Something that I have noticed is that the new hard rules on AI artifacts may accidently lead to more images that directly copy existing artists' styles, as these models and loras would be so focused that they'd be less likely to produce artifacts.

These rules also may reduce the number of budding directors who haven't had the chance to use an image editing program before but who have starting making interesting generations not using artists names as prompts or loras trained on them.

So if this were the case, e6ai would become full of copy-cat images which 1: isn't good for existing artists 2: fills the site with the same stuff and 3: can look really bad for e6ai's public image.

-

Solutions to this could be:
1. Be a little more relaxed on the rules. Perhaps the rules could state that an image doesn't meet quality standards if the artifacts detract from the central point of the image (like sex organs being mangled, or messed up eyes that are large in-frame)
2. An image should require several (2-5) of these artifacts to not meet quality standards (eyes + hands + etc.)

On top of this, I think the rules should include a clause that older images should not be deleted for these reasons as this is partially acts as an archive of both technological and personal advancement of directors. (imagine sketches from an artist from 2009 being deleted on e6 because of a modern rule update) - Was informed that this isn't the case, thought it was due to other forum posts and recent deletes.

Edit:
Spoke to Jelloponies about this and was informed that the rules I'm talking about with anatomical anomalies is due to the baseline for judgement for AI images as compared to traditional art is considerably higher since barrier to entry is lower. I still hold an opinion that because of e6ai taking the responsibility of being the main critique for gens with only 1 anomaly, that this may discourage newer/uneducated directors from entering or continuing to participate in the scene.

Obviously people sharing their images, and who want to improve them, should care about any errors in them, but it's unclear to me if that feedback should come from the community (like e621) or e6ai's staff as it is. Again will this cause more people to rely on artists' styles? I'm not sure, but my hope is that 1: people learn how to edit images and gain that scrutinizing eye for their gens, and 2: tech improves where explicit artist's names and styles don't have to be leveraged for better images.

shuffur said:
[...]

On top of this, I think the rules should include a clause that older images should not be deleted for these reasons as this is partially acts as an archive of both technological and personal advancement of directors. (imagine sketches from an artist from 2009 being deleted on e6 because of a modern rule update)

The new rules don't apply to old posts anyway. There are thousands of images still on the site that would be rejected today.

Considering how much the genning tech advanced compared to last year, I'd say artifacts and deformations will be a thing of the past within next year without resorting to specific styles like you say

Yeah, the newer models are promising. It’s rather rare that flux creates broken hands. While it’s still struggling a bit with furry, it’s getting better. And next year we might even get a better model than flux...

But that doesn’t mean “AI slop” will be a thing of the past. There are still people that run SD1.5, because they don’t have the hardware for newer models. An of course there is also the “free online generator” fraction...

And for the artist style thing: It is already possible to create high quality images without resemblance to any artist style: Use a realistic model, it won’t need any artist tags, because it only tries to resemble reality and no artist has copyright on reality.
If you don’t want that however your gens will always have some similarity to artist styles if you use tags for them or not. Because if you want a watercolor image, you need to train a model on watercolor images. And these images were drawn by certain artists. The result will always resemble their works to some degree.
That will never change, no matter how much gen AI advances.

silvicultor said:
If you don’t want that however your gens will always have some similarity to artist styles if you use tags for them or not. Because if you want a watercolor image, you need to train a model on watercolor images. And these images were drawn by certain artists. The result will always resemble their works to some degree.
That will never change, no matter how much gen AI advances.

There are millions of people drawing digital. You can't realistically resemble any of them unless you're prompting for it, or prompt for some very specific image (e.g. bloodborne guy from behind).

ayokeito said:
There are millions of people drawing digital. You can't realistically resemble any of them unless you're prompting for it, or prompt for some very specific image (e.g. bloodborne guy from behind).

But that doesn’t mean there are millions of unique styles. Many artists digital and traditional try to copy styles of others to some extent. It has always been like that. Young artists learn from the “old masters”.
It might be disturbing to realize this, but what humans do is not so different from what gen AI does: They learn by copying and then mostly reproduce something that’s similar but not identical. I know nobody wants to hear that because humans want to believe they are something special. But maybe we aren’t that special after all?!
That someone creates something really creative and unique is extremely rare.

What’s the average furry commission?
Something like: Draw my OC standing on the beach wearing a bikini. 1girl, standing is not actually an AI thing… Don’t get me wrong I don’t condemn it, I’m guilty of this myself!

But the works of mediocre artists and the outputs of gen AI will always resemble these very few “masters”.

silvicultor said:
But that doesn’t mean there are millions of unique styles.

This is actually a great argument on why you shouldn't even care if you've "stolen" someone's style.

silvicultor said:
The new rules don't apply to old posts anyway. There are thousands of images still on the site that would be rejected today.

They absolutely do. They can go back and delete old pics if they find they don’t meet the new quality standards.

dragonranger said:
They absolutely do. They can go back and delete old pics if they find they don’t meet the new quality standards.

They could do it, a janitor or moderator has the right to do it. But they won't.
Old posts are "grandfathered content" at least if it comes to the quality standards, they will stay. (Source: Asked janitor on Discord)
If we are talking about old cub posts however it's a different matter.