Topic: [BUR] imminent_cumshot implies penis usage, right?

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

ceti said:
You can imply an imminent_cumshot without showing a dick. Example on e621: https://e621.net/posts/5603952

Okay, I see your point but I disagree: There's text of it, but you can't really see something imminent happening. Like; no AI could really understand and reproduce an image of an imminent cumshot with only images with text bubbles.

Updated

ceti

Janitor

We're not tagging for what AI can and cannot do, we simply tag what we can see, right? The context clues are enough in that image to warrant the tag I'd say, despite the lack of a dick.

ceti said:
We're not tagging for what AI can and cannot do, we simply tag what we can see, right? The context clues are enough in that image to warrant the tag I'd say, despite the lack of a dick.

True, but that's my litmus test: Can a AI learn the concept X by being feed images similar to Y.

And you say it yourself the context clues permit us to guess a cumshot is imminent: we don't see it. It could be a herm/female fapping and be a pussyjuice_shot.

[EDIT]
In fact, that image you linked would fit a tag like implied_imminent_cumshot. My feeling is that imminent_* tags are already threading the line on being too vague for TWYS, and anything *implied* should just be invalid or *_(lore) tags

Updated

ceti

Janitor

Hm, that's a good point. I guess we either have to restrict it to purely TWYS or just ax the tag family. Think this is where we wait on Jello for a decision.