Best Ai for vore?

[Dragonlord]

I know technically none of the AI art programs are suppose to do vore, but with enough effort I've found a few that can do decently given enough time. I managed these with Novel AI and was wondering if anyone's found one that does better or is at least cheaper.

[SleeperDragon]

>w< sexy AI generation~

[Chessa]

So far that I could find, Novel AI is the best but only if you improvise, like doing belly shots and maw shots and then editing internals if anything. I've seen some Stable Diffusion modules specifically tailored for Vore, but I haven't tried them.

[JediPadawanJess]

I'm strongly anti AI generated images as they steal art from hard working artists, please support real artists.
If you can't afford to pay artists, then make your own art by picking up a pencil and just draw.

[temporos]

I'm strongly anti AI generated images as they steal art from hard working artists, please support real artists.

Ehhh... I try not to make blanket absolute statements like that. AIs don't have to steal the artwork they ingest. It's just what's fed to them by their human operators. So, in the case of AI-generated artwork, the potential problem is the humans not the AI.

[JediPadawanJess]

I'm strongly anti AI generated images as they steal art from hard working artists, please support real artists.

Ehhh... I try not to make blanket absolute statements like that. AIs don't have to steal the artwork they ingest. It's just what's fed to them by their human operators. So, in the case of AI-generated artwork, the potential problem is the humans not the AI.

While yes this is the blame the person and not the program, the problem is that AI just generates prompts that are given to it, but it can't create something on its own.
I prefer if the art was 100% drawn by hand, even if they're commissioned works from another artist

[JustCurious1123]

Check out this:
https://beta.character.ai/
It is more about written text than generated pictures, also you do have to register to get rid of the text limit, but it is well worth it for you can easily create your own AI character by just adding some description and some example texts on how it should behave.
The site does have an NSFW filter, but there are ways to circumvent it if you know what you are doing.
The AI, while not flawless, can be quite creative at times, when describing a vorish scenario.

It is also not picky about what to devour, so you don't have to worry about things like age for example.

I have created 9 characters so far, and most of them find the idea and practice of devouring little beings delicious. Some tend to chew their prey, some prefer to swallow it whole. I even have two, who rather prefer to stomp and crush, if that is something you like.

You can even make the AI describe disposal endings, if you do not mind such things, and it can do a relatively decent job.

[temporos]

...AI just generates prompts that are given to it, but it can't create something on its own.

Current AI, yes. Give it time. I like to think that AI will eventually become "smart" enough to generate its own original artwork in much the same way humans do: by observing its environment and using its "imagination" to express itself.

And when that happens, we can count on a lot of really good AI-generated vore artwork to enjoy (for those who are open to it).

[JediPadawanJess]

...AI just generates prompts that are given to it, but it can't create something on its own.

Current AI, yes. Give it time. I like to think that AI will eventually become "smart" enough to generate its own original artwork in much the same way humans do: by observing its environment and using its "imagination" to express itself.

And when that happens, we can count on a lot of really good AI-generated vore artwork to enjoy (for those who are open to it).

It's still doing more harm than good to hard working artists who put their blood sweat and tears into their pieces.

[InverseTacquito]

I'm strongly anti AI generated images as they steal art from hard working artists, please support real artists.

Let me give you an example: you charge a $30-$35 dollar flat rate for a single lineart of any character from an existing work.
Just lineart. Of a single character. A flat black and white, not even shading.
I would like to have visual references for concepts and ideas, but I also need to eat and pay bills, so I will opt for the much more affordable service that enables me the freedom of being able to do of my own accord this at the expense of being on the more generic side and requiring some trial and error to get a good image generated.

I will give that the AI pulling from a preexisting database of works to generate images is an issue that may be open to a moral discussion, but the much larger portion who are afraid of people having an affordable alternative to seek art from when their rates are so high for what they produce is not one.

[Chessa]

I will give that the AI pulling from a preexisting database of works to generate images

It doesn't do this. It creates a 'mean' standard from looking at the linework of each individual image, and then doesn't require those images ever again. This means it does not ever need to analyze the art again after it does the first time. This idea of art stealing by training an AI on an artpiece is pretty ridiculous in this sense, because the AI doesn't even use the art past looking at it. It's like if a human being looked at an artpiece and said 'Okay I'm gonna take note of this' and then wrote down example dimensions and colors to use.

Another example? A person inputted images of his pet doggo into Stable Diffusion, training it on multiple images. Each image was completely unique and only some shapes and the colors stayed the same.

In this sense, it doesn't pull from a database.

This is just a growing trend of hostility to AI FMPOV, and is most prolific in millionaire-artist ran forums like Fur Affinity... who literally banned AI art to protect their own profits and advertising revenue (From other artists)... Using 'Artistic Merit' as the qualifier for why.

Fur Affinity doesn't care about low tier (Not usually wealthy) artists like painters or game designers, it cares about money, as much as I like furries, fur affinity has done this for years. So when it banned AI art and spread misinformation/scientifically inaccurate info about it, it did so to protect its own profits without caring whether it helped small artists.

[Eka]

It's still doing more harm than good to hard working artists who put their blood sweat and tears into their pieces.

I really don't agree with that. If we focus on traditional artists vs AI-included workflow. Yes. AI is going to be more efficient while creating something "good enough" for most situations. But any artist can adopt an AI-included workflow, too. Many tools can help an artist create better art at a faster rate. AI will be one of them, whether you like it or not. The same hard-working artist can outwork a non-artist when both individuals have access to the same tool.

It doesn't do this. It creates a 'mean' standard from looking at the linework of each individual image, and then doesn't require those images ever again. This means it does not ever need to analyze the art again after it does the first time. This idea of art stealing by training an AI on an artpiece is pretty ridiculous in this sense, because the AI doesn't even use the art past looking at it. It's like if a human being looked at an artpiece and said 'Okay I'm gonna take note of this' and then wrote down example dimensions and colors to use.

Another example? A person inputted images of his pet doggo into Stable Diffusion, training it on multiple images. Each image was completely unique and only some shapes and the colors stayed the same.

In this sense, it doesn't pull from a database.

While technically correct, it missed the mark on the meaning of what InverseTacquito really means: A bunch of data used to create something.

Traditionally, relational database relies on having accurate identifications of data and their relations. Calling stable diffusion's "doesn't do that" while they still relies on the datastore with irrational pointer and matrix calculation is misleading at best.

At the same time, I don't really understand why "AI doesn't even use the art past looking at it" is relevant. Looking at it is all it needs. Why would it need more than that? The goal post seems to be set to "Because it only needs it once it doesn't count as stealing" which is rather arbitrary. Instead of interjecting what we think "stealing" means. We should also understand why artists think it is stealing and address their concerns directly.

I think everyone needs to learn more about this, artist or not. Also, it is the life hood of artists who are impacted. Overlooking their concern isn't going to untangle the misunderstanding.

[temporos]

We should also understand why artists think it is stealing and address their concerns directly.

I could not agree more with this statement. All the animosity—on both sides—is driven by fear: the fear of loss. In the artists' case, the fear of losing their livelihood. In the pro-AI crowd, the fear of lost opportunity. Both sides of this debate are focused on demonizing the other side—I think this ties into the modern tenancy for intolerance of differing opinion. Instead of fighting, we should be meeting the concerns of both sides head-on and finding palatable solutions. I'm sick of the unnecessary division.

I think everyone needs to learn more about this, artist or not.

Again, I agree with this. It's a nuanced issue that can't be boiled down to one aspect. People are operating on differing definitions of terms like "AI," "theft," etc.. We can't approach solutions to problems—indeed, we can't even identify the problems—until we agree on what it is we're arguing about.

Whenever you feel yourself getting angry about something, try to look at it from the other person's perspective. You'll find solutions are much easier to come by.

[FishnorFowl]

Current Ai uses artwork without permission which is unacceptable, however I’d be open to an Ai that only uses artwork with permission/royalty free artwork, etc

[temporos]

Current Ai uses artwork without permission which is unacceptable...

All current AI does this? How do you know? Why is it unacceptable? Is it unacceptable for a human to look at artwork at a gallery? Is it unacceptable for an AI to look at artwork in a gallery?

Like I said previously, it's a nuanced issue, and using absolutes like this are unhelpful.

[nyte]

I'm strongly anti AI generated images as they steal art from hard working artists, please support real artists.

Let me give you an example: you charge a $30-$35 dollar flat rate for a single lineart of any character from an existing work.
Just lineart. Of a single character. A flat black and white, not even shading.
I would like to have visual references for concepts and ideas, but I also need to eat and pay bills, so I will opt for the much more affordable service that enables me the freedom of being able to do of my own accord this at the expense of being on the more generic side and requiring some trial and error to get a good image generated.

I will give that the AI pulling from a preexisting database of works to generate images is an issue that may be open to a moral discussion, but the much larger portion who are afraid of people having an affordable alternative to seek art from when their rates are so high for what they produce is not one.

See, this is the REAL problematic thinking here that has gone on for far too long, and is truly what is making actual artists afraid of AI. Artists have NEVER been valued for their work. NEVER. People have always tried to get around having to pay artists for their time and effort, often getting offered to be paid in "exposure", ridiculed that their work isn't "real labor." To this day, artists in every industry are widely underpaid and AI art is threatening to make it EVEN HARDER for artists to make an actual, livable wage.

You need to be able to put food on your table? So does the artist charging $30-$35 for a single line art of a character. Perhaps that single line art takes them an hour or two. Does getting paid $15-$30 an hour for a specialized labor really sound all that ridiculous? That's CHEAP compared to literally any other labor.

So if anyone is wondering why there is such an "overblown fear" of artists losing their livelihood to AI, it's because they never won the fight for a fair wage to begin with. Artists were getting screwed before AI came along and this is just going to make it harder.

[Chameleonette]

I'm strongly anti AI generated images as they steal art from hard working artists, please support real artists.

Let me give you an example: you charge a $30-$35 dollar flat rate for a single lineart of any character from an existing work.
Just lineart. Of a single character. A flat black and white, not even shading.
I would like to have visual references for concepts and ideas, but I also need to eat and pay bills, so I will opt for the much more affordable service that enables me the freedom of being able to do of my own accord this at the expense of being on the more generic side and requiring some trial and error to get a good image generated.

I will give that the AI pulling from a preexisting database of works to generate images is an issue that may be open to a moral discussion, but the much larger portion who are afraid of people having an affordable alternative to seek art from when their rates are so high for what they produce is not one.

See, this is the REAL problematic thinking here that has gone on for far too long, and is truly what is making actual artists afraid of AI. Artists have NEVER been valued for their work. NEVER. People have always tried to get around having to pay artists for their time and effort, often getting offered to be paid in "exposure", ridiculed that their work isn't "real labor." To this day, artists in every industry are widely underpaid and AI art is threatening to make it EVEN HARDER for artists to make an actual, livable wage.

You need to be able to put food on your table? So does the artist charging $30-$35 for a single line art of a character. Perhaps that single line art takes them an hour or two. Does getting paid $15-$30 an hour for a specialized labor really sound all that ridiculous? That's CHEAP compared to literally any other labor.

So if anyone is wondering why there is such an "overblown fear" of artists losing their livelihood to AI, it's because they never won the fight for a fair wage to begin with. Artists were getting screwed before AI came along and this is just going to make it harder.

I agree with this. This attitude taken toward artists is terrible. I don't know where they thought they were going with literally trying to shame someone for even tame prices, as if that person was not worth them. I have seen so many struggling artists over the years, getting shit for their prices even when they don't make the equivalent to minimum wage. If you want a way to get 'free art' to your specifications and not pay people to do it, I think you should just learn on your own. This idea of just wanting hand-outs fed from a machine that steals from artists to 'learn' just doesn't sit right with me. Which brings me to...

My thoughts on AI? Personally, I abhor it. The programs don't 'learn' from specifically people who gave the "OK" to be used. A lot of popular Japanese artists were targeted with it. Also, if you do a simple google search on it, even, you wind up with this: "AI has to feed on art pieces made by different people and recreate to a similar style. This has been considered art theft by many as if it were done by a person instead of a machine it could easily infringe copyright." And no, I don't consider this okay. You can find dozens of videos, artists' takes, and explanations as to how their art was taken and used. People I talk to directly have told me they feed an artists' work into the machine to create a 'similar' style. And while that person did it with the OK from the artist they used, many do not. And this cannot be controlled, which I think is a big problem and why many artists view it as one. Your art can be fed into it without consent whatsoever. There is no way to trace it beyond seeing something used that is vaguely looking like your style or infused with it. And people are RUNNING with it, thinking it's a way to get easy free art. I think many artists are completely validated in not being okay with it, because instead of being used as a 'tool' for artists, as it was intended, most people are just using it to 'make' art from other's styles and works without having to lift a finger themselves.

That's my two cents.

[Eka]

Current Ai uses artwork without permission which is unacceptable...

All current AI does this? How do you know?

Either they told us (All stable diffusion versions, all Dall-e and all Midjourney did so far). Or we found out ourselves from the leaks (NovelAI was leaked, and was found out how they got some of their styles. They used some artist's style without permission). We can see what the prompts are and whose name they are attached to through the tagging of the original data. If the original data doesn't contain their work, why are their names in the prompts?

This is the wrong question to ask though. Instead of asking the population to prove they used art without permission. The model should provide evidence that all works are used in the public domain. It is easy to do so, they just need to provide the list of their original data, and we can confirm it by retraining the model using their list and setting, and see if the same prompt will regenerate the same image with the same seed.

Just because it is obfuscated beyond reversing doesn't mean it no longer uses the original, it just hides it very well.

Why is it unacceptable?

Because the original creator said so. Whoever created the art should have the final say on how it is used. Any alteration of their wish is disrespectful at best. Stealing at worse.

Like I said previously, it's a nuanced issue, and using absolutes like this are unhelpful.

These are not absolute, these are known bare minimum. We are currently looking for the absolute, and we absolutely nowhere close to knowing the limitations.

And this cannot be controlled, which I think is a big problem and why many artists view it as one. Your art can be fed into it without consent whatsoever. There is no way to trace it beyond seeing something used that is vaguely looking like your style or infused with it. And people are RUNNING with it, thinking it's a way to get easy free art. I think many artists are completely validated in not being okay with it because instead of being used as a 'tool' for artists, as it was intended, most people are just using it to 'make' art from other's styles and works without having to lift a finger themselves.

And this is the reality of the situation. Many galleries out there are already being filled with AI art. People are claiming AI assistants as "irrelevant" and blatantly take all credit for the result as their own work despite the fact that it saved them 2/3 of the creation time.

Sure. AI has great usage, but how anyone can expect any artist to be happy with how it is currently being used is beyond me. It is currently 95% piracy. There's no better way to put it.

We had a small discussion over a year ago on this topic, I was firmly in the boat of "obtain permission". I personally love AI. My job involves AI research and we only use volunteered data. The current trend of AI in the artist's community is the wrong way to go. Understandably, they are trying to correct it but it might be too late to dampen the impact. Having people being ignorance of the subject and put more blames on artist acceptance doesn't help the problem.

[Chessa]

At the same time, I don't really understand why "AI doesn't even use the art past looking at it" is relevant. Looking at it is all it needs. Why would it need more than that? The goal post seems to be set to "Because it only needs it once it doesn't count as stealing" which is rather arbitrary. Instead of interjecting what we think "stealing" means. We should also understand why artists think it is stealing and address their concerns directly.

I think everyone needs to learn more about this, artist or not. Also, it is the life hood of artists who are impacted. Overlooking their concern isn't going to untangle the misunderstanding.

I agree with this. It'd probably be better to examine what exactly 'Theft' is to the artists upset and address it from there. However -- What I was getting at with the 'Look at' logic is that it's not wrong for human beings to look at art and take some inspiration from it, so long as humans don't plagiarize (Trace in this circumstance or wholesale copy) the art, and actually make something unique. I doubt many would even find it unacceptable even for a human to figuritively stop and write down dimensions and colors to use in their own art.

How does that differ so strongly in what's being done?

I'm not so sure it's okay to say that AI aren't allowed to learn by doing the same thing, I've seen this in the past where people would say it's okay if Humans learn in a certain way (Observing and mimicry) but it's unacceptable for AI to do so. I don't agree with that, I think if we set limits like that we are in a world of hurt in the future of AI when even the fate of our planet relies on AI, right now, due to climate cleanup efforts increasingly becoming automated and automated factories worldwide having the lowest carbon emissions.

This all said I think the best solution for everything in the artist space is probably just to make an open-art digital library or something and pull images from there, where artists could freely surrender art if they wanted to. (This also has the benefit of showing an EXTREME respect for owners of stuff which is great)

Sadly, this would still be controversial I think because it would still threaten the business of places like fur affinity, though.

[Eka]

How does that differ so strongly in what's being done?

Why does it need to be different to make a difference in their feeling? It begins to feel like you are trying to define art, and that path of thinking is not logical. Whatever art is, it isn't about logic.

This all said I think the best solution for everything in the artist space is probably just to make an open-art digital library or something and pull images from there, where artists could freely surrender art if they wanted to. (This also has the benefit of showing an EXTREME respect for owners of stuff which is great)

We already have something like this, but the open galleries are not labeled and are not vast in size. People pulled arts without permission for their AI project because they wanted a shortcut.

I think if the AI initiative started by respecting Artist's wish it would have gone very differently. It is too late to put a lid back on it.