by the rules AI generated women are not allowed to be added. As someone who has ran into many of the AI women who I think would do good I am sadden by the fact they aren't real. If we are to add AI women then we should add fictional women as well
My reasoning for AI profiles is the same for trans/shemale profiles: there are lots of sites and platforms who accept them or rather are specialized in those, so WHY do you want them on Babepedia too ?
The fact they are so "trendy" nowadays doesn't mean at all they deserve space here and, as I'm not against them in general, I do NOT want them on Babepedia.
I think quite the opposite, that it should be a priority to AI proof this site. The porn / adult content industry is well on it's way to being taken over by AI characters, so this needs to remain a place where real, living / breathing women can still be appreciated.
I could almost excuse the profiles for AI characters if they’re intended as a public service announcement for accounts with hundreds of thousands of users. I’m guessing it’s an SEO play by the site.
@evilyvan Wow. How does a “virtual AI influencer” end up with 20 user uploaded photos and a more complete biography than a lot of the actual human women on here? Frankly appalling. 🤦🏻♂️
@evilyvan So Playboy France is uploading AI slop to Babepedia? That seems like it should be fairly simple to put a stop to. But I feel like I may still be missing something here. 🤨
@GeekBoy3 No it isn't Playboy who loaded that (or they would have put the naked pics !!!) ... But somebody here thought it was a real woman ! (and it seems from the comments that he's not the only one)... because it was revealed it was AI only in the mag and not on the net.
Here’s a question for @Pryda or another Admin: when a Profile is reported as AI, what evidence does the User need to provide? I ask because I recently got into a discussion about Tahlia Evans. Several users asserted that she is AI, but a random sampling of her photos came through AI Image Detector as no more than 30% likely to be Fake (and that was on a picture that looked pretty airbrushed, the rest were in the 3% range). The most the other user had to say was that her 𝕏 videos “feel fake.” So what’s the standard? Does a report of AI automatically get the profile flagged or deleted? Inquiring minds want to know! 😁
@GeekBoy3: It's a difficult situation we're in. AI is getting so good, and more and more people are seeing AI in everything. Often justified, but often not at all. In the case of Tahlia Evans, it cost us a profile page because Tahlia read everything and requested that her page be removed. She thinks there's too much negativity on her page here, so she requested removal. The comments by @yangma, together with her rejected requests to remove comments, were what tipped it for her. We do believe Tahlia (@tahliaevans) is real, but if she wants to be removed, we're not going to deny that request.
So the problem here is that the community just doesn't believe it (her) anymore. Proof isn't important to them. And proof that backs up her realness is ignored. We're looking for ideas on how to handle such situations better. Feedback is welcome.
@Pryda I tried the Google-based AI sniffer you recommended but could not get it to work, and ended up with a Gemini account for my troubles. The deepai one seems to work pretty well, so I’m sticking with that for now (bonus: it works on all my devices). I think requiring data-based evidence (not just “it seems fake to me”) when reporting a profile as AI would be a good place to start.
@firetop22: I didn't explain it properly. She has already requested multiple times that previous comments containing baseless accusations that she is fake/AI be removed. I think today, the new comment pushed her to the point where she'd rather see the entire page removed. Too much negativity. Baseless accusations would just keep coming because too many have already made up their minds.
The comment reporting rejection (she requested the AI comment to be removed, but the users declined) added some extra fuel to the fire, but I don't think it changed much. It's a small factor.
My question in all this is who should the burden of proof be on? It's difficult to prove that these accounts are AI, but I also don't see anyone proving that they aren't AI. Would we rather allow AI accounts to slip through and be allowed on the site, or would we rather run the risk of deleting a real babe because she seems too much like AI? If the babe herself is the one complaining about the AI accusations, it should be pretty simple for her to prove that they're real, but that doesn't appear to have occurred here.
I think that they should be assumed to be real unless there's explicit reliable evidence otherwise. Not that I'm in favor of including AI characters, but that we don't need horny vigilantes harassing actual humans because an AI image detector gave a false positive.
@Zork86 I tried to show that Tahlia wasn’t AI, but it was clearly too little too late. And to @The Honorable’s point, I think that users reporting fake/AI profiles have to provide some sort of data-driven evidence besides “I think she looks fake.” Real life models are using AI tools like Bazaart to touch up their photos for social media, ironically giving them an artificial appearance and leading the “horny vigilantes” (😆) to cry AI at the slightest hint of an airbrush. The page I use to check the veracity of photos—AI Image Detector—could be one option; I know @Pryda has one that they prefer, also. There are others (many, alas, behind paywalls), too. I have no strong opposition to AI images in general (other than the standard objection to them being trained on art where the artist isn’t compensated), but Babepedia should be a resource for flesh-and-blood women, not made-up slop. I’d say that’s my 2¢, but I think I just spent about a buck-fifty. 😇
@Zork86: The burden of proof is on those who accuse, in my opinion. People can already use "flag this profile" to report AI profiles, and we delete those profiles that are 100% AI. Nobody has supplied convincing proof that Tahlia is AI-generated. Your own report isn't convincing enough, sorry. We will write better instructions so people understand they can't just go on feelings.
@GeekBoy3: SynthID is what we use to detect AI being used.
Moving forward, we're going to try three things: 1) When someone suggests in the comments section that a model is AI, a message will appear requesting that the user refrain from posting accusations without strong proof. 2) We're making the AI option on "Flag this profile" clearer. 3) We'll ask Tahlia if she's ok with recovering her page with a closed comment section.
Update: We've restored Tahlia's page with closed comment section.
@Pryda The AI profiles reporting getting harder while AI is getting better will just meant the site will be full of AI "women". Since one of the rules of photo uploading is : "No modified, Photoshopped, or AI-generated photos." a model who is real but only posts AI enhanced pics of herself should also not be here since technically none of her pics would be allowed anyaway according to the rules so why include her at all?
Comments (36)
As someone who has ran into many of the AI women who I think would do good I am sadden by the fact they aren't real. If we are to add AI women then we should add fictional women as well
The fact they are so "trendy" nowadays doesn't mean at all they deserve space here and, as I'm not against them in general, I do NOT want them on Babepedia.
...right?
Well done.
For example:
babepedia.com/babe/Alina_LaPorte
babepedia.com/babe/Deanna_Ritter
babepedia.com/babe/Milla_Sofia
If anything those should be deleted.
Update: Here’s a list of the ones I’ve found so far. https://www.babepedia.com/userlist/The%20Honorable/214585-Fake-women
I agree but then they should be excluded from ratings, lists, etc.
https://www.babepedia.com/babe/Sofia_Gadot
So the problem here is that the community just doesn't believe it (her) anymore. Proof isn't important to them. And proof that backs up her realness is ignored. We're looking for ideas on how to handle such situations better. Feedback is welcome.
Good thing we know have the report function but if we had it earlier we could have saved and not lost a profile
The comment reporting rejection (she requested the AI comment to be removed, but the users declined) added some extra fuel to the fire, but I don't think it changed much. It's a small factor.
@GeekBoy3: SynthID is what we use to detect AI being used.
Moving forward, we're going to try three things:
1) When someone suggests in the comments section that a model is AI, a message will appear requesting that the user refrain from posting accusations without strong proof.
2) We're making the AI option on "Flag this profile" clearer.
3) We'll ask Tahlia if she's ok with recovering her page with a closed comment section.
Update: We've restored Tahlia's page with closed comment section.
The AI profiles reporting getting harder while AI is getting better will just meant the site will be full of AI "women".
Since one of the rules of photo uploading is : "No modified, Photoshopped, or AI-generated photos." a model who is real but only posts AI enhanced pics of herself should also not be here since technically none of her pics would be allowed anyaway according to the rules so why include her at all?