So... I couldn't help noticing there's this one "director" who seems to upload every gen they make without fixing VERY obvious errors (or any errors at all).
In half their (numerous...) posts there are third arms, missing arms, completely misplaced "entries", legs that turn into tails, lots of missing torsos, misplaced tails, deformed hands, hands with 6 fingers, double ears, missing ears, held items that are totally off, regional prompt errors...
There's even a wing placed as a tail while the actual tail is all over the place, and siamese twins sharing the same penis among their creations, which are all low-res and never upscaled. Not that low-res is inherently bad - it just shows how much effort is put into these posts overall - basically none.

Why do all these posts get approved? I spend hours on every upload selecting a good gen from dozens or hundreds and then fixing all the flaws so that it looks like an actual drawing and not like an incoherent AI failure, as most people probably do.
I can understand that sometimes "directors" will settle with a hand that looks less than perfect (because hands are a pain to get right and consume a LOT of time...).
But this?? Is this a platform for AI generated art or a place for the funniest AI failures?

Don't let people spam the place with incoherent, mass-produced pictures that display obvious AI errors, please.
It's not about artstyle or taste. It's only about crude, obvious, unfixed AI errors. Anyone who can generate can also inpaint and fix any flaws. This shouldn't be tolerated.
Also, AI may perhaps get trained on these images some day. Doesn't help to keep the fail gens here.

A fair point. E621 also has some levels of basic quality control, e6ai should be no different.

Tails-for-legs mutant got approved, too, now. Don't believe it...

Should upload my multi-torso, severed-head and torsoless-legs-and-asses gens by the hundreds here as well, if that's what this site is for. Must have misunderstood the concept.

Why host the site in the first place, if none of the owners give a flying fuck about what gets posted here.

Might as well hook the database directly into SD and post every gen that it spits out.

I would agree with rantas here.

I think the nature of AI generated stuff requires some amount of discretion on what is approved. My understanding is that approvals are traditionally just a barrier for rule-breaking, not for quality, but I would suggest that 'quality' and maybe 'quantity of the same gen' should be considered in the approval process as well.

I don't browse here often, so I haven't seen any of the art mentioned. Still, I agree that some quality standard is worth upholding so that AI art isn't relegated to some creative underclass that won't put in even the slightest effort to their works. For the majority, it's just text and settings for gods sake, even individual directors should have some demand for quality.

dns said:
I don't browse here often, so I haven't seen any of the art mentioned. Still, I agree that some quality standard is worth upholding so that AI art isn't relegated to some creative underclass that won't put in even the slightest effort to their works. For the majority, it's just text and settings for gods sake, even individual directors should have some demand for quality.

Well, I wasn't gonna name and shame, but if you don't know what i mean, look for "lurk..." and you will find everything I mentioned above.

I agree with everything said above, this site shouldn't become a trash pile of bad AI gens.

Basic quality control is a must have, but it can be a community effort. For example, there can be created a new default blacklist tag "severe_AI_errors" and everyone will be able to tag such lackluster low effort gens to hide it for everyone by default blacklist rules. Ofc there can be very different views on what to consider severe errors, but some rules can be written about minimum viable reasons to add such tag.
This will increase the overall perceived quality of content and free the mods from policing quality (their hands full even without it). On the over hand the director will be able to take it as a hint on what to improve and re-upload fixed image later, because sometimes you can spot double tail too late =D

rantas said:
.. Should upload my multi-torso, severed-head and torsoless-legs-and-asses gens by the hundreds here as well, if that's what this site is for. Must have misunderstood the concept ..

Could this be solved by having, at minimum above 768px so that first-draft pieces (ex. pulled from CivitAI's web-generator) aren't copy-pasted here? I thought that in-paint/rebaking broken hands, or dabbling in a bit of photoshop is at the very least expected before an upload. I occasionally still see 10+ copies of the same prompt from low-resolution outputs approved.

oldhroft said:
.. a new default blacklist tag "severe_AI_errors" ..

I like this idea. A category of meta-tags that cover AI-specific bake issues for hands, limbs or faces that can be used as a blacklist

If someone has issues with a specific person, instead of asking everyone on the site to change their behavior for their own convenience, wouldn't it be simpler and faster to add them to their blacklist?

dakka said:
If someone has issues with a specific person, instead of asking everyone on the site to change their behavior for their own convenience, wouldn't it be simpler and faster to add them to their blacklist?

It should not be about specific directors, it should be about community effort for cleaning up the place. For now it's just a handful of offenders, but after this place eventually will get more and more popular - it will be dozens. And maintaining a personal blacklists for such number is counterproductive if it can be just a few universal tags about common AI problems, which director decided not to fix (or didn't notice them).

Generally speaking, this would be an easier problem to solve if quality standards are implemented sooner rather than later.

Bad gens can be hilarious in their absurdity, I've made plenty myself, but we should be fostering the best creations that we can here. Minimum resolutions, no obvious errors at first glance (breasts on owners shoulders, tails for limbs) and others that e6.net already uses.

I'd also add another standard: nothing that could be interpreted as an artist's signature. If its a clear signature of the director, fine, but some hodgepodge of letters that look like they could have been a signature shouldn't be visible. That's actually numbers five and six in my own negatives list when I'm doing my own generations.

signature, artist signature,