AI-Assisted & Generated

BUR #12567 has been rejected.

create implication ai-assisted -> ai-generated

Rather than fighting over how much editing is required for something to go from generated to assisted, it seems reasonable to just have them be both.

Has there been any fighting about this? I figured if any editing had happened it would be AI-assisted.

There was a post that came up yesterday where the artist drew a speech bubble over an otherwise generated image and that apparently disqualified it from being "ai-generated".

It was post #5707498, and it wasn't just the speech bubble - the face, the tail/hair/neck ornaments etc are all retouched.

Yes, that image sparked the discussion. Even though it was more edited than initially thought (and even stated by NNT just now, the left breast spillover was redrawn slightly)...

Well, see my statement with the BUR.

I think we're rapidly approaching a world where AI assistance is both used by everyone and is impossible to detect.

BUR #12597 has been rejected.

create alias ai-assisted -> ai-generated

A point to raise:
An AI generator dude has begun self-uploading ai-generated art. It's clear he's retouching and adding character-specific details, post #5719038, but he's not tagging it AI-assisted. I feel that this shows support for the sentiment behind your statement: getting rid of the tag entirely. And, as briefly discussed on the discord, creating ai-generated background in place of assisted and simply moving assisted into generated as a whole.

Thus, here is an alternative BUR, since I estimate the initial is DOA.

Veradux said:

BUR #12597 has been rejected.

create alias ai-assisted -> ai-generated

A point to raise:
An AI generator dude has begun self-uploading ai-generated art. It's clear he's retouching and adding character-specific details, post #5719038, but he's not tagging it AI-assisted. I feel that this shows support for the sentiment behind your statement: getting rid of the tag entirely. And, as briefly discussed on the discord, creating ai-generated background in place of assisted and simply moving assisted into generated as a whole.

Thus, here is an alternative BUR, since I estimate the initial is DOA.

I'm iffy on this because this would also put things like post #5712329 as AI generated. The artist used an AI to generate a reference (specifically legs, see the original version and the AI reference), and putting things like this in the same category as fully AI generated art would be severe mistag imo.

BUR #12599 has been rejected.

create alias ai-generated -> ai-assisted

I feel the inverse makes more sense. The wording of ai-generated sounds like the whole thing is AI-generated, so it doesn't make sense for AI-assisted art. It would have to be "partially ai-generated" or "ai-generated elements", which is just better-summarized as ai-assisted . Whereas 100% ai-generated art can fall under ai-assisted even if AI did the whole piece. You could also semantically argue it's still an assist because the AI didn't get the inspiration, initiate the generation, share the art, etc.

Not all ai-assisted art is ai-generated (100% AI), so I don't like the new BUR either.
All ai-generated (100% AI) art is ai-assisted, so this BUR makes sense.

@Veradux said:
I feel that this shows support for the sentiment behind your statement: getting rid of the tag entirely [...] and simply moving assisted into generated as a whole.

If the intent of the second BUR was instead just to get rid of ai-assisted altogether, it should be made clear that partially AI-assisted art should NOT be tagged ai-generated, only 100% AI-assisted/generated art.

Of course, AI assistance can't always be detected, but it's worth including if it's known, noticeable, or mentioned, like photoshop (medium). (Even if the AI engine isn't known, in case we start making stuff like midjourney medium metatags.)

LQ said:

Not all ai-assisted art is ai-generated (100% AI), so I don't like the new BUR either.
All ai-generated (100% AI) art is ai-assisted, so this BUR makes sense.

I'm not getting your reasoning, the first affirmation seems correct, but if the AI did the whole thing it clearly isn't an assist. The person who uploaded the AI art isn't much different from a commissioner posting the commissioned art.

@mongirlfan

It assists by doing all the art work. To assist is to help. If you do all the work, you still helped. The "doing only a share/part of the work" part of "assist" is optional. The AI helped (assisted) the "artist" in the work.

Everything in ai-assisted currently is <100% ai-assisted, so the BUR (mine) would simply add everything that is 100% ai-assisted (ai-generated) to the tag.

The inverse (Veradux's) is adding everything that is <100% ai-assisted to ai-generated, where the name suggests AI did the whole thing (100%).

I guess it depends on how you frame the tag. To me, if a post has ai-generated, the whole thing is AI-generated, not just a portion of it. Veradux's BUR would be kind of like aliasing partially translated to translated.

ai-assisted -> some of the work is AI-generated (compare partially translated)
ai-generated -> ALL of the work is AI-generated (compare translated)

Due to the similarities with translated, this may suggest the status quo is fine.

Again, alternatively, it would also make sense if a "some or all" noun like "elements" was added to ai-generated.

ai-generated elements -> some or all of the work is AI-generated (good)
My BUR -> redefine ai-assisted to mean "some or all of the work is AI-generated" (good, less wordy)
Veradux's BUR -> redefine ai-generated to mean "some or all of the work is AI-generated" (bad)

LQ said:

It assists by doing all the art work. To assist is to help. If you do all the work, you still helped.

In English, "assist" has the connotation of someone else doing most or at least part of the work. You don't get an "assist streak" in COD for headshotting 17 players in a row.

@AngryZapdos

That's just sports terminology; to make an action that leads to somebody else achieving a goal (e.g. one that awards points). Hence the common usage of assist as a noun.

In the most general sense, most dictionaries just list assist as a "to help" word:

• Wiktionary: assist (verb): To help.
• Wiktionary: assist (noun): A helpful action or an act of giving.
• Oxford Languages: assist (verb): help (someone), typically by doing a share of the work. Emphasis added.
• Oxford Languages: assist (noun): an act of helping, typically by providing money.
• Merriam-Webster: assist (verb): to give usually supplementary support or aid to; to give support or aid
• Merriam-Webster: assist (noun, US): an act or action that helps someone : an act of assistance
• Cambridge: assist (verb): to help; to take action to help someone or support something; to help somebody or help with something; to help something develop or happen by providing money, support, etc.
• Cambridge: assist (noun): They propose "assistance" is more appropriate outside of the sports word.

Dictionaries don't list out connotations, especially not simple ones from google like that. Please do not open up a strange semantics argument like this. When you start bringing out definitions to try and fight about semantics like this, you're just muddying the water. It makes everyone groan and ignore the topic.
Especially when I, the English professor, would really enjoy ripping into it.

How about an meta:ai-referenced tag? That could be used to further separate posts from ai-generated.

@Veradux

I don't really think it's that profound, and the connotations are usually listed in Wiktionary/Oxford in my experience (Oxford even gives two right there??), but....

In any case, ai-generated isn't the right term to describe something that is, say, 90% handdrawn. So if the status quo isn't preserved, the tag should be called something else. If the tags are merged, the tag needs the connotation "some or all is AI-generated", not "ALL is AI-generated". Disregard if AI-assisted stuff will not be included in ai-generated and will only be tagged as AI-related when the medium/engine is known.

@agglego2

That would definitely make a good third tag for cases where the actual AI work isn't kept in the image, though it wouldn't apply to most of what already exists in ai-assisted, as it would be like calling a work with a photo background (a literal photograph with characters drawn over it) a photo-referenced work.

Derivative work might already be enough for works that used AI work(s) as a reference or something that is completely painted over, but that could be combined with ai-referenced too yeah

The bulk update request #12599 (forum #223043) has been rejected by @LQ.

Not sure this implication makes any sense anymore given forum #223144.

By the time this BUR gets auto-rejected, there will likely be at least two more major AI shake-ups the way things are going. So let's just let it lie fallow and see what happens.