Needless to say, this wasn't the response I was entirely expecting and I wholeheartedly stand by what is saying. The reality of it is, AI is always evolving and there will come a time where it'll be almost impossible to spot the differences between what's real and what's not. Heck, it already happens! Original sources are also hard to find even with Google Lens involved but that's also why we have the 4 difference rule in place as well, yes? To protect from any sort of potential lawsuit and other issues. I do not mean this to be snarky either but there are official item tributes on site as well and you not once considered this on your own end?

Again, we are not asking you to pay for a team as many people have proposed in the past that they'd be happy to volunteer with no money involved if it benefits the site and the quality of our experiences in the longrun. The rules definitely need an overhaul or at least clarity and revision eventually because times are changing but the adding of new rules and not looking at old ones that may imply the contrary is confusing.

I would usually bite my tongue but the attitude coming off from this response is not what I expected from a site owner at all, especially when we've been kind about our opinions. I'll probably be pulling the plug on my subscription and cutting down on CSC until I see some sort of improvement. As much as I would like to continue supporting the site the way I do, even if my decision does the opposite, I can't see myself playing as much until things are better because really I don't play anymore lol. Not blackmailing or attempting to be hostile in any front, with all of the changes and controversy wirh CWs at this time has kind of driven me away as it is. I have been paying for a subscription I do not use for the past few months in all honesty.

To clarify: I understand Subeta is more of a side project as you have other job(s) but the portion of Subeta that keeps it afloat is suffering over other things as well.

Thank you.

A clarification regarding the rules on the recent CW FAQ post, for starters?

It seems like this is getting heated. I was only stating why I didn't spend in the past few years, not actively being hostile and blackmailing, but alright. ¯(ツ)/¯ I'm quite disappointed with your response to say the least.

Im very disappointed by your response to star and to us all. People were thoughtful and respectful with their responses and they did not deserve to be treated like this. To call telling their true feelings "hostile blackmail" seems harsh and unnecessary when nobody here was being in any way shape or form that. Im so disappointed with this site and how its going after this its not even funny and will def have to take a step back now.

Thank you for providing further insights into the current site stances regarding AI generated materials. What you've said is certainly understandable. Given the firmness of these rules, and the likelihood that they will remain the same for the foreseeable future, I think having clarity on what is required to prove a reference image is not AI generated would be ideal.

For example, if a commissioner and artist are both confident a piece is not AI generated, but when submitted the reference is questioned by staff what are the next steps? If an artist doesn't know 100% can they run the image through an "AI tester"? If so, what degree of confidence is needed to ensure a reference image will not prevent a piece from being submitted?

Knowing anything AI generated or suspected to be AI generated is out as far as a reference goes, it sounds like clarity on what is and is not allowed to be submitted as a reference is needed. Questions that I know have come up are: What is required to show the image is public domain? Are images of clothing from retailers allowed as references? I'm blanking now on others that have been shared.

I can understand how some folks would think this kind of detail in rules is overkill, but it sounds like one of the best ways to improve the system would be to take common questions and use them to clarify the base rules. Not only does it create clearer expectations for the artists, but it also provides a blueprint for steps to take on both sides if there are questions or concerns about submissions (which can eliminate variations - sometimes seen as discrepancies - in the user experience as far as creating a CW).

I know you've said here that assisting with the queue is a thankless and long job that you wouldn't want to put on volunteers, and since that seems to come from a place of wanting to be fair to users I appreciate it. At the same time, it sounds like there are folks who would love to at least be permitted a trial at assisting in a volunteer capacity. And it sounds like it could be beneficial. As long as there are no legal issues involved, perhaps it can at least be given a trial run? A small group of folks who can commit a small number of hours each week? Or perhaps if you'd really like to compensate them maybe something like a certain number of "free" submissions or CW vouchers?

I appreciate the answers you've given thus far! If anything, being able to have open discussion where members of the community can safely voice concerns and share ideas, and where staff take the time to provide insights and clarity, is a wonderful thing and part of why Subeta is so adored.

Edit In catching up, I would like to add that while I understand where you are coming from with this statement:

Hi Keith! Thank you for your response. I just have a few questions because I want to make sure I'm understanding the rules right moving forward.

I believe we as CW artists were told by , the one who handles CWs, that if we submit something with an AI ref we're basically stealing? I see you see it differently and I'm just wondering if I misunderstood?

Does the second sentence mean that we can be inspired by an AI ref, but submit the CW with other refs?

Does this mean if we submit CWs with AI references you'll entertain that it's a problem? I believe we might receive warnings if we submit something an AI reference intentionally.

I guess none of our opinions or feelings will ever matter. Cool. Good to know.

Kinda hard to take you seriously when you’re misgendering your staff too… because if one of US did that we’d be in so much trouble…

Edit: this was posted BEFORE Keith edited his posts changing his constant misgendering of jessi

Apologies if things were muddled in my comment! opened with several points of discussion, not just AI generated materials as references, and the middle point regarding overall rule clarity (especially when it comes to what is and is not approved as a reference) has gotten a bit lost.

There was definitely a request for consideration regarding AI references being permitted. It sounds like for the time being at least, the clear and firm answer is "no", with the commitment to giving the benefit of the doubt to submitters and to not making harsh responses, rulings, or punishments the go-to in response to potential AI generated materials being included in references. I think this makes the other points (about references as a whole, rule clarity, and feedback challenges) even more important! Especially with the anxiety about the outcome of accidentally submitting AI generated references, which is a concern for some that is built on past experiences, being as clear as possible about the expectations is imperative. Hence the request for hammering out "improved" rules and processes.

Which leads me to ^^' - if communication is sent via the support@ address, would that go to you / Amber? If not, is there a best direct line of communication? There is some communication from a collection of voices that does not belong in the forums, and I know there was some confusion about how to best get the information to you.

(I also added an edit to my previous post that may have gone through after you had read and responded)

i am just here to 100% agree with keith on one very important point

cw queue is not a job anyone should do for free. i promise.

Thank you! I will pass those email addresses along!

I appreciate you clarifying and being willing to be flexible with this!

I also understand the annoyance regarding art being stolen; that's more than annoying. However I think using AI as a reference and/or being inspired by an AI ref isn't the same thing as stealing, like you said previously. It seems like if we provided different refs at time of submission that would be okay? Or am I misunderstanding that in the original reply?

That makes sense! Thank you again for clarifying.

Thank you for communicating this. When nothing gets said it can come across as voices being ignored, but this way everyone here knows that further discussion is happening bts and that the discussion here is still "open".

honest to goodness, we'd not have opened the various cans of worms if we didn't feel there were some important thing that needed talking about. As we stated from the start, we want this to be a reasonable discourse, and hopefully productive. I'm sure there will be some other contacts via email. There are other talking points that need to be addressed,but not here. We all appreciate your willingness to talk and figure out some things with the users. We wouldn't have started this if we didn't love this site. Thanks.

How AI image generators are trained is a hideously complex issue which will be a legal nightmare to sort out and the laws might well up varying from country to country,

Where Subeta artwork is concerned it's obviously possible to stop it from being scraped to train an image generator. What isn't possible is stopping any aspiring artist from adopting elements of the Subeta art style and incorporating it into their own style which they are developing.

There is a very famous quote by the comic book artist Jack Kirby, "If you think a man draws the type of hands that you want to draw, steal ‘em. Take those hands."

Yes, he really did say this because I spent a lot of time researching where he said it - after all, a lot of quotes are attributed to people who never said what they are commonly believed to have said.

Jack Kirby: 'It's not in the draftsmanship, it's in the man' quote "Jack Kirby, offering advice to aspiring artists during a 1970 panel with Shel Dorf at the first San Diego Golden State Comic-Con (which would later become Comic-Con International)."

I also found an interesting interview with Greg Rutkowski who is a famous living artist. Greg Rutkowski on Rethinking His Approach to Art

Quotes "I got to the point where I found myself missing the “organic” feeling in my workflow, so I started to download more and more traditional art for inspiration. I asked myself, “Why is this happening… am I tired of the artificial look of digital art?” And honestly, I’m still not sure, maybe something entirely different guided me towards this new style. Either way, there’s a ton of illustrations that you can see online and I always stop when I find something interesting in terms of artistic freedom. Brushstrokes that look like acrylic/oil, or maybe even exciting uses of colour that bring the old masters’ techniques to mind. This natural “organic” style started to become my goal, and my dream was to convince others to go down that path. To bring the joy of creation and to re-introduce the old masters as the main point of inspiration.

There are too many great artists who influenced my work at some point so it would be impossible to mention all of them, but I’ll try to name the few that come to mind! From the “old masters,” I’m hugely inspired by: Aleksander Gierymski, Jan Matejko, Jozef Chelmonski, Ilya Repin, Joaquinn Sorolla and many, many others. From the “digital masters,” I like Tyler Jacobson, John Park, Jamie Jones, Craig Mullins, Piotr Jablonski, Eytan Zana, Michael Komarck, Sergey Kolesov, Wesley Burt, Slawomir Maniak, Wangjie Li, Yizheng Ke and many others (I could easily add two or three times more).

I appreciate them mostly because they have artworks with that “organic” factor I like. Their pieces stand out from the many others and I’m always finding lots of new things that I can learn from them."

As I said in an earlier post, any laws made about how AI image generators are trained mustn't make it illegal for artists to download art images from the internet and use them for inspiration when developing new techniques. After all, human artists who do this are technically scraping the internet.

I also hope this can be revisited and discussed in a more nuanced light.

It's easy to enforce a blanket ban on AI references considering your stances, but the reality is that it's something that can't fairly be enforced as well.

AI exists, and it is now capable of imitating styles to an uncanny degree under a few years in - and the reality is it may only progress. The probability of anyone submitting one by mistake will be likely, even if they try to vet their references carefully themselves.

Soon, how will you be able to determine if an image is AI-generated or not?

I trust Jessi to conduct impartial investigations, but in this case, it'll be difficult to apply consistently. While some cases may be clear, others can appear organic and still be AI-generated.

Will one person be punished for their inability to discern between each detail in a reference, while others slide through? If this is the mentality we will have to adjust to, then it will also create a bridge between users in the small CW community, not at all conducive to bringing us together.

In summary, this rule can't be justly enforced in its current state.