After playing with this a bit, I can't conclude that anybody is <i>seriously</i> attempting to generate nsfw content with this. The prompts may be nsfw in some way or another (at least in the most literal sense) but nobody is actually expecting to make this output porn.<p>The outputs are so vague and abstract that even mentioning an animal produces something very abstract but just reminiscent enough that it can actually be bit disgusting.<p>And even looking at the (rather well selected) examples on the main page, I can't imagine anybody expecting anything remotely realistic or coherent their first time around.<p>I think this is mostly just people screwing around. People screw around with stupid shit because they find it amusing. They always have, and always will.<p>I also have to agree with another commenter that it's very strange to consider nsfw prompts to be entirely separate from any kind of art.
“gay unicorn at a funeral” is not a particularly convincing example of “NSFW intent”.<p>They also seem to think “art related” and “NSFW intent” are mutually-exclusive categories. This is a rather narrow conception of “art”. The collection of the Yerba Buena Center, for one of very many examples, would be much poorer if it was restricted with this view.
What I'm hearing is that there's an open spot for a nsfw generator.<p>I'm kind of perplexed that the author is so concerned that their generator is queried with other queries than they intended, even to the point of wanting to shut it down, not least because by doing that, they claim to know what is art and what is not.
> Seeing a high volume of NSFW queries that were so specific was eye-opening and disappointing to us, as we originally aspired for the generator to be a source for original artwork and NFTs, and instead it felt it was being abused by the internet.<p>I don’t see whats so orthogonal about “original artwork” and “NSFW” as if God didn’t put us on the good green earth to have sex with each other.<p>But, if the problem is the lack of creativity, it would be fun to do a cosine similarity between word vectors and deny any request too similar to previous requests. That would at least cut down on kids typing in “booby pics”
I had not heard of this before. So, I dig around and find <a href="https://www.kapwing.com/ai-video-generator" rel="nofollow">https://www.kapwing.com/ai-video-generator</a><p>> ... creates a video <i>based off</i> any text. ... made by the team at Kapwing, <i>based off</i> code by Hillel Wayne and Katherine Crowson.<p>*<i>SIGH</i>*<p>Based <i>ON</i>.[1]<p>[1]: <a href="https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/based-around/" rel="nofollow">https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/based-around/</a>
I too run an AI Art Generator based on VQGAN+CLIP - <a href="https://creator.nightcafe.studio/text-to-image-art" rel="nofollow">https://creator.nightcafe.studio/text-to-image-art</a><p>NightCafe has a feed of artworks, and I too was getting a lot of NSFW or very distasteful prompts. I just used an npm package to detect 'naughty words' to auto-flag any distasteful ones as 'needs moderating', where I can then manually approve or reject them.
Doesn't the outcome (the art) matter more than the trigger words? It is obvious that how much ever NSFW words they are, the outcome is SFW.<p>It could be people are trying to 'stretch the envelope' to get unique art.<p>I would do the same, knowing that whatever words I use would not be visible later, only the result would be and no one can backtrace how it came into being.
Great intention, also thought about using an artificial artist in my inside project. But imo what is interesing is that, why human king has so much appetite for reaching nsfw content anywhere where it is possible. its like an center of gravity. Great intention, but conslusion seems to be sad ;d
I put in usually flagged keywords into these things to see if they are blocked and if not to see if the dataset somehow knows what I'm asking. I'm surprised to see that some of these generators actually make images close to what I'd expect from these... Questionable keywords...