and it's especially funny when there is other "non realistic" posts still out there

>>17475
Sorry to hear that. Loved your work... (Sad face)

>>17475
Also, I just want to add, I have NO DESIRE to break any rules around here. The rules are the rules. I'm just trying to understand what constitutes "Real" at this point? AI has obviously thrown us all into unprecedented territory, with endless possibilities, but to me "Real" means it looks like someone set up a camera and made a snuff film, with almost no indication that this is fantasy at all.

As long as something about the subject matter or film style is extra, for example the women being "cat girls", or having exaggerated more anime like proportions or facial features, that would constitute, "Not Real" for me.

If I'm off base, please let me know, but I think a lot of us are just trying to get good grasp on what's allowed, so we can just happily enjoy the bored and its content. I know none of us want to be banned, or to cause the moderators any unwanted grief.

>>17475
Just as an example, even the video in the original post here, which I think is GREAT, to me it's obviously not real.

Does it have realistic lighting and flesh tones? Yes, but it's a sort of heightened reality, where it's more artistic, and there's a beauty to it that wouldn't be present in something "real".

Again, I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I'm just trying to see if we can establish a more defined standard of what "real" is, so we can more comfortably stay in those boundaries.

Does adding some level of "heightened fancifulness", keep it from being "real"?

Boo! I enjoyed your work, and I'll like to see more of it and more like.

In fact, I've been working at trying to make more like it myself. And I'll try to post it too. No confusion with reality is truly likely.

Where might one go to follow you elsewhere?

>>17478
Agreed. If the "mods" were serious about sticking to their rules half the AI board were be obliterated at this point.

Frankly I don't care for extreme realism. Slightly realistic cartoons are good enough for me.

>>17535
And it would be completely fine as long as it serves the purpose of gchan preservation as website. Realistic AI is banned for reason.

apologies for any inconvenience but its a legal precaution.

there's also no clear line for something being "too photo-realistic" so its mostly up to staff discretion.

if you feel like your generated images may be too realistic we recommend you use an external file host to avoid deletions which is mentioned on the rules page too

>Photorealistic content is banned for legal risks, but you may upload it to a third-party host and link it.

>>17542
Thank you. That seems VERY reasonable to me.

Please come back, your thread was too good

agree, websites like motherless have no problems with hosting. and funny how mods thinks couple external links will save them from legal issues considering what is already hosted here. these actions just ruins community what is left of it.

>>17708

It may be a thin line but there is a difference between hosting and linking.

Not only may the fines be different, it is also one matter if something illegal is found on your server ‒ which is under your control ‒ or another matter, if a user posts a link to another site ‒ which is not under your control ‒ and you have "just" to remove that link after you are informed about it.