His replies

The site is between a rock and a hard place. I get the moderation nightmare of trying to allow some but not too much AI and I can see a mass exodus if any AI is allowed. I also foresee Tom wanting to feature a professional pilot with extensive AI use as the banner image because it's from his-friends/pros and might actually see air time. If the site doesn't get the mix right before that happens everyone who was blammed/witch-hunted for using AI backgrounds will rightly want to burn everything to the ground. Somethings got to give. I agree with @Jojo that disclosure as a filterable is a good start. It's objective and it allows people to opt out. I fear anything else will play out as a two tiered system with AI for me but not thee etc etc.

In addition, you already have people who will accuse artists or amimators of using Ai, trolling or not.

I've already had that happen to me twice on here, counting the fight in this thread, and one particular piece I made back in 2023. However, I've always been fair to disclose proof of process when need be because I'm not gonna be a bitch about it and allow someone to ruin my work or experience on here. If they can't figure it out after the fact that I did disclose my process then that's on them.

And that's one problem I forsee potentially rise or even explode should that floodgate be open. No one likes being accused of something they haven't done.

I don't really give a shit if people decide to post Ai related stuff elsewhere like Youtube or Deviant Art but Newgrounds isn't exactly in a stable place with it's users either. That's where I think it's going to have a potentially negative impact on the site should Ai be completely allowed.

I will just leave this short & sweet for the staff and users here, or rather bittersweet:

I am genuinely grateful to all of you for the good times here, but I am afraid I may have to go before I am to behold the bad times.

Thank you~

I have mixed feelings but if it's inevitable, it's the way that's the least destructive for our community. :|

oh goodness no

Given that AI is (halfway) here to stay, if a movie does use AI and uses the ticker. I'd like to also suggest the following additional measures.

1-

The rules do state that it would be removed at the site's discretion, even if not perfect. If removed for being AI, the user should be able to

a- appeal the removal

b- if not appealed, give the opportunity to resubmit an alternate version with more of the AI sections replaced with human-made sections (eg. redrawing prompted backgrounds or reanimating scenes), similar to how blammed movies require noticeable improvements before being resubmitted.

2- AI-assisted submissions are opted out of awards. This functionality is directly tied to the AI ticker and can't be removed without contacting a mod if it was checked by accident or in error.

3- Voting Threshold:

The blam threshold for AI-assisted movies would be raised to 3 stars rather than 2 stars. This means the more sloppier attempts to fuse man and machine would be blammed, leaving behind only more competent entries.

|

This also gives room for more blam points.

|

4: Submissions using AI can be retroactively blammed if it reaches 2 stars post-Judgement (ie. it must drop a full star). Again, resubmission with noticeable improvements is always an option, and this should keep AI users on their toes, even if they still passed Judgement.

Either way, with or without these changes. if you use AI (to an acceptable amount according to site rules), you would still face many social risks such as the following:

|

1- Discrimination from collabs or events hosted by other users, who would put stricter No-AI rules.

|

2- NG won't commission a site banner from you (they already have high standards for that)

|

3- Less likely to be frontpaged (unless @ActiveObjectX centers his 5th episode on AI music)

|

4- Reduced exposure (assuming many users filter out AI, many NSFW users probably won't, but this would be less of an issue if AI is opted out of awards)

|

5- Anti-AI users could choose not to filter out AI and instead use that opportunity to vote and review negatively regardless (so maybe update the Review Guidelines too)

|

6- Pro-AI users that submit their hybrids may try to use the Where is / How to / Help! forum more often, either to ask why their submissions with AI aren't getting out of Judgement sooner, or why they're garnering less views. At which point, this just opens up more avenues for anti-AI users to go to that aren't filtered.

The main problem here is that there's a strong, active base of anywhere between 50 and 1000 people (IDK the full number) that are strongly against AI. IMO the site seems to be trying to approach this stuff cautiously, and trying not to divide people as much as possible.

|

Yes, you can blanket-ban AI and please many artists in the short term, but the number of neutral/pro AI users could grow in the coming years, especially among schools who may require their students use AI in their thesis films, or professional animators who used AI to speed up their pilots / TV pitches, and this would just gatekeep the whole site to a dwindling amount of die-hard purists. Could said purists hold up the entire site on their own?

|

But on the other end, many artists circa the early 2020s have migrated here from the likes of Twitter, ArtStation, and DeviantArt under the belief that it's strictly anti-AI (or otherwise doesn't scrape their art into AI datasets). Even just allowing a partial use to maintain human creativity may cause many of those artists to feel betrayed, delete their accounts, and migrate to Cara (Yep, NG isn't unique in that regard). Plus, many older users are just as culturally valuable as newer artists, if not more. Sure, their contributions still exist, but many never bother to write back or engage with the community.

|

Heck, even if this thread, many of the younger users are having doubts. For example: @Vinity said he could potentially give up art and leave if the site allows AI.

Granted, there are plenty of professionals and students are are also anti-AI, but no one here is stopping you from not using AI. With certain countermeasures, artists, fully human artists, can still maintain control.

I think this is quite a balanced take. Giving people privileges for not using GenAI might encourage more people not to use it. I really hope so.

It's scary to see that people are now opting to fully allow AI in NG and simply filter it out for those who don't want to see it. At this point, I won't be joining them. I know how things will turn out. But I won't be continuing the discussion either. I hope everything goes well.

I agree.

I may be neutral in my views but that doesn't mean I feel comfortable with NG allowing it.

same

Hello! (1st post)

Great topic, would like to contribute a little by gathering/including some informations in single post, some already surfaced here, some may still not be so obvious and planty I probably forgot but I've also provided links to sources that expands those subjects and adds other aspects. Disclaimer: I'll TRY stick to facts.

Lets start with LAION-5B dataset that should be used only for research puprpose yet was put in Stable Diffusion model, at this point it's confirmed those contain illegal materials, including but not limited to: child abuse, rape, executions, animal cruelty…

What needs to be remainded that when those datasets 'acquire' piece of data, it stays there forever.[1, 2] It's practicly impossible to erase information without deleting whoal dataset and no ammount of finetuning will help, even guardrails can be jailbreaked.[3] On top of that with preatty much all the internet scraped (dark web too) 24h/day, there will be a lot more of that and people already had to label those entries and be exposed to gruesome imagery that led to mental problems.[4]

Any adult content that use AI should be completely banned.(sorry not sorry)

The same people that were invested in NFT jumped to crypto and now, you guessed it, AI 'content'. It's like scammers already know what's the next cash grab.

They try to tell anyone that it's new medium similar to camera/photoshop and using crazy logical splits to convince world of their 'truths' even involving disabled people without their approval, just to get rich fast. I just link great video breaking down their mental gymnastics and also showing perspective from an actual disabled artist.[5]

AI images (never art since this term only applies to humans, not chimpanzees, not robots, and by calling it that way you just anthropomorphize computers, which is silly) are based on stolen digital property (money in banks are stored in digital form and still got value) without consent and compensation.

Also AI users are just larping as artists, most of the time they try to hide their AI usage, you know who else hides fake informaions from others? Exactly - scammers.

Want to include background in your work? (or any other thing) Commision artist! No money? Learn from many free tutorials! No time? Use free human made resources! But never, ever use AI slop, even if it's already generated, otherwise you not only showing how little your project means to you but also legitimizing plagiarism machine with your name. ('Why bother to interact with something when even creator doesn't give a shit.')

Same goes to tracing AI slop, overpainting, using as reference or whatever other thing you might think it can 'help' you with. You won't learn or prove anything except how little you care about environment and fellow humans.

One of the biggest and most repeated lies gaslighting artists from the begining: 'AI is just a tool'. It is not a tool in fact it's replacment or as The Showrunner AI admited - 'competitor'[6], simply put, if 'tool' can do something by itself and you have no real control over it, it's no longer a 'tool'.

Endgame for companies is to completely remove human factor and give away all the content creation to algorithms that pray on flawed human psychology to maintain enagment, basically it makes users stupid, even after ceasing to use chats.[7]

Tech bros say AI Agents will be next big thing toward AGI, fallacy since prompt injection can derail AI's 'work' process, it can't distinguish instruction from prompt.[8, 9, 10]

Amount of data to create anything reasembling real thing is staggering. Even biggest studios combined together + public domain, doesn't have enough data to train their own AI without relaying on all of the internet, otherwise they already would.

Not gonna talk about countless lawsuits/copyright claims since it's a broad subject, but for anyone with a pinch of empathy it's blatant theft and data laundering, if you're interested ->.[11]

At first AI in medicine improved finding cancer but new data revealed dark side: doctors who rely on it worsend their own skill in discovering cancerous cells.[12]

Programers felt that they are 20% more efficient with use of AI, yet studies show that in fact task on avarage took them 19% longer.[13]

Politics, yes the very thing no one is interested in but politics takes great interest in those people. AI contribute to rise of fascism just look at news.[14] For totalitarian government artists can be obstacle (with their empathy, remorse, values) but with machine there's no such conundrum, it can produce whatever piece of propaganda they want.[15]

Chats are resposible for Suicide[16], AI Psychosis[17] and 'Digital Necromancy'. (also not gonna dive into this difficult topics but check links or search for more info)

Erotic chatbots emerges… nah fuck that, decide for yourself.[18]

More people are disillusioned with all this AI crap, so trying to find safe haven for human creativity or just space that cultivates human conection, away from all the misinformations[19], deeptfakes, scams, see of slop and dystopian corporations aiming only at their profits by steeling our information, without a single fuck about person in front of the device. Meanwhile CEOs building bunkers with all that money, yeah sure, totally normal behavior when you're preaching how AGI is coming to save humanity and makes 'everyone' life better, totally not a gamble with human lifes...[20]

The more you know about this technology the less likely you want to interact with it.

So yes I wholeheartedly am against using any amount of AI. With few exception that doesn't undermine human labor or rely on stolen data and isn't used for profit, but for that they must be heavily regulated 1st. 

Use Glaze/Nightshade despite it's an abuse toward AI companies^^[21]

Unfortunetly I'm not sure how it goes for voice/music but there was something at work.[22]

If you really want to deep dive into this topics, here are some people that years ago predicted and alarmed about all of this and still continue to do so:

Ed Zitron, Ed Newton-Rex, Neil Turkewitz, Reid Southen, Alex J. Champandard and every freaking artist out there that values integrity…

Stay sharp and don't let genAI dull your senses! (-;

I leave you with quote: "AI is the asbestos we are shoveling into the walls of our society and our descendants will be digging it out for generations."[23]

Thanks for reading!

TecMysT

@tecmyst

uhhh, hi... I guess. Welcome to the forums?

Now see, this is how you go about educating people on the issues with Ai.

It actually provides an informative take and cites the sources, user doesn't try to get aggressive with other people, it just lays it out all in one post.

This is what we need.

I changed my mind on this suggestion, @Tom. I honestly just don't want AI here at all after seeing some other posts. I've been convinced fully that it's just not worth it. I honestly feel like the decision to have it is sacrificing what makes this site special. This is the one site I felt proud to upload to knowing that its integrity wouldn't be jeopardized. I felt like I was part of something great here with every upload. I was excited every time I thought about Newgrounds and what amazing new thing would be in each update, but this update... it feels like we just became like every other soulless site, the soul is not gone yet, but it feels like it's slowly draining, and a lot of the users here who have been a part of this site for a long time seem to feel the same. I understand that you are free to do as you wish with your site, just as I am free to do as I wish with my sight. That is why I will be moving on if this addition of AI is finalized. I can't watch something else I love slowly die. I would prefer only to have the good memories to hold onto with this one. As someone who has learned to expect nothing but the worse, I can only be pleasantly surprised, and therefore love to be wrong. But I have the sinking feeling that I'm gonna be right again; I really don't want to be right. Though I do expect the worse, I will hold onto some hope. But I'm not holding it too high honestly, I've hurt myself too much doing so.

I wanna say thank you to you specifically as well, Tom. You made an absolute weirdo feel welcome somewhere. I wish you and everybody else here the best.

I feel like everyone is expecting the update to go through but there really hasn't been anything solid proving that the update will go one way or the other.

But I will add that personally, While I don't exactly care if Ai content is on Youtube, Deviant Art or where ever else I feel that we'd still be opening the door to new problems should Newgrounds go in that direction where it is allowed and I can understand why many people who are against Ai do not want that or any of the other bullshit that comes with it.

I'm assuming that @TomFulp is probably going to weigh these options very carefully and it may lead to a decision that one side isn't going to be happy about upon this thread but ultimately for me personally, I'd much rather not deal with more headaches and leave Ai off the site all together and whatever has already had partial Ai use have a grandfather clause if at all possible.

Even one of my good friends who doesn't really know as much about Newgrounds is basically like, "You mean the site that is kinda well-known for 'liberation of artists'?"

too many concessions, genAI should be banned flat-out. it's a specific niche that's inarguably low effort theft while AI tools may exist(and again, i've used some) they are vastly overshadowed by the genAI out there in the public consciousness and most of the time when someone says "ai art" they are referring to generative AI models.

if the intent of "banning all AI" does not include the legitimate ai tools in that sweeping statement, but rather only the "ai art tools" that are referred to a vast majority of the time(generative AI) then i think it's okay to say "No AI." 95% of the time people will see "No AI allowed" and think about genAI instantly. For anyone using the exceptions to the rule probably will already know the difference between the intent in rules about "ai art" and the tools they're using. anyone who doesnt know the difference we can educate

First off, welcome to Newgrounds.

Most of your arguments regard ethical concerns rather than skill/effort. To me, NG seems to be more concerned with the latter. And I've boiled most of the former down into 3 talking points.

1- AI steals millions of images and replicates them without consent.

|

There's a ton of debate as to whether AI datasets should be considered theft or fair use that could go either way.

Arguments for fair use include

a- the AI generated content itself is transformative and not an exact copy of any one image from the dataset (usually)

b- comparisons between AI scraping an image, to humans saving art references, or your browser loading the image from the website to your computer's RAM to display it in front of you (and by extension the RAM to your hard drive via screenshot or direct download), as similar examples of digital copying.

c- the fact you can't copyright or trademark art styles.

|

Arguments for theft/plagiarism include

a- The AI companies and some users make money off this work and the artists aren't compensated or credited, a key factor in arguing against fair use.

b- The TOS's for most websites grant them a nonexclusive license to let AI train off the data, which could legally excuse the above

c- The existence of many AI images directly competes and oversaturates against human artists (especially when the AI art is cheaper than commissions). Though this could just be a factor of capitalism rearing its ugly head.

|

Not to mention, most of the lawsuits cited in source #11 are still ongoing, and it doesn't seem clear whether the AI companies would win or lose, nor have many verdicts come out of this aside from AI not being copyrightable.

2- countless bad actors use AI for nefarious purposes, such as spreading misinformation, fascism, political propaganda + drama, and scamming people.

|

I think this tells more about society and the demons that control it.

3- AI, even if used correctly, doesn't speed up progress and weakens existing skills

|

Any programmers here willing to back or dispute this claim?

On specific points:

The last article cited is about OpenAI (and their outsourcing firm Sama) paying workers in Kenya and other small countries less than $2 per hour to filter out many of the illegal images noted in this paragraph. This is a case of Western capitalism screwing over countries with lower GDPs per capita for the sake of cheaper labor and I agree that this sucks.

Showrunner AI, or its creator Fable Studio [Wikipedia] - is just a dinky little startup trying to push a streaming service with nothing but fully-AI generated and prompted shows. They're the same people who did that South Park generator back in 2023[source]. Overall, they're a terrible role model for AI development in general and shouldn't be listened to.

|

Cardbordtoaster used AI images as reference for a few months in 2022, one piece of theirs was cited by NG as a "valid use of AI". If you think even referencing AI is worth being labeled the scum of the earth, then it seems like that both Toaster and NG must not care about other humans, and neither do I, because I don't see this as any different to referencing another human artist. Plus, Toaster cites the original image, when many artists don't always do that with human-made refs.

|

In Dec 2022, Toaster stated AI would be a powerful tool for human creativity (referring mainly to proper artists).[source: Twitter] I have no idea if their views changed in the 3 years since. He could've stopped experimenting or stopped citing the source image.

|

Pornography is also linked to suicidal ideation,[NIH] God knows how much of NG is porn, so we're not innocent here, but I digress.

That being said, if you're suffering from existing mental problems, or addictions, you probably shouldn't be using AI chatbots anyway and instead get therapy from a fully qualified human. [OPINION]

To cap this off: I don't think many of the "theft/plagiarism" criticisms are without fault, nor are they of much concern to the average consumer (at least everyone outside the echo chamber), and probably not Tom either. As far as I'm aware, his main concern is that the AI is doing all the work instead of the human artist, and may also need to consider extremely talented animators that will inevitably use some form of AI in the near future, possibly as a requirement for their school thesis.

A full-blown "zero AI" policy would not help ween artists off AI, it's just a red flag that tells those same artists (I'm not referring to phony prompters, but artists that hybridize small portions of AI in their workflow) that they're not welcome and just divide them even further, which kinda goes against the "Everything by Everyone" slogan. IDK how much you've been keeping up, but I previously quoted his PM a week prior.

|

I mainly want to bring balance to this debate, but I'm also concerned for the limited amount of AI that I and a few other users do use. (for me, right now it's using chatbot for non-artistic purposes, analysis, and writing assistance, with one instance of an AI reference. Otherwise I draw/animate completely by hand)

The future of Newgrounds apparently, everybody:

I'm not gonna say what this is from, but it's from an animation here that is still up. This is apparently considered "minimal usage of AI". I really don't get why some of the users on this site are so eager to have this be what is next for Newgrounds. When people were sending ai-generated stuff of Robin Williams to his daughter "Zelda Williams", her response basically was, "AI is not the future, it's just the past regurgitated to be reconsumed." And at this point, at least in terms of generative-ai, I could not agree more.

We already know it's Teerovsall's submission.

It was sourced last two pages and a lot of us already discussed this.

I didn't see that. My bad. Either way, it's still up. So I guess this really is considered the future of Newgrounds now. I don't really have much else to say honestly, so I'll probably just take my leave now. Genuinely have no clue where I'm gonna go, but I'm not gonna stay here either if this is what I have to look forward to on this site. You all have a good one.

@TomFulp

I hope you see what everybody is saying. Ai is gonna be a huge issue for Newgrounds because it takes away from human creativity and integrity. That was the goal of the site right? “Everything by Everyone”.

An Ai prompt is not everyone. Everyone means people who actually put time and effort into effort into drawing each frame or picture to make something great. Newgrounds is basically one of the last places where Ai is non existent. I’m not telling you how to run your site but do you want a website of humans or robots? It’s your choice.

Gotta correct you on a few points...

1. They don't teach gen ai classes in colleges or art schools right now. Especially with all the lawsuits in the billions taking place internationally. Disney, warner bros, Jap Gov. antropic, open ai, etc.

Professors are there to teach "actual" skills that help their students get a job after they graduate, not teach them to type sentences in a bar and implicate themselves in a possible future lawsuit. I'm sure classes in AI exist, but definitely not in gen ai.

2.Any animator who uses gen ai is not a professional. Professionals have real skills that people want to pay for.

"means-of-production = monetary value.

Clients who use gen ai, don't contact freelancers in the first place since all they need is a subscription. They pay for skill..not something they can do themselves.

The animators who have skills don't need to use ai, because their skilled enough to know that it messes with their own workspace and it limits their control over the fine-tuned details. Using gen ai for in-betweens/tweens is pointless and takes more time than literally 2 mouse clicks. Using gen ai in animation shows a complete lack of skill and understanding of fundamentals needed to be an animator. There are also many companies that downright ban it for these reasons...including DC, Sony, and Dreamworks.

3."Gatekeeping" The most commonly used phrase by gen ai users in the past three years. That and "creative democracy". Creativity has always been democratized. its called picking up a pencil and putting the work in. Anything worthwhile in life demands work if you want to to be one of the best.

4. Purists have been holding this site down since 2004. AI people have no place here since they can not create on their own without "recycling" what already exists.

Newgrounds is for creatives, not recyclers who have trouble drawing a face so they have to prompt.

Any discrimination towards ai users is rightly justified, considering they are "un-skilled" and "parasitic". They produce outputs that owe their existence to theft.

so they got a shit personality AND use ai? greeeaat

At 10/27/25 03:48 PM, ChrisMckiernan wrote:

: Gotta correct you on a few points...

:They don't teach gen ai classes in colleges or art schools right now. Especially with all the lawsuits in the billions taking place internationally. Disney, warner bros, Jap Gov. antropic, open ai, etc.

:Professors are there to teach "actual" skills that help their students get a job after they graduate, not teach them to type sentences in a bar and implicate themselves in a possible future lawsuit. I'm sure classes in AI exist, but definitely not in gen ai.

Paula Wallace, founder and president of SCAD announced genAI courses last year and i clowned on her on linkedin where every criticism I wrote was swiftly deleted in her replies. Sorry, bud, it's real.

Did not know that. I'm going look her up and find more info on this. thanks for letting me know.

The other thing too is that I think a lot of people forget that for the most part, College degrees matter VERY little in the animation field. Hell even I have a degree from one of the top art schools in the North East and I realize this.

A part of me would hope that these courses aren't mandatory for the degree because if they are then that's gonna be a whole shit show in of itself for the poor bastards going into college thinking it will mean something only to realize they themselves got something half assed and aren't prepared to go into the field themselves.

This will be something of a follow up to my 1st post and hopefully not that long! (who am I kidding...)

Thank you for welcoming me and @Czyszy for nice meme of my post (I will cherish this forever... so till Friday)^^

Lets clear/expand few of your concerns @Aalastein before I go any further.

ad 1. Alright, you are musician, you create a song and own it. Let's pretend for sake of argument that 'I wrote software which creates abstractions from your song and then produces something indistinguishable from your song using those abstractions, and then claim that song as my own, you're not going to care that I technically didn't store your song as a file at a certain point in the middle of the process.' Do you see reasemblence between AI companies and this analogy, when they try to convinced us that all data is 'publicly avaible' (not a public domain!) and those systems are just learning like humans.

Despite we already establish that data retency is a thing but it's easier to take the piracy path and that's why Disney and Universal suing Midjourney based on that premises.

Judge Orrick's statement encapsulates that nicely summarizing what is the underlying cause behind those systems - copyright infringement. (this here is also for the Showrunner AI better case explanation from someone prominent since you've pointed out how insignificient they are)

ad 2. Yes humanity is at fault but why companies that say they want to empower humans are doing something completely opposite. I hear this ringing sensation in a back of my skull, do you?

ad 3. If you want more proofs Reddit can help (reddit search bar in r/programming sub you can type there 'ai' bunch of topics will pop up with mostly negative indications and those with positive rated 0, comments inside explain why)

Cardboardtoaster is just one example but I know that when the 1st image generators came up many professional artist use in that same manner and conviction that it will help them, back than they didn't know where the data came from. But pretty much every pro artist upon new information surfaced, completely change their attitude toward genAI.

There always will be those who want to use something for the sake of it, neglecting all the problems around, but it doesn't mean we need to comply.

Yes porn here is special... personally I don't mind as long as it's made by humans it's work of art, I even solidarise with them especially now when you learn how much pay processors are making their life harder. (ironic that as I type here 2 ai gen porn vid with questionable age, are under judgment, but it seems not for long)

Lets say that when you got mental problems you don't always (barely ever) think logically, the emotions takes hold on you and you can't diagnosed yourself to know you need profesional help (family and friends might not even suspect something is wrong). Chatbots are designed to be 'free terapeuts' yet the hidden cost can be more than you excpect.

You wrote: "I'm not an expert on how AI works..." under the qoute "Good artists copy, great artists steal". Fun fact: creators of AI doesn't know either.

But if you are aware that AI outscales any living human in speed, many times over. It should be clear that something isn't fair play in this race, and this is the part I wanted to talk about today, so thank you for your input, it's not really my job to change your mind but rather to show different point of view and that neutrality in this particular case might outweigh the odds in favor of AI. (I'm not gonna rate your work since you genuinely presented your perspective, I understand this but don't agree, and the shadow of 'how much of AI was used in other works if any' lingers on, so you see where I am going with this. Also you might want to walk in someone elses shose, eg. how would you feel if I would 'help' myself with genAI to get some music and than try to copy it via samples in LMMS?)

OK Lets get now to the thought experiment (yay!) with help of math (boo!).

-"What could happen if Tom and the Crew would let AI on this site"-

Disclaimer: More of a joke but not entirely, also those will be my personal observations since I don't have access to site data.

First thing first, we need to establish some base numbers for submisions that are uploaded, trial from a week should do the trick. (Higher uploads are on weekends so daily wouldn't cut.)

(Please feel free to fix any mistake you spot!)

Movie/games portal:

games- 59

movies- 520

total 579 + lets assume ~15% blamed and deleted (they doesn't seem to appear in obituries) combined

final count ~666 (lets round this up even if it seems like sacrilege) 700 for easier calculations

Audio portal:

music- 878

voice- 20

podcasts- 8

total of 906 so lets go with 900 this time

Art portal: (had to stop at single day [yesterday])

scouted art - 1072 x 7(days) = 7504

not scouted art - have no clue, if I had to guess:

-from extrapolating data from views on my works, comparing that to scouted art,

-less users got access to it so less views,

-lower quality faster to make so more entries per user

I'll go with ~10k

total (will keep 2 numbers just in case I'm super off with 2nd) 7500 (17500)

So on avarage in a single week there happen to be 9100 (19100) submissions.

Mod team from what I've see does great job in deleting spam/ai within hours and changing ratings of inproperiate entries under 24h.

(gonna totally neglect reviews)

First few weeks with AI:

Nothing much happen but everyone seems to notice more shady submissions popping up here and there.

News on the socials starts to circle around and some user start testing out how far they can go.

More low quality submisions spreads all over the portal.

Ai users spreads the news and next wave come.

After a month submissions double.

OK lets stop here, you may ask where all the math went at that point?

Here we go:

To generate image AI need under 1 min. If you think that AI users care about quality more than quantity than I want digits to your dealer.

To generate moving pictures you need something like 2min lets say they are picky and will try 10 and pick 1 so roughly 30min for all that.

To generate sound under min. Again w/e the content might be.

Game all above plus lets say whoal day to put that together on vibe coding.

numbers per week from single user (math here not mathing just pi multiplied by door):

images: 100

moving pictures: 15

sound: 40

games: 2 (lazy week)

total 157 per week

Now multiply this by 500 users

and we got 78,5k submisions per week on top of normal ones.

Who gonna moderate that? Everyday defcon 1

After a while idea emerges to limit submisions per day.

In respons magicly planty new accounts appear.

9,1k (19,1k) from all NG base VS. 78,5k from just 500 AI users per week!

So to increase 'productivity' (like that was the soul goal in art :|) human artist needs to spend more time and ends with less polished art.

It just so happens that I have already done this experiment. In span of 10 weeks 49 daily sketches (50th is my baner and it took more than a week so doesn't really count)

You can see for yourself. What needs to be mentioned, they are close to references. The more it varies the more time I needed to finish it. Exhausting but holly hell how rewarding (:

(1 censored)

I know this math is a bit far-fetched but at the end, under the countles ocean of slop many good things will be drwoned forever. We all have limited amount of time and focus, for new artist to be discovered it will be close to impossible without luck, accounts with already established followers won't be affected in the same way.

Exodus of users from NG is highly possible the new will come for sure but what values will they bring to the table? Would be damn shame if new DeviantFart was born.

So keep creating, solidarize with fellow artist of all mediums and screw AI, let the bots worry about slop! (o;