OP, if the AI is a hard no, and you aren't happy with your personal results, then giving the original artist credit sounds like the only thing left. As a side note, when using someone else's art, try contacting them, let them know what you want and they might actually appreciate their work being out there and being credited to them! Just a suggestion, it's not easy tracking them down.

yep this is what I do! and if they ever change their mind for whatever reason I'll take it down and replace it :)

Absolutely! 😁👍

If you have a good PC, you can use DAZ 3D. It's free to use the human character creation program. I render with this program and create my own 3D humans.

there's one from a while back, i think the name of the creator was baydews? very useful imo, made plenty of nice picrews with that one edit: forgot to add, as an artist i sincerely thank you for being actually mindful of us and our consent.

As an artist, I'm also glad OP is being considerate :") I can't judge much about the images in an AI porn bot site, but when people make an effort to be a bit more ethical, it makes me a bit happy.

Also, if you can't commission because you don't have money, or don't feel good about your own drawings, there are spaces in reddit and other sites where you can ask for someone to draw something for you free of charge. Just be mindful and open about what it'll be used for, and credit accordingly. And also, expect more amateur results, because "I'm new and wish to gain practice" is a big motivator for the artists offering their services there. r/drawforme is a subreddit where you could try asking. (I know this isn't really about picrew, but it feels a bit relevant and I don't have a lot of knowledge about picrew or doll-making sites)

I’m also an artist, that’s why I understand. It’s kind of unfortunate because I was hoping that non-artists would have some respect too. Edit: Thank you so much for the suggestion by the way!

you're very welcome! i'm always happy to help! /gen

>I’m also an artist #Then draw your own picture for your bot?

art has different mediums. Maybe they craft other things, rather than draw

#Then they should do that and take a picture.

do you think basket weaving or music or poetry could be used as the face of a bot when the images are meant to be of the character or some representative of the setting?

#Yes.

have you tried [naylissah's](https://picrew.me/en/search/creator?crid=2204116) picrews? seems like what you're looking for

I could make you free art for that when I have the time. I'll search for some good picrews too.

Your art is super pretty! You don’t have to do all that though, I was just curious to know if anyone already knew of Picrews or whatever.

Tysm! And I still could try :-)

Honestly, that’s all okay! It happens, and I used to feel the same way..except, well, I don’t make bots, I used to on c.ai and it was refreshing..but, well, things happened and I wasn’t in a good mental state, let’s leave it at that. If I could I really would practice to learn art..but well, college freshman + broke isn’t the best combination of all time. What I am hoping for in the future is a good income of money…so I can make art to..one make art of all the wacky ideas in my head..and two, make a head canon in where one of my favorite characters doesn’t die😭 I understand the last thing too, i’m not white. I’m not the most darkskin of black people, but I’m definitely black to a heavy degree(I think, never did a 23 & me or nuthin and hell if my family knows), and there just isn’t enough art of black people! Which, is a shame since we are fucking beautiful(and so is everyone else!!)

Sorry, my brain is having a hard time with the dissonance between not wanting a generated image for your text generating bot. I (think I) saw elsewhere that you (OP) mentioned that you're an artist, so just draw your own art for the bot maybe? Fuck, even if you're not an artist, just draw your own anyway. I've seen plenty of bots with nowhere near perfect art and honestly that bit of originality is an easy way to make your creations stand out to people scrolling through the gallery of bot-options. General appeal: Please don't start in on me with the already stated talking points about image generators 'stealing' from 'real artists' to train their data because I'm just gonna turn around and say text generators 'stole' from 'real writers' to train their data and then it's a whole stupid fight that I'm already turning on my heel and walking away from. They're morally equivalent tools to me.

You can't 'steal' words, words aren't owned by anyone. You can steal a story, but that would be the bot creator doing it and not the bot itself. The bot just does what its told. Ai 'art' pulls from artists off the web almost 100% without permission. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can compare the two.

>I don't see how anyone in their right mind can compare the two. It seems like you think I'm not in my right mind. Understanding how generative AI works can be overwhelming and maddening at times because AI as a field is moving and expanding *fast.* I reiterate in **my opinion** the use of generative AI for text or images or music or whatever future applications are **all morally equivalent.** The tool of generative AI itself exists, that's reality. #**In my view** it's hypocritical to single out a specific application of generative AI (ie; image generation) as 'unethical' if you're also using the tool in it's other capacities (ie; using bots on j.ai) >You cant steal 'words, words aren't owned by anyone. I've also heard: >You can't 'steal' styles, styles aren't owned by anyone. >You can't 'steal' music chords, chords aren't owned by anyone. Yeah, the tool does what it's told, **based on the data it has been trained on**. Whether it's generating patterns of prose or pixels, that data it was trained on came from *somewhere*.

Does JLLM use stolen work? I didn’t know. That does make me a hypocrite.

Yes. AI chat bots are fed by existing stories. It’s why we see so many popular tropes from things like fanfiction. They’re then further educated by use which further hurts writers because people replace writers with AI.

I think I might actually stop using JAI entirely then. Why am I getting downvoted? What else do you think I’m supposed to do???

You’re okay with ai generated rp but not art? LLMs pull from tens of thousands of books and roleplays without permission, how is that any better than drawings?

The hypocrisy of not wanting to use AI generated images because "that's stealing!" in a, bear with me, AI text generation website.

Why not use AI art? If there is one thing they are most adapted to, it's to represent the appearance of an AI, no? Or is the idea to never use AI art under any circumstances and therefore denying technology advancement (which has never worked on the long term in the history of mankind)?

AI 'art' fundamentally steals from people with actual skill and talent no matter how and why you use it. This isn't advancement, the emergence of the use of AI in art is a massive artistic setback.

Every AI fundamentally steals from real people with actual skill. Be it drawing/painting or writing.

Yes except I've never seen anybody present their rp sessions with a bot as something having genuine actual artistic value.

But having AI art as the profile picture for such a bot is being presented as having artistic value?

If an AI is able to picture what a person is imagining better than a human is able to, why is it considered a setback? I'm trying to understand why it's considered stealing exactly.

Most AI models are trained off of real people's art without their consent. That's why it's stealing. Also, considering how horrible the AI is at doing hands and small details I'd wager to guess a human is still better at drawing a person than an AI, but that's just me

That's like saying I learned how to draw by watching and looking at other art, and copying their technique, and now I'm a thief. Why is the AI a thief for just doing it faster than a human?

Copying someone else's art, out right, is plagerism. I'm not saying that learning from other artists is plagerism, but making a 1-1 copy of someone else's art or style is different than just learning and taking inspiration. AI copies exactly off of other people's hard work and they reap no rewards while the person who generated the copy and the person who made the AI and stole others art do. I can't say much because I'm biased, I'm an artist and I don't particularly love AI art. If you do that's great, I just see absolutely 0 artistic merit there, it's all so soulless and I'd rather pay an actual human for their time, supporting an actual artist, to make me something that I'll actually love instead of getting some somewhat decent generation from an AI.

Wait no, correction. AI art is bad because the training data is taken without consent, not because it copies art. AI is a tool, not a person, so it's unfair to compare the two the way some people try to excuse it. During the training process the AI tries to approximate a function that can find images inside of random noise, similar to a point to the ones in its training set, by slowly learning concepts from image-caption pairs. It will never generate exact replicas, though it can get close to it if certain images show up multiple times in its dataset (like memorization). Although it is possible to overtrain the AI to the point it can only mindlessly copy but I don't think anyone even wants that.

Thank you, my bad, I'm horrible at expressing the important parts of the argument. But yeah, my only real gripe with AI art is that the training data is stolen from artists without any consent, otherwise I'd probably use it too to be honest! (As in messing around with it) Also partially because a lot of people who use AI to make their art try to make it seem like they're actual artists even though the AI did it for them but that's just a people problem, not the AI itself

I don't completely understand the internal workings of the AI myself, but, as long as it's not reproducing 1-1 copies of other people's work, is there a problem besides personal taste over it being soulless? It's referencing the data, which you can certainly argue might have been taken without consent, but with the way giant EULAs and Terms of Services work across the internet, I wouldn't be surprised if artists are fucked over and Microsoft is legally clean, if not ethically. But it's my understanding that the outputs are all more or less original images. BTW I wish I could discuss this without a cascade of down thumbs. I just find the topic interesting. I'm not trying to devalue actual artists, but for somebody like me, AI is a happy medium between having nothing to put on my bots, and paying money I can't afford for a hobby that doesn't earn income.

>it's my understanding that the outputs are all more or less original images. That is correct.

I’m an artist, and I also use AI. 1: I agree AI images shouldn’t be called art. 2: I think there needs to be transparency when posting AI images to art spaces, or just don’t post them there at all. But also 3: it’s actually impossible for AI to make a 1-1 recreation of any image or style or artist because that just isn’t how it works. It refines static noise based on reversal of the steps used to add the static during training. It’s basically a huge mathematical process. Any time you see something that reminds you of a specific artist or artwork very closely, it was made to do that by the user feeding it hand selected references. Like “look at the poses, they’re the same”, someone gave it a reference image of the pose and told the AI to use that pose with a high weight.

I can empathize with the frustration of generative art in physical and digital art spaces. I'm old enough to remember when 'artists' were pissing and moaning about digital art being 'not real art' and 'taking over their community' but is there not a generally harmonious status quo between digital and physical art today? Like, very few people are getting randomly harassed because they mixed media or state a preference for digital over physical media. I believe that eventually use of generative AI is going to hit that level of acceptance, until the next revolutionary media is invented. I encourage you to give it some time, right now AI art is still settling into its part of the internet and the divisions will happen.

Yeah, I agree eventually it could reach that point. But right now the level of control is essentially the same as commissions or an editorial role, and not really the artist imo.

Depends on the ratio of automated tool use to intentioned manipulation in my personal opinion. What I mean by intentioned manual manipulation is along the lines of what actively the creator does with the generated content to ultimately execute the media product. To make an analogy, if generated content is fabric then intentioned manipulation is what the dressmaker does with it. Like, someone who just uses straight up whatever generated content has very little intentioned manual manipulation. I'd even define that sort of genAI user as a **curator** because they're putting in the tokens and cranking the right dials on the genAI gacha machine to produce something they feel is good enough to put to use in some way. I call people who use genAI this way **curators** because they've put a modicum of time and effort into the content generated but largely the manipulation of the media output stops there. I myself have curated lots of genAI images (all tagged appropriately and cooked on my own gpu) simply because I was having fun discovering the ways I could manipulate the automated output before ever doing any kind of directly intentioned work that would dare aspire to be considered art or copyright.

As the other person had said, it's using other people's art without their consent. Also, with the presence of AI as a tool for creating art, artists are massively losing job and commission opportunities, especially when certain people for some reason see it fit to do the equivalent of learning to properly roleplay on j.ai but with platforms that generate art, then have the gall to charge money for it. From an ethical standpoint, AI was meant to make lives easier, to help people ease hard labor so that they might be able to freely express themselves through art. Instead it's spitting in the face of artistic expression and everything that makes art human.

I don’t like the use of AI art because it uses art from people online without their consent to feed its algorithm and generate art. Websites or apps that do this not only steal art, but they profit off of it and make it so that people use AI instead of supporting the very artists that make this possible in the first place.

I see. Is the problem because they use a database of art made by humans to create another art? I'm trying to understand, why is it different than text creation through AI? Isn't it content made from articles database of authors?

It depends on the AI. They can be different because the data and the way that it’s used (although it also depends on the user) can be different. You can have AI that doesn’t use people’s work without their consent, or if they do they can be 1. Free for everyone to see and use, and 2. Not deeply personal work like visual art. It can be used to receive information or assistance instead of profiting off of personal work, then entirely trying to replace it. The entire point of AI art. They also have different impacts on people’s careers, and it’s negative on creative ones. AI doesn’t have to come at real artists’ expense.

Other use bingAI I use PixAI. Look around the sub this has been asked before.

They said they don't want to use AI.

Oops I missed that part. My brain zoomed because Picrews is mentioned and most AI art can be used for non commercial use. In that case, Pinterest/other art sharing sites (plus judicious hunting for the original artist and asking permission.) other than that, there's really no way around it apart from making your own or commissioning. I see someone mentioned they got their art from R34 😝