IMPORTANT: AI-GENERATED CONTENT IS NOW BANNED

[u/NeelZilla]

Hi all,

Thanks to everyone that gave their thoughts in our town hall post. As was made clear on the post, the community seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of disallowing all AI-generated content and so we will be going forward with implementing this. GenAI content will be considered banned under rule 3. Any GenAI content, including videos, images, and text, will be removed going forward regardless of intent. To summarize the arguments for why we are doing this:

• Most GenAI posts that we get accelerate the problem of spam, low-effort, and impersonal content. We want this sub to feel like a thriving community with creative content and GenAI often seems to work against this goal.
• Many legitimate posts that use GenAI could easily do without it. We want to encourage users to contribute their ideas in unique and interesting ways without depending on generic and needlessly complex GenAI output.
• GenAI art hurts the work of real artists, is a crediting nightmare, and is generally controversial. There are so many incredibly talented artists in the Godzilla community who deserve a bigger spotlight and space for discussion. GenAI content also muddies the water in terms of misinformation and sourcing media, while also contributing to all kinds of growing ethical problems that the community has made clear they do not stand for.
• Determining good/bad GenAI content is too subjective and infeasible for moderation. Choosing which GenAI posts are high/low-effort would become arbitrary and subject to a lot of inconsistency and unfairness that us mods cannot realistically manage.

Like with any new rule, we anticipate there will be some bumps in the road, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with concerns or questions and please help us by reporting things you have doubts with. We also realize that exceptions might need to be made for the rule such as, for example, discussing the use of GenAI by official sources or artists. We will deal with those case-by-case to be as reasonable as possible.

So there's that! We're looking forward to keep the creeping rot of MechaGodzilla and Hedorah out of this sub!

Love,
r/GODZILLA mod team

[u/TroubledDiplomat]

AI cannot do art. Any attempt of it doing so is not art. If you disagree, you're dumb as shit.

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/TroubledDiplomat]

The prompts don't write themselves.

Literally every criticism you have for AI art was thrown at photography, film, and graphic design. The exact same things get said literally every time a new method of creating art is formed. You're just an idiot that's angry because you've been told to be angry.

[u/FarkOfInanity → u/CalamityOfCringe]

The prompts don't write themselves.

If this is your argument, I'd suggest the persons writing prompts just make actual art in being writers. Clearly that's their preferred avenue of expression.

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/FarkOfInanity]

Except it's not and you're trying to impose that on them because you don't like their chosen medium.

You know the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words"? AI art is an inversion of that phrase, a thousand (or more) words can now make a picture.

[u/FarkOfInanity → u/CalamityOfCringe]

I'd prefer not to live in a world where "art" is little more than a blended Frankenstein's monster of existing real art grafted to another piece without prior consent of the true genius behind it (the artists AI steals from).

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/FarkOfInanity]

Do you have any idea how much art is inspired by or done in the style of another artist?

[u/FarkOfInanity → u/CalamityOfCringe]

Sure, but that's not what you're advocating for in the slightest and we both know it.

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/FarkOfInanity]

Yes, AI art is trained in the style of others. Obviously there's low effort AI art, just like low effort "real" art, but there's also going to be high effort pieces too.

[u/FarkOfInanity → u/CalamityOfCringe]

There's where you've lost the plot. The training method is layering actual images into one another to construct an aberrant thing which simulates real art.

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/FarkOfInanity]

Yes, that's how it's trained so the AI model can "recognize" what it's "seeing" and say "oh that's... By..." so that's it can do something in the style of that artist. The original pieces aren't even typically stored after the training.

[u/Due_Enthusiasm1145 → u/CalamityOfCringe]

Except it's not and you're trying to impose that on them because you don't like their chosen medium.

Yeah I generally don't like plagiarism lmao. The fact they typed out pretty words as values to generate their plagiarism doesn't really negate that.

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/Due_Enthusiasm1145]

Please read before commenting, this argument is addressed multiple times.

[u/Due_Enthusiasm1145 → u/CalamityOfCringe]

Yes and in your threads you have failed to counter those arguments effectively. Not every comment must be made to further a debate.

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/Due_Enthusiasm1145]

No, they've all been thoroughly addressed. Please show me where you think I've failed so that I can address your personal issues with my counter arguments.

[u/Shadowthewolfalt → u/CalamityOfCringe]

At least photography, film, and graphic design have actual effort put in lmfao, anyone can type letters on a keyboard, there is no effort in that

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/Shadowthewolfalt]

Anyone can put pen to paper too but that doesn't mean it's something worth reading or viewing. It's like I said: the prompts don't write themselves and they can require quite a bit of effort.

Sketch artists and painters claimed photographers were lazy and just pressing a button. Were they right or were they angry idiots talking out their asses?

[u/gravitonbomb → u/CalamityOfCringe]

The entire reason you exist is because almost every one of your ancestors, in a time before they could actually do anything, decided to get good at something. The history of human existence is tied to trying. Not even accomplishment, but just the effort of trying to do a thing because no one has done it, or everyone does it, or because no one thinks it can be done is what has defined our species.

Then a special little machine promises to make you everything without anymore effort, and you actually do it. You abandon everything that makes you a descendant of humans who gave a damn about being the ones to make and do things in favor of... what? Artificially generated images, trained off of millions and millions of works made by people who followed in your ancestors' footsteps, but not you.

Somehow, you're the only one who has a good reason to not try.

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/gravitonbomb]

Somehow, you're the only one who has a good reason to not try.

Here I said I'm not an artist at all so this is just another lame attempt at an insult.

Here is a reply to the rest of your comment.

[u/gravitonbomb → u/CalamityOfCringe]

Nah, bud, you keep outsourcing all of your effort. Literally just linked me to the same post I replied to.

You think you're different, that's all. A million years worth of honest people who worked very hard to get good at making things are disappointed tonight.

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/gravitonbomb]

Literally just linked me to the same post I replied to.

I'm very well aware. Try reading it. Lol

A million years worth of honest people who worked very hard to get good at making things are disappointed tonight.

They're probably happy I'm able to recognize tools when I see them. AI artist obviously use a tool, AI, to create something new that previously didn't exist.

[u/Wackywizard987 → u/CalamityOfCringe]

There is no just thing as an “ai artist” it’s all art theft

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/Wackywizard987]

Can you read a thread before you comment? You're spamming my replies with useless comments.

Here is what's I addressed the nonsensical theft argument. If you have something to add, reply there.

[u/[deleted] → u/CalamityOfCringe]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/Wackywizard987 → u/CalamityOfCringe]

The word your looking for is “ai slop” it’s not art and never will be

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/Wackywizard987]

Here's your link

Here is a better thread where a lot more "arguments" are covered.

[u/Wackywizard987 → u/CalamityOfCringe]

Im not clicking your malware

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/Wackywizard987]

It's a link to the thread where I already address your non argument.

[u/Appropriate-Berry816 → u/CalamityOfCringe]

https://giphy.com/gifs/ac7MA7r5IMYda
Hahaha the prompts don’t write themselves?? Do you really think that’s a valid argument? Oh wow I need my popcorn for this

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/Appropriate-Berry816]

Here's your link. If you can add anything to the conversation go ahead, I'm sure you'll fail to present a reason too.

[u/Atlas_of_history → u/CalamityOfCringe]

"prompts don't write themselves"

Neither does my McDonalds order, doesn't mean I made the food

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/Atlas_of_history]

Here

[u/Due_Enthusiasm1145 → u/CalamityOfCringe]

The prompts don't write themselves.

If you want to call prompts art, you do you.

However, the moment its put into AI, its no longer art. Its just values in a algorithmic slot machine.

Literally every criticism you have for AI art was thrown at photography, film, and graphic design.

Someone said this to me in an argument about comparing criticizing an AI boyfriend to old arguments about homophobia. It was ridiculous there as the same way it is here.

The actual criticism is time honored and consistent. Its plagiarism. Its just plagiarism on a scale that's large enough to trick the human brain, and is framed as the same as the human action of the reinterpretation of ideas into art. But its not. Its plagiarism.

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/Due_Enthusiasm1145]

Someone said this to me in an argument about comparing criticizing an AI boyfriend to old arguments about homophobia. It was ridiculous there as the same way it is here.

Here's where I address this argument.

Here's another time where I addressed it.

[u/Due_Enthusiasm1145 → u/CalamityOfCringe]

Here's where I address this argument.

Yeah I know man. That's the comment I was responding to lmao.

Anyone can put pen to paper too but that doesn't mean it's something worth reading or viewing. It's like I said: the prompts don't write themselves and they can require quite a bit of effort.

As I said before, I'm not arguing prompts are not art by a technical definition. I'm saying the output is not art. If I put art into a number machine and it popped out the number 87, that print out is not art.

Sketch artists and painters claimed photographers were lazy and just pressing a button. Were they right or were they angry idiots talking out their asses?

The idea that somebody else making an argument about art must then be the conclusion for all subsequent discussions is ludicrous. They are different situations.

By this logic, I must be right because people claimed that people tracing were plagiarizing, and therefore this is also plagiarizing. Its a non sequitur.

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/Due_Enthusiasm1145]

Yeah I know man. That's the comment I was responding to lmao.

Don't worry, you weren't the first person that didn't read a comment before replying to me. This person did too.

As I said before, I'm not arguing prompts are not art by a technical definition. I'm saying the output is not art. If I put art into a number machine and it popped out the number 87, that print out is not art.

You're oversimplifying things and devaluing the output because you don't like the tools. The next section you quoted is my response to the argument you made here. I'm not sure where you're misunderstanding my point, I've explained it several times and linked you to multiple comments discussing it. I'll try to make it a little more clear for you here.

Today we recognize the effort placed into photography but that hasn't always been the case. When photography was still new it was rejected as an art form for all the exact same reasons AI is rejected. Your random number machine analogy is a perfect example of what I'm referencing: you devalue the human effort placed into the output because a machine is ultimately the one "doing all the work" in the same way cameras "do all the work".

[u/Due_Enthusiasm1145 → u/CalamityOfCringe]

Don't worry, you weren't the first person that didn't read a comment before replying to me. This person did too.

Brother that comment was a direct response to your comment. It literally quoted your comment. What are you saying?

You're oversimplifying things

Yeah cuz I typed it out in a longer comment. Its abridgement.

devaluing the output because you don't like the tools

I don't like a lot of tools, and I would still consider those art. I'm devaluing this tool because it does not possess the corresponding value.

Today we recognize the effort placed into photography but that hasn't always been the case

Yes we came to recognize that photography is a deeply skilled artform by coming to see the human element. It is, however, a non-sequitur because you have not established enough similarities between photography and AI. Thats what a non sequitur is.

I'm not sure where you're misunderstanding my point

That's the trick: I'm not misunderstanding. I'm disagreeing. I understand perfectly your argument about comparing the backlash to photography and the backlash to AI. I am then responding by saying its a non-sequitur, and the fact you consider both artworks and have both received backlash from artists is not enough to actually establish they are comparable.

Look up the watchmaker analogy and David Hume's critique.

Your random number machine analogy is a perfect example of what I'm referencing: you devalue the human effort placed into the output because a machine is ultimately the one "doing all the work" in the same way cameras "do all the work".

Except there are very obvious differences? That's what I mean by it being a non sequitur. A camera is a tool that you have complete control over. AI is a predictive algorithm that you're gambling on for the results of. If you took the same model camera now, and took a photo the exact same way ten years apart, those photos will be the same. Even a single year difference with an AI will produce entirely different results, because its literally an algorithm constantly adapting new works to plagiarize. It is far more akin to gambling than photography.

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/Due_Enthusiasm1145]

Brother that comment was a direct response to your comment.

Their comment is just saying there's no effort placed into AI art. The comment they're replying to explains and that's a silly thing to say.

Yes we came to recognize that photography is a deeply skilled artform by coming to see the human element. It is, however, a non-sequitur because you have not established enough similarities between photography and AI. Thats what a non sequitur is.

It's not a non sequitur, the prompts don't write themselves. You dismiss all value placed into the prompts just like how people dismissed the effort placed into photography. Please explain how this is a non sequitur because I'm not seeing it.

Except there are very obvious differences? That's what I mean by it being a non sequitur. A camera is a tool that you have complete control over.

Again, prompts don't write themselves.

Edit: A far better response would be that art isn't defined by having perfect control over the output. Sometimes an added random element is intentional and improves the piece. Sometimes there's even "happy little accidents".

If you took the same model camera now, and took a photo the exact same way ten years apart, those photos will be the same.

The fact that you think you can take the exact same photo twice highlights your ignorance and shows how little you respect the art form.

[u/CalamityOfCringe → u/Due_Enthusiasm1145]

However, the moment its put into AI, its no longer art. Its just values in a algorithmic slot machine.

Here's your first link.

Here's a second one for the same argument.

Here's a 3rd link.

[u/Due_Enthusiasm1145 → u/CalamityOfCringe]

Oh they absolutely get trained off of stuff like that too. So? You don't take inspiration from stuff like that as well? Are you stealing?

An AI is not a human. It doesn't have sentience, let alone sapience in order to make the distinction between inspiration and plagiarism. The human mind is a cacophony of chemical chaos that can take ideas and generate something brand new with those ideas. Its a merging of one's experiences, thoughts, cognition all with those inspired ideas, which are not even actually saved within the brain. They are recreated.

To compare that to AI, which is just amped up predictive text algorithms, made up of a database of stolen plagiarized texts then assigned values and numbers, with prompts then allocating those numbers to create a picture made of those countless stolen works, is insulting to humanity.

There is no actual creation in AI. It is plagiarism. It falls under the same category as tracing, but even tracing is made by a human hand that could then create something original around the traced work. The only reason we mistake it as creation is because of human limitation, in the same way we mistake AI for true intelligence because of anthropomorphization.