
So no, Iād very much like to keep terms like artist or editor or whatever else reserved for people that put more effort into what they create than the average tagger/uploader puts in when typing into an imageās tag box.
- āBut derpi calls anyone that puts any two lines together an artist!ā
- Yes and I hate that, but it was inherited from ponibooru and socially enforced thanks to hacks like Christopher Wool or Damien Hirst. If I could have changed it without starting WW3 I would have.
- āWhy not call people that do
ai compositionartists, then?ā
- Ideally we will, both here and on derpi. Right now, what weāre seeing is what we expected: a lot of people going through their old raw gens and retagging them from
ai generatedtoai composition, either to āsaveā them, or out of spite for the new policy / the site. Weāll revisit the topic once those shenanigans are over.
- āYou just hate AI and this place is set up just to honeypot AI users to pariah them and then shut the place down!ā
- No. I want this place to succeed, and I want people to use AI to create beautiful and amazing things. But whatās been going on in derpi, and elsewhere on the internet, really isnāt leading towards that. For every 1 person that starts putting some work and talent in, that curate or edit what they share, and produces a good looking imageā¦ another 9 pop up that type in something like āsally acorn huge boobs large ass hot sexyā, batch of 20, and upload them all regardless of all the horrific flaws and artifacts.
- Allowing, or even promoting the latter is one of the big reasons AI is looked down on by so many, and itās whatās keeping the space from flourishing. Sites are flooded with low quality images and it drowns out those that put in the effort, or make it seem like they just got a lucky RNG. A lot of people could have been spending the last two years learning new skills and working on how to improve their art but instead sat waiting for some next model release or technological advancement to fix the issues for them.
- So yeah, I actually do want to get to the point where people arenāt looked down on for having made something with AI, and I donāt believe the ālaissez-faireā policy many appear to want will ever get us there.
Prompter seems like the more pragmatic and descriptive choice when talking about the person who prompted for the image, which seems to me the better choice for a tagging system. Within the context of the tagging system, worrying about the definition of art and artist seems like a good way to waste a lot of time.
However, using
prompter would imply the use of separate tags for the same person doing a basic sketch, generation, and inpainting, which seems like a good way to add excessive noise to the tags. As others have suggested, creator might be a decent compromise, as itās a lot less philosophically charged than artist.Individual tags for prompting, inpainting/editing, and arting (in the derpi sense) could be used in situations in which multiple people are collaborating. The correct tag for arting might bring the whole discussion up again, so perhaps bikeshedding about it is inevitable.
Iām honestly all for sticking with ācreatorā when weāre assigning a title in a tagālike we already do in User Links. And keeping āartistā just for how itās used in Takedowns and Rules. Maybe itās selfish, but it lowkey makes things way easier when handling image reports. That way, when someone says āartist,ā I know itās about Rule #1 and not something I actually want to do, like helping someone set up their tag here.
I honestly donāt care what people call themselves, as long as when someone says āartist,ā itās clear theyāre talking about what that means in Rule #1.
My one caveat would be if the site ever decides to extend copyright protections to some AI artālike how Derpi uses
ai assisted or their new ai composition tag. Still waiting to see how that all shakes out with āartistā tags. Maybe things will be clearer by January.It feels like a distraction right now. Iād rather not deal with it and just hope we donāt end up with a tag thatās baked into the rules that gives it a meaning, or accidentally makes people think they have rights they donāt actually have, that we will have to deal with later.
@Admin
I trust you to find the right balance, and make it make sense.
I trust you to find the right balance, and make it make sense.
Iām gonna ghost this thread now since this isnāt my bikeshed, and Iāve talked about it enough. As long as the rules and tags are in sync, itās all good.