Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator[edit]

Per the discussion on Commons:Village_pump#AI_images these images are inaccurate, don't look anything like the people they supposedly depict, and the uploader refuses to remedy things by renaming or re-describing them as fictional characters from the 15th century. So these images should be deleted as pure disinformation, fan fiction fabrications. No better then fictional flags or shields or as someone on the village pump said, just drawing a picture of Paris on a scrap of paper.

Although maybe someone could argue these images are educational due to depicting where AI is at the moment. That argument has no bearing on if these particular images are educational though. At the end of the day all images created by AI illustrate where the technology is at. But what makes these particular images educational? Nothing. The images I took on vacation to Hawaii a few years illustrates where cell cameras were at that time. They still aren't appropriate for Commons though. The same goes for these images. Commons isn't a personal file host and an image doesn't somehow magically become educational "because technology." Nor does it justify the uploader trying to pass these images off as somehow representing real historical figures. That said, I'm more then willing to retract this if they alter the images to be about fictional 15th characters instead of real people.

Adamant1 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the uploader refuses to remedy things by renaming or re-describing them as fictional characters from the 15th century." You know very well these images does not depict fictional 15th century characters. Changing the description like that would be lying Trade (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, I guess it doesn't really matter. They should be deleted anyway. I just think a better case could be made for keeping them if the images were clearly fictional. Like with the example I brought up on the village pump of a potato with a face drawn on it. I don't think you could argue an image like that would be in scope if the uploader was trying to pass it off as Jesus, since it doesn't serve an educational purpose as an image of the historical figure. Someone could probably get away with just uploading it as an image of a potato with a face drawn on it though. Although it's still questionable, but there's plenty of "fictional" images on here. But I think you have to draw a line when someone is saying "this is an accurate image of X person" when it isn't or "yeah, but what about all the dick pics on here?" Changing the descriptions wouldn't be lying, because the images look nothing like the real people. For that matter they don't even look the same from one image to the next. Otherwise your getting into some real postmodern nonsense where everyone with the same color hair and eyes is Giovanna IV di Napoli. At that point we might as well say screw the whole thing turn this into a personal file host. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"the uploader refuses to remedy things by renaming or re-describing them as fictional characters from the 15th century". L'utente ha semplicemente detto che è da pazzi pretendere che io mi metta a rinominare 40 immagini ad una ad una. Se questa è la scusa per cui andrebbero cancellate, allora posso benissimo ricaricarle con nuovo titolo dopo l'eliminazione, no? Inoltre è scorretto rinominarli come personaggi immaginari, perché la mia richiesta all'intelligenza artificiale è stata di personaggi storici ben precisi, e questo è il risultato che ha offerto. Se vanno rinominate, va semplicemente precisato che si tratta di immagini artificiali.
Non merito l'accusa di falsificazione, ho sempre lavorato per depurare Wikimedia dalla caterva di attribuzioni false che si erano accumulate negli anni, e non ho mai voluto spacciare queste immagine per dipinti reali, come dimostra la loro stessa descrizione e la creazione di categorie a parte (ex: Ferrandino d'Aragona in immagini generate da intelligenza artificiale).
La presenza di queste immagini su Wikimedia è istruttivo in quanto fine a dimostrare il risultato e la capacità di creazione di personaggi e fatti storici da parte dell'intelligenza artificiale. Queste immagini sono del resto generalmente accettate, come dimostra l'esistenza di categorie specifiche su Microsoft Bing e intelligenza artificiale, che sono state inserite in tutte le immagini da me caricate.
Il grado di somiglianza e di verosimiglianza storica non è un'obiezione ragionevole, perché Microsoft è da considerarsi l'artista produttore e a lui è andata la scelta su come realizzare queste immagini. Ma se anche fosse un'obiezione ragionevole, comunque ho caricato esclusivamente immagini dove i soggetti presentano significativi tratti di somiglianza coi loro dipinti reali.
Sarebbe sensato operare una ulteriore selezione cancellando le immagini superflue e lasciandone solo una o due rappresentative (le migliori), ma l'eliminazione totale è una perdita per Wikimedia, non di certo un guadagno. Beaest (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify, I don't mean they are falsifications because of anything on your end. But AI isn't exactly historically accurate and as someone else pointed out, one of the images has a monument in it that didn't exist at the time. Although your still saying they represent "historical facts" even though we have established that's not the case. So the claim that your not intentionally falsifying or misrepresenting anything is insincere at best. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no reason why he would make it inaccurate on purpose Trade (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course not, but it's a distinction without a purpose if he's going to double down on how they represent the figures and time period, or attack people, instead of just fixing the problems. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm fine with removing all AI generated images unless they're specifically being used for the topic of AI generated images. These aren't historic. They aren't anything. They have no value. GMGtalk 19:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep
    • I think they do look similar albeit it could be better (quite good already for current AI generators with so few pics to train on though; note that the AI images could depict the same person at a younger age than in the source drawings of the person)
    • that's not necessarily a reason for deletion or objecting to these images entirely; it may be relevant to portraits but when the focus of an image is a historical scene/event rather than the person it matters much less how the person looks like. (Moreover, prior artworks aren't photographs and are known to differ significantly from how the people actually looked like.)
    • I value these images not for the people depicted in it but the ancient settings, the artistic aspects, and the way they were made, all of which is educational, unlike many other images kept again and again for no good reason other than apparently somehow not being prohibited by current policy (which these images clearly aren't). These images here are high-quality and not just educational but realistically educational. I would support modifications to the images that make them look more like in the few images of the real person, for removing any misgeneration or unrealistic objects in the background, and a license change to public domain. Changing the files so they do not claim to depict a real person until they look even more similar may or may not be a good thing but in any case it's not necessary here.
Prototyperspective (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment There's a bunch more of these in Category:Ferrandino d'Aragona in immagini generate da intelligenza artificiale. Do you want to include those in this nomination as well? Omphalographer (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I'll add them. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 guarda che ne ho caricate almeno altre 200, fatti un giro tra i miei caricamenti Beaest (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete, regardless. As others have mentioned: these aren't historical images. At best they're vaguely based on contemporary artwork of this person, and in many cases they have additional visual or factual inaccuracies. They have no educational value. Omphalographer (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They have educational value in showing how AI art can or can't be used to depict historical figures in past scenes or AI art to depict any kind of past sceneries. That is already enough but there are many other purposes. What's so difficult to understand about it?
These images have no educational value: File:CAPTCHA (50827092107).jpg & File:ISlave - 50032184342.jpg Interestingly it is only AI art that gets marginalized, not the terabytes of humorous porn + porn. You keep asking to censor all kinds of useful AI art, despite that we clearly have a policy against such censorship. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dude has six fingers. GMGtalk 19:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now what? It takes a minute to correct that.
I download it, fix it and use the image for my blog that talks about life in the middle ages or whatever or a Wikipedia article about AI art depicting historical figures and how current generators currently fail. Specific concrete clearly educational purposes. None such have been provided for other cases where images have been kept.
Further refuting all those invalid rationales for deletion: no, most of these nominated images don't show people with six fingers, and not even other misgeneration. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The six fingers aside, have you looked at the people's faces in the backgrounds of the images? They all look like mutants. Yet supposedly according to you the images are "high-quality and quite realistic." If that's true then I guess everyone in the 15th century besides Ferdinand II of Naples had their faces mutilated lol. You can't just fix that either. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That can also be fixed in a minute with skills now already via img2img, not even talking about which other tools are available in a year from now.
One could also just blur them. These issues are completely normal for AI art and in some of the images the faces are so far away and so much in the background that it's not or may not be a big problem. The file description makes clear it's AI art so you can check if it's good for whatever purpose it's intended. Why do people expect it to perfect suddenly, images in between really bad and perfectly realistic portrayals can be valuable as well. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we not allowed to have any kind of quality standards for the AI images uploaded by users? Trade (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should't be on other users to "fix" images after the fact anyway. The uploader is, or at least should be, fully responsible for making sure images they create are accurate before uploading them. Of course minor mistakes will happen. That doesn't mean people should have free rein to upload clearly inaccurate images containing places in them that didn't even exit at time. Let alone should they expect us to just fix the issues. Especially if said people are just going to act like the images are high quality historical facts or whatever instead of correcting things. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really see how that's meaningfully different than me uploading my kid's drawing of George Washington. Of course you can imagine some use-case if you're willing to get specific enough. Say you for some reason want to write a post about children's drawings of presidents. Of course the fact that George has a mitten for a hand because she's not very good at drawing fingers, can be fixed if we fire up GIMP or Photoshop.
But in this case it's AI, and so you have an infinite number of children drawing an infinite number of pictures. So if you need one, then just go get it. We're not just talking about images that need fixing to be useful, but images that are imminently, literally infinitely replaceable. GMGtalk 12:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GreenMeansGo Rispondo solo per la giustizia della causa, non perché io voglia ancora mantenere le mie immagini su Wikimedia: vorrei vedere quale bambino riuscirebbe mai a realizzare questo o questo. Non ci riescono neppure la maggior parte dei pittori adulti. Generalizzare e dire che tutte le immagini generate da intelligenza siano di scarsa qualità e necessitino di aggiustamenti non è vero, molte non hanno bisogno di nessuna modifica. Per lo stesso motivo per cui vengono cancellate queste, ossia la polemica sull'utilizzo, dovrebbero essere cancellate anche le altre migliaia di immagini infinitamente più inutili che tuttavia per qualche ragione vengono mantenute, e ne sono state elencate un bel po'. Beaest (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that AI images are utterly devoid of anything approaching authenticity or meaningfulness. They are limitless and bounded only by how many times someone cares to push a button. That's not even getting into the copyright issues and whether these count as derivative works. We simply don't, can't know what works AI images draw from. It's being litigated in the courts right now, and it will probably be at least five years before we have a definite answer. GMGtalk 12:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The opposite is the case: where artwork only made using traditional tools are often largely about artistic skills, digital AI-based artworks are usually about what is being depicted, creative thinking, novel ideas, and so on. They can be very meaningful, it is even facilitated that they are more meaningful than traditional art. They aren't derivative, it works similar to a human who grows up with visual experience including looking at images (age 0 to whenever the artwork is made). Please don't project your personal experience onto others. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether or not they are derivative works in a legal sense is very much not a settled issue. That not even the creators can tell what works it's drawing from is a Pandora's box of potential copyright issues. GMGtalk 13:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They aren't derivative, it works similar to a human who grows up with visual experience I've had Dall-E create some pretty accurate artwork of Batman, Superman, and Robocop. Are you seriously going to argue those images aren't derivatives or that Dall-E created them purely through "growing up with visual experinces" or whatever instead of because it was specifically trained on images of those characters? Its not a sentient life form that just happens to create 1/1 images of exiting characters through random chance or pure ingenuity on its part. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moreover, if you asked a human to draw a picture of Superman or Mickey Mouse or whatnot, that picture would be a derivative work regardless of whether they worked from a reference or drew the character from memory. See Commons:Fan art#Re-drawing does not avoid copyright infringement; introducing "AI" into the equation doesn't change any of the legal principles. Omphalographer (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ho cambiato idea. Ho messo impegno e fatica nella generazione di queste immagini e non voglio che rimangano in un luogo dove non sono apprezzate e dove sarebbero guardate con diffidenza, perciò vi invito a rimuovere non solo queste ma tutte quelle che ho caricato finora anche nelle altre categorie. Preferisco pubblicarle dove la gente sappia che le sta usando perché mio è stato l'interesse di generarle. Beaest (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the person who first raised this issue (at COM:VP), I'm finally getting here after (1) sleeping a night and (2) spending my morning doing other things. This has gotten much more hostile than it needed to be, and it looks like people have driven away a contributor, which is not good. I don't necessarily think these images should be deleted (or at least not all of them), though I do think several things do need to happen:

  1. The copyright situation needs to be described accurately (in particular: these are in the public domain).
  2. The prompt(s) provided to generate each image need to be explicit.
  3. The categorization needs to reflect the fact that these are AI-generated images in response to a prompt, not things with any closer relation than that to the subjects portrayed.

I do think we should want to have a fair number of images that show what, in 2023, you would get if you asked Bing to draw a particular subject. I just don't think those should be allowed to overwhelm topical categories that can be reasonably expected to contain historically significant, potentially educational images related to the topic at hand. Pinging @Beaest perché anche se hai deciso di andartene, volevo che tu avessi mie notizie, da quando ho iniziato questa cosa. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel questa non è l'unica discussione che si è aperta in proposito, se ne è parlato moltissimo anche su Wikipedia Italia, e gli utenti non sono stati sempre rispettosi nei miei confronti, non sapendo neppure distinguere tra immagini che avevo caricato come "curiose", proprio per la resa imperfetta dell'intelligenza, altre che avevo caricato come serie, e altre ancora come artistiche. Ho trovato poche persone a favore e molte contro, non mi pare il caso di proseguire una lotta per qualcosa che dagli altri non è apprezzata, io da parte mia ho condiviso queste immagini con tanto piacere e tanta voglia di rendermi utile agli altri. Perciò non mi importa più se deciderete per la cancellazione o per il mantenimento, purché la regola sia applicata a tutte le immagini indistintamente. Cioè sono d'accordo (fin dall'inizio) sul mantenimento selettivo delle immagini migliori e sulla eliminazione delle rimanenti, ma non accetto che, per esempio, vengano cancellate tutte le immagini relative a Ferrandino d'Aragona e mantenute invece quelle su Vincenzo Calmeta, perché non sarebbe giusto. Se si svuota una categoria, si svuotano anche le altre. E se si applica una selezione a una, si applica anche alle altre.
Le istruzioni potrei fornirle, mi pare di averne salvata almeno una per tipologia. Beaest (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beaest: If you can accurately indicate the prompts, then I think these become useful (but still should be placed in subcategories that place them at one remove from the illustrated topics). - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The images should really have "AI art" in the file names to. Otherwise there's no way for anyone to they were generated by AI once the files are downloaded or come up on Google Images. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel questo è un esempio Beaest (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • comment so rather than refer the editor to Commons:AI-generated media and requesting prompt documentation and Template:PD-algorithm, it is to be drama and deletion? you realize that https://www.wikibooks.org/ exists and so "children's book illustrations" are in scope? "inaccurate, don't look anything like the people they supposedly depict," you realize that thousands of portraits in museums may well meet that criteria? what is your deletion rationale, other than "go away you bother me"? and the paper is out: Toxic comments are associated with reduced activity of volunteer editors on Wikipedia: that is your object, isn't that correct? --Frypie (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • comment For sure, any painter performed some studies before realising a painting that now is conserved in a museum. Besides, the same paintings are commonly used in books to illustrate the same arguments that we are treating on Wikipedia. Finally, there are plenty of sources discussing the reliability of those paintings (i.e., interested people can obtain reliable judgments on the historical reliability of the painting). The same cannot be said for AI generated images. At the current tecnological level, I don't see any equivalence between the images proposed for deletion and an historical painting shown in a museum. Maybe, an use can be found for the images whose deletion is discussed, but not for seriously illustrate the articles on Ferdinand II of Naples or his wife Joanna. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beaest: is this edit acceptable to you? If so, between that and the recategorization already done, I would vote keep (and would do the same for others of these images where the analogous edits were made). - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel per me è accettabile, sebbene certo se avessi saputo prima che sarebbe stato pubblicato avrei evitato il dettaglio della "bocca storta" (povero Ferrandino!) Beaest (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - as important presedent. We're currently being flooded with AI art, and well-intentioned or not, it is basically all Commons:out of scope, unverifiable, and in the worst cases, misleadingn and harmful. Using AI to upscale existing images or similar is one thing, creating fake "historical" images from scratch is another. This practice should be entirely banned, in my opinion, unless maybe for limited use as joke images on user and talk pages, while clearly labelled as such. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We're not currently being flooded with AI art. And these ones here are high-quality and educationally valuable. They are also clearly labeled. Please read Commons:SCOPE. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, just in the field of paleontology alone we've had many completely useless files upload that were DR'ed and deleted. Even if we disregard scope, these images are unverifiable and misleading. As for scope, images have to have educational value. If they're both unveirfiable and potentially accurate, there goes that justification. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since I regularly check for AI generated images for example that is not the case. That a few AI generated images just strengthens my point and doesn't show how we're "getting flooded" with it. As I explained – including very specific use-cases/examples which are missing in debates of much less realistically educational images and despite of this not being required – these images are educationally valuable in multiple ways. I'm not saying they're as educational as paleoart or all extremely educationally valuable. And they are clearly marked as AI generated and thereby also not misleading. False claims and invalid deletion rationale. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we're necessarily getting flooded with it either, but the amount of files we're hosting shouldn't really matter anyway should it? The nature of the thing doesn't change if it's a thousand files or ten thousand. AI generated images are still an issue and one that should be dealt with. There could be a way to do that while allowing for some exceptions. For instance someone on the Village Pump mentioned icons, but then there doesn't seem to be a will for that and it's not like they wouldn't have the same issues as other AI generated art anyway.
Personally, I think the best route to go here is ban it for now per Commons:Project scope and then slowly phase in exceptions as the technology and laws around it improve. Like maybe at some point there will be an AI image generator trained purely on public domain artwork. Then we could allow for images specifically from that generator. I don't think there are any at this point though. Regardless though, the technology is to new and it's to much of a legal grey area to at least have some guard rails in place. But you can't really get to that with how the policy is now. Plus there's to much risk of problems in the interim. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what people been saying many times earlier, indeed. They are not an issue but a historic yet underappreciated boon for the Commons world with incredible potential. It doesn't matter whether or not one sees potential and/or much value in them – they simply are not a problem. One thing to consider is to only allow AI art uploaded or CCBY-licensed by the person who prompted (and in some cases modified) it. And no, that will never be feasible. It's not a legal grey area when the person who made it uploaded it and it's not made via img2img from a copyrighted image. These images are within scope a) by definition b) since their educationally valuable and unlike other kept images realistically so with some specific use-cases elaborated and c) aren't an issue by the concerns you raised. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So essentially everyone else is wrong and your right? OK. Anyway, I don't think anyone disagrees that AI art has incredible potential. That's different then current practicality or reliability though. For all we know AI art generators could be outlawed in a few years and the project isn't served by jumping on the latest technology trends the second they come out regardless. Your counter argument to that seems to just be either treating us like we don't understand and hate the technology, or going off on aspirational platitudes about the technology. It's fine if you don't think the AI generates derivatives, but please at least back that up with something more credible then just treating me like I'm an ignorant liar when I say it does or saying it doesn't matter because the technology has incredible potential. Or at least be willing to meet other people half way and pose a reasonable alternative to what we currently have if you don't think it should be banned outright. That's all I'm saying. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any legal changes to the status of AI art are unlikely to be retrospective Trade (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A) It's "retroactive" and B) based on what? GMGtalk 20:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For all we know AI art generators could be outlawed in a few years Not going to happen but quite illustrative in regards to how you think about it.
everyone else is wrong Provably false assuming you refer to the images being in scope.
like I'm an ignorant liar I'm not saying that. Again, what I'm saying is that it is false, not supported by anything and clearly impossible.
It's fine if you don't think the AI generates derivatives I also wasn't saying that. It can generate derivatives if you engineer the prompt to make it so. If you ask it to generate "An image of Loki Laufeyson holding hammer in Avengers Infinity War, Avengers Infinity War, Tom Hiddleston" (and further describe the specific movie scene) or whatever you may get a derivative which we should simply delete as it's currently being done. Such deletions are the alternative. Further ideas include requiring the image to be categorized only into "XYZ in art" but not "XYZ" categories and at least one subcategory of "AI-generated images" and, for making it easier to spot issues, requiring users by policy to specify if they used img2img (including a link to the input image) and maybe requiring original uploaders to specify the used prompts. In addition we do need a prominent template about the image being AI-generated that is put beneath them as I already suggested at the Upload Wizard feedback page and elsewhere so there's no dependency on users looking at file descriptions and categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not going to happen but quite illustrative in regards to how you think about it. @Prototyperspective: I was just reading something about how an AI model got blocked from a server without warning because it supposedly generated CSAM. So it's not like I was basing that on nothing. Enjoy the cope though. Your probably one of those people who think Bitcoin is going to replace fiat currency any second now to aren't you? Lmao. Regardless, how much CSAM do you think AI art generators would have to create before we collectively say to hell with it or some court outright makes them illegal? Let me guess "you just don't understand the technology!"
Further ideas include requiring the image to be categorized only into "XYZ in art" but not "XYZ" categories That's a good idea, but realistically no one is going to do that. Even if they did though, it still doesn't solve the fact that the files look nothing like the people or settings they claim to be images off. Be my guest and put this file in a subcategory of 2000s nightclubs specifically for AI generated artwork though, but it's still not an image of a nightclub in the 2000s. So how exactly does that fix any of the issues that people have with AI artwork to begin with? All it does is move the problems somewhere else without actually dealing with anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your probably one of those people who think Bitcoin is going to replace fiat currency any second now to aren't you? No, not I'm not, not at all. Nice Ad hominem though, even worse than the rest of that which just throws around a bunch of allegations while evading all the points I raised. no one is going to do that It's not they themselves but other users and them after they got warned and this was just one idea other than "let's ban everything!1" knee-jerk reaction. That example image is not even in that category. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice Ad hominem though I mean, that's essentially been your whole tactic since the start of this. So..Maybe save it next time if you don't want people to eventually treat you the same way. Your comment that people have the attitude of "let's ban everything!1" is a good example of that. No one is saying we should ban everything. I've said multiple times now I'd support a reasonable policy around this and that I'd be happy retracting the DR if Beaest re-named the files and stop acting like they are historically accurate.
I could sit here all day here with the totally moderate, modest position that we just shouldn't be treating AI artwork like it's "high quality, historical facts" and you just bemoan about I'm bias, don't understand the technology, and just want to ban everything. While at the same time acting like I'm the with the knee-jerk reaction. When that's literally all you've done since the start of this.
Regardless though, the point I was making is that you have the same attitude as "Bitcoin bros" that anyone who wants it to be regulated just hates the technology and doesn't understand how it works. They aren't any more willing to have an actual, fair discussion about Bitcoin and it's merrits anymore then you are when it comes to AI generated art. There's a ton of options out there about how we could do this in a reasonable way though. Your not willing to entertain any of them though. That's fine, but maybe at least sit down and let people who are handle this. Instead of trying to suck all the oxygen out of the discussion by reflexively attacking anyone who's even slightly at all skeptical of AI artwork. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
essentially been your whole tactic since the start of this In contrast to you I've been making clear points, making rational arguments/reasons rather than attacking the other person with allegations while largely ignoring counterpoints. I have not made a single Ad hominem but raised points. Your not willing to entertain any of them You mean because it was me who brought them forward in length right the first time somebody asked for alternative options? There's a ton of options out there about how we could do this in a reasonable way though Then why do I need to make them instead of you or other people apparently interesting in banning all or nearly all AI generated images? Prototyperspective (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete Useless fanfic, out of scope. Darwin Ahoy! 12:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
False:
  1. Fan fiction or fanfiction is fictional writing written in an amateur capacity by fans, unauthorized by, but based on an existing work of fiction. What is the "existing work of fiction" here?
  2. I listed multiple ways these images can be useful, making sure that unlike other DRs I bring precise actual specific use-cases. Nothing (like an explanation referring to a quoted policy) suggests these are out of scope.
Prototyperspective (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Now, the category has about 40 files.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have time to add them all to the deletion request. If anyone wants to add them for me though, feel free to. Otherwise I'll nominate them for deletion after this is closed depending on the outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Unused AI-generated fan art, out of scope. --Yann (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Giovanna_IV_di_Napoli_by_Bing_Image_Creator&oldid=830404346"