This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This... varies pretty heavily by area and focus. The Furry Diffusion discord has some anti-spamming measures and a general ethos focused toward quality, and as a result it's able to keep the 'floor' pretty high and higher-upvoted images are generally pretty high-quality too. They're not all good, and even the greats aren't perfect, but the degree of intentionality that can be brought forward is far greater than most people expect.
That depends on both moderation that may scale in the face of a genuinely infinite slop machine and relatively low stakes (and, frankly, monomania), but it's at least pointing to ways AI creators can operate outside of full spam mode.
Not being an art expert, I can’t judge those images too deeply. One thing that stands out to me though is how compositionally simple those examples are. They seem to all consist of one character in the foreground and then some kind of dramatic stylistic background. My own experiences with AI image generation is that it’s very difficult to get the prompt engine to orchestrate more than just one or two characters, so that this sort of simple approach seems like it is probably the best that current AI is capable of. To me, it doesn’t seem like a rich tool for self expression.
That's fair. There are some models that allow more specific control prompt-only of multicharacter composition, like Whisk, Nano Banana, and Qwen, but they have tradeoffs and tend to give 'worse' output quality if used as the only or final part of a workflow. In-painting can give phenomenal amounts of control for very complex character layouts (or background layouts), but at the cost of a lot of tedious work (cw: 9mb video file). There's been similar efforts using related technologies for comics, loresheets, game environments, and ultra-complex characters (in the furry fandom, usually things like cyborgs and complex hybrids).
Which does give more space for self-expression, but it's not going to have the volume to be visible in a DeviantArt firehose view.
This is actually a very heartening video! It shows that you can make a complex scene that doesn't have this PonyXL house style. How do AI artists deal with preserving character details from image to image? It seems to me this is even more important for furry art (various fur patterns must be harder to reproduce correctly than "black hair, pixie cut").
I think by and large they are terrible at it and don't. There are a few different techniques that claim to achieve this, but as someone who follows this closely it's all still fairly bad. By far one of the biggest remaining hurdles of mass commercial use.
Matching Eye colour hair colour, clothes etc are doable with stuff like retraining the model, a reference or prompting with a well known actor/figure
God forbid you try to recreate a character that passes the filter of someone who's not faceblind
Want to bet? I’ll wager up to US $500 that I can produce a 30 second video with a consistent, recognizable character using Veo (either Flow interface or API, your choice). Max Veo length is 8 seconds so that’s keeping consistency across 4 generations. We can do cuts to scenes within one gen if you want.
Want to agree on details? This offer is open to anyone.
The bar for me is not that it's recognizably consistent. It's actual consistence. For something like this to cross the commercial viability threshold stuff needs to stay on model.
The character needs to stay consistent in different lighting conditions, angles and FOVs.
Finally it needs to be able to handle unique appearences, not average pretty faces and clothes.
The issue isn't that it's impossible to make a video of a character from an image be consistent with that image. Although in my opinion we're still not there. The difficulty arrises from the fact that such a video will inevitably have to conjure up new details in the process. Keeping the newly created information consistent with the next generated clip gets exponentially harder with each new clip and required context. Similar to how LLMs fail if the context is long enough.
I doubt you can make something like bill gates wearing tiger face paint and a floppy sleeping cap from a flat front shot, to an over the shoulder partial view, to a side view without messing up the direction of the flop of the cap or the position/amount of tiger stripes in the make-up.
Not going to bet money on it because I'm sure with enough tries it's doable, I'm just illustrating a point that the amount of stripes and flops or whatever is essentially the same as subtle facial features like the angle of the jaw or the tilt of the eyes.
The technology is fundamentally just not designed for this sort of thing. There's tons of workarounds and it will still be very impactful, you can work within the constraint to achieve amazing stuff, but the constraints are still there.
Bruh, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Elaborate, or refrain from comments that are nothing more than "Nuh uh!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link