Tantz came to me about this question. She and I agreed that we need community input on it.

The question is whether comics made with art made with generative AI like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion should be allowed on the site.


My own opinion is that they SHOULD be allowed because we're an open site, we don't judge content and I like us to be broadly accepting of things even if we don't personally agree with them (unless they're illegal).

I am against generative AI “art” because I feel it involves theft of people's work in order to train the machines that are use to remix works in order to “create” new stuff.
BUT my OWN views on it are not Drunk Duck's views. This isn't a dictatorship haha!

I have a lot more acceptance of generative AI art created by ethical generators like the one made by Adobe that was trained with genuinely copyright free content and content they paid fairly to be able to use. That's the only for of generative AI that should be allowed.

TLDR: Should AI art comics he allowed on DD? Personally I say yes.

I remember one AI generated comic on this site that the (otherwise very skilled creator) published and since removed not to upset anyone. I liked it very much, it was a heavily experimental piece and I don't see that anyone would've draw or model anything like it ever, especially considering the time and work it would've require to make. If for nothing else, it's great for inpsiration and experimenting. I could see different, more restrictive rules apply to AI if allowed, not to mislead people and that would be more, than fair, considering how vehemently most are against its sheer existence. The morality of it is without a doubt black as night. But if it's possible to make ethical AI art or it will be more possible, the Duck would certainly want to give that a green light, especially since with all the new software, it'll become increasingly difficult to tell whether editing an image utilizes AI functions or not both for the artist and the readers. And I'm not sure based on what criteria that could fly. Once it's banned based on popular opinion, it'll be too much hassle and risk to look for exceptions and if people start reporting each other for suspecting the use of AI, the Duck could turn toxic.

I think even if AI generated comics are allowed here, it's reasonable to restrict it enough so people would be required to mark it and so it wouldn't get too much exposure compared to other works. But I could see banning it turning into artists getting harassed eventually, even if they only used it or using it outside of the Duck.

I'll go along with Inky; most other prominent art-sharing websites like deviantART require anything AI-generated to be marked/tagged as such . . . I think if we apply the same principle to AI comics here on DD, it should be alright.

Having said that, I'll also agree with you OO, in that while we could be inclusive and open to AI-generated comics, to also point out that we would strongly encourage human-generated comics, whether the art style is traditional and hand-drawn, or digital in 2D or 3D, or even photo-manipulation, to note that we want be a home for true artistic vision. After all, this has what's made DD so great compared to other webcomic hosts: we don't do no algorithms around these here parts.

If photo comics are allowed, and not the type where the photo was original, taken by the creator, but a stock photo, then AI generated art would be in a similar category.

I will confess to using photographs for backgrounds in my own comic and it was all because I was trying to complete the page before midnight and laziness took over. Eventually, I went back to school in order to learn how to draw backgrounds better, but in the early days, it was a time saver.

Using AI isn't the same as using photos or photo ref. I just feel the need to say that. Oz was tactful in not saying that I was pretty against allowing AI at all. That said, I wholly agree that the community should decide. Personally I feel very uncomfortable in allowing AI, because it might spill over to a tacit invitation for AI crawlers to be trained on comic art we host here and I really stand against that.

I'd also feel a lot better in protecting fellow artists from what's going on with AI crawlers that we should make it a demand not only to have such a comic marked that it is AI, but also marked that it's AI produced by an ethically trained AI generator. If either of these marks aren't accurate, and we find out as admins, I'd ban the person straight out.

Anyway, I'll be making a newspost about this to make sure as many folks from our community chime in, and we'll do what you the people want :D

Tantz_Aerine wrote:

I'd also feel a lot better in protecting fellow artists from what's going on with AI crawlers that we should make it a demand not only to have such a comic marked that it is AI, but also marked that it's AI produced by an ethically trained AI generator. If either of these marks aren't accurate, and we find out as admins, I'd ban the person straight out.

Only potential downside I see with that is that sites selling / offering stock material aren't necessarily equipped or interested in differentiating between AI and non-AI, so artists can possibly use AI generated photos for their works without their knowledge. And to require all comics using royalty-free third party material to verify the validity of these, especially if they were made years ago (at some point in the future) would be a lost cause. One can only comply with such requirement to the best of their knowledge, which in today's age isn't a guarantee.

Sorry, Inky, but I vehemently disagree. If we can't be bothered to put the onus of due diligence to AI users that they demand their generators are ethically trained, then there will be no pressure to HAVE ethically trained generators AT ALL. We're in essence shrugging and saying “oh well, too bad, we'll be flummoxed by scores of AI generated low-quality comics now I guess” because “there's nothing that can be done about it”.

If we do accept AI on here, the LEAST we can do is ask that they use ethical generators. At LEAST a generator that doesn't use images that have opted out from AI crawlers. AT LEAST.

That it isn't a guarantee they'll know if it's ethically trained and it might come back to bite them is their problem and a risk that they take . The guarantee not to get their comic banned is just to draw it themselves.

Anyway, I will absolutely be against and champion against letting AI on here even if I'm in the minority. Until AI is properly regulated, there shouldn't be a place for it among artists' homes. And DD is an artists' home.

That said, I repeat that if the majority wants to unlock our home this much to this sort of thing, we'll do it and watch what happens.

I think your push for ethically trained AI art is justified and I find that to be an acceptable compromise here. I however can't possibly wrap my mind around how artists should be vulnerable to ban just because they don't draw their comics themselves and third party stock sites can't necessarily be trusted with their content. There should be a reasonable middle ground so people who used an allegedly human created background for three panels 6 months ago shouldn't have to worry over when will they get accused and sacked. Even if you commission your stuff (I could not possibly afford such) there's no guarantee and it'd kill artistic freedom here if everything would have to be either self-drawn or well documented that it was made ethically to play it safe. My comic heavily relies on third party stock material. I can try to minimize the amount it relies on that (increasing my costs, which no one cares about really) but the work I've already put thousands of hours into is not to be trialed because the services we use these days aren't reliable enough to put everyone's minds at ease.

You've answered your own question Inky :) Your work is transformative by your own hand. You are the one that did the work to transform it, not an AI that you minimally control. (And it shows, btw, if you're wondering. AI can't yet be this consistent in its output)

We'll hammer out the details and reach a viable and reasonable set of provisos I'm sure. The key here is ethically trained, imo.

EDIT: oh, and of course, people that want to lie, will lie. There's little we can do about that except act on it when they're caught. We won't go paranoid over this. The only thing we should do is create a framework that's fair for everyone.

Tantz_Aerine wrote:
You've answered your own question Inky :) Your work is transformative by your own hand. You are the one that did the work to transform it, not an AI that you minimally control. (And it shows, btw, if you're wondering. AI can't yet be this consistent in its output)

We'll hammer out the details and reach a viable and reasonable set of provisos I'm sure. The key here is ethically trained, imo.

EDIT: oh, and of course, people that want to lie, will lie. There's little we can do about that except act on it when they're caught. We won't go paranoid over this. The only thing we should do is create a framework that's fair for everyone.

That sounds good enough. If IA generated comics will only be allowed if they are ethically generated and are marked correctly, and by-human transformative works are generally okay, I think I can 100% get behind that notion and the beneficial nature of it.

Not gonna lie, I hate all this AI BS.
I see it as similar to spam email but like 1000x worse. There's the potential for it to become automated and really clog up the net with soulless garbage content. Especially if something like chat gpt writes the scripts and automatically makes accounts and posts on it's own. It hasn't happened yet but when it does I don't think we will be having a debate about it anymore than we debate whether junk mail filters are necessary. It might not be necessary to ban it now but when the recently updated is nothing but Uncanny valley fetish porn….

I mentioned this on the Discord server, but one thing I'd be worried about is A.I. reaching a point where it can make sequential art. If you can just tell it to make a 100-page comic of, say, Goku fighting Mega Man, and in about an hour you have a brand new computer-generated graphic novel, sites without any kind of safeguard could get buried under mountains of A.I. within the week. I know that's a theoretical scenario right now, but it's one we probably want to take into consideration since it seems to be getting more and more likely.

Im honest. I do use art ai.

BUT JUST IN SOME PARTS/PANELS!

i USE it because:

1. I LIKE IT
2. its just a hobbie..like who cares..im not making any money…
3. and when I MAKE TOO MANGA OFFICIAL AND COMMERCIAL…I WILL NOT USE ART IT. because its NOT Mine….and also..is so east to cheat and just write in the promt what you want.
4.because I dont have all the time in the world. i have a family and have to work as any mortal man.
5.because its fun to see what will pop up …you never know..is like playing in a casino. you can get something cool..or get crap..byut you try again..and its

6:FREE!

Hapoppo wrote:
I mentioned this on the Discord server, but one thing I'd be worried about is A.I. reaching a point where it can make sequential art. If you can just tell it to make a 100-page comic of, say, Goku fighting Mega Man, and in about an hour you have a brand new computer-generated graphic novel, sites without any kind of safeguard could get buried under mountains of A.I. within the week. I know that's a theoretical scenario right now, but it's one we probably want to take into consideration since it seems to be getting more and more likely.

I wouldn't worry about that. A.I. has far too many limitations, even in the instance someone were able to create a comic using a.i. images, honestly it would most likely take so much work how would it be substantially diffrent from drawing it?

Comic artist are the rare exception to the woes of A.I. Making comics is more than just pretty pictures, you are the director, the writer, the fight choreographer, the camera man, etc. Thank of mangas like One Punch man. How could you even create a prompt that can give the same level of impact as those illustrations? Think of manga like Bleach. How can an A.I. create images that can offer that same level of moody ambience? And the big one, art style. A.I. can only replicate art styles, not create a new one. A.I. can never create dragonball or one piece, only “generic anime fantasy” or “realistic knight adventures.” In order for A.I. to be a credible threat to comic artist, it'd litterally have to learn to draw.

You should worry @mightguy15 …unfortunately you'd think we're in the clear but we're not.

I approve of this robust discussion! Makes me happy and warms the cockles of my heart ^_^
This is something that really needs talking out.


Personally I find the products of AI art generic to a creepy degree of blandness, it makes my skin crawl. The fact that images are often so like the bland meaningless crap made by real artists on Deviant art in the 2010s is telling (guess where it stole the material to imitate that stuff?), but also poetic in that the original art was just the human version of AI- people making pics only for clicks and not having any connection or care to the image, no planning behind it, no communication between creator and audience because nothing was ever intended…
-that doesn't describe all the human created stuff on Deviant art but there was a significant movement of bland, quick-for-clicks, art back then.

My main issues with AI generators of course is that by far the majority were trained up on stolen art. Our art. Everyone's art.
This is NOT the usual transformative “influence” that real artists do when we look at other works and come up with something new because we're humans while AI is just a machine- like a toaster, like a CNC machine the cuts out iphone bodies. They fed real art to a stupid machine that remixes it and spits out blends and makes them money.

Our creativity, our blood, sweat, tears, millions of hours of work, billions of dollars of materials, millions of hours of training and the money spent on art schools and universities etc- everything that went into us being able to create those images is being stolen so THEY can replace us and make money from us.

The way they start is a soft intro- making these web versions where it's free to play and fun. It fools us into thinking it's a harmless toy. People even start to think it's a democratisation of creativity…
People don't think about the real issues because they're seduced by the toy.

I agree with all your takes on this Ozoneocean. That stuff really rankles me.

I'll add in as well that even the best arguments don't really sway me much. I've seen AI enthusiasts proclaim what a great thing it was because now little Timmy would have the opportunity to finally bring his ideas to life! Isn't that great? Some little kid somewhere can just make whatever he thinks of!

…and they never stop and think that little Timmy's ideas probably all suck just as bad as his drawing skills. Like, just like with any art, you get better with practice. Someone who's never had to work at his ideas or hone them isn't going to get any better when a computer can pop out a “completed” product on his whim. The proponents want to be believe that they'll all be Axe Cop - unique and fun creations - but Axe Cop wasn't what it presented itself as, it had a real writer. People with little experience tend to use the most basic and overused tropes. If AI really does take over the space, not only will the art be bland and meaningless, so will the ideas behind them. If you can create anything in a moment, you're not going to take time to develop ideas properly. It'll just be a flood of surface-level clones of whatever's popular at the moment with no extra thought - not even into what made those things popular in the first place.

These people like to act like putting the work in is some kind of elitist barrier instead of being what art actually is.

I say this as someone who did put the work in and still can't draw for shit. My comics may be bad, but at least they're mine. No AI “prompt engineer” can say the same.

I hope that legislation will eventually sort out much of the art theft aspect, but beyond that I don't have an issue with people using it as a tool to help with workflow or inspiration. I've played with it and thought the results were poor. Also tried a 3D model AI generator and that was pretty pathetic beyond basic stock items like tables.

I've used ChatGPT for writing scripts and found it pathetic, amusing and occasionally impressive but most importantly useful. The output is usually very generic, however I find it useful as a springboard for creativity. Can AI art be used in the same way? Maybe…

Should AI art be allowed on DD? Probably, but mainly because I think it'll be impossible to avoid or police it.

The ethical AI restriction I think is a good call.

Would adding something to privacy policy about it be worthwhile?

I'm sure there are A.I. webcomics sights if your looking for that.

Is A.I. art, art? Is it the same as when folks started using cameras? Is it a tool? Or cheating. I don't know.

Perhaps AI like the camera or brush is just a tool for the artist? Haven't decided yet.

If it is allowed then it should be flagged with something like “Created using AI tools”.

Personally, I'd prefer it wasn't on the duck but am against censorship.
One concern might be the point at which there are more A.I. comics than artist produced. Then what? Do we flag “created with traditional artistic techniques”?

Im ok with at ai.

My example:

An “artist” using ai is like getting drugged, lets say…using cocaine.

The only one that gets affected in a negative way is HIM..not us.

A good artist doenst depends on ai or drugs.

So let them do what they want, the affected are them not us.

People are dependent of ai to do something, what a pity.

I once say someone in facebook so arrogant and excited to use ai …he made a manga 100% of ai…and he was so proud…and I told him..dude..you are just typing text in a prompt..you are doing NOTHING. and ur stealing…

he said: I dont care..its a tool, I do what I want, fk off…


SO what I did? DO WHATEVER YOU WANT BRO.,.,,,,I cant stop you..you are the one losing…

AND thats it…..

I only use ai for some backgrounds, im not going to lie. if I do my manga commercial and change for it, then I will do everything myself.

for now..I make my manga as a hobby, to experiment,practice and have a good time.

Hi! I'm new here, and I joined this site because I use AI art to make stories.

Obviously, you'd think I am therefore FOR ai. And you'd be correct. Why?

I'm 43 years old, and I've been in the artistry field since the late 90s.

I remember this exact same thing happening back then ( probably before many of you were born ) when computer generated images were the new thing. Was it art, was it not art, etc… Same goes for Photoshop, and other digital tools.

What is happening with AI, on principle, is no different than, air brushes in the 50s, or computer assisted tools in the 80's/90s.

On the topic of “ethically created ai”, this is a rather deep topic to get into, but keep in mind this context ( which always fires people up because they don't actually understand IP and it's role in protecting property -

When I draw ( by hand, photohsop, etc) I use references. Did I ask the owner if I could use their images as references? Of course not. If I wanted a certain pose, I'd look up Todd McFarlane Spiderman, trace it, learn how the limbs are placed, learn from it. Did I ask him if I could do that? No.

That's what every artist does to learn - you learn from someone else, whether through property violation or not. ( using references without permission for the first and teachers in a class room, or buying how to draw books, for the second)

So, I've been stealing to learn for nearly 30 years now. Most people don't want to face that fact.

I also don't buy this idea, on principle, that ai “steals” from artists who draw by “hand”. You can say that for every single invention. Why not force people to crush flowers to make die instead of using a computer? or Crayons? AI is here to stay, and we all, as artists, need to change with the times.

I mean, I'm very happy for younger people. I wish I was 16 today. I could just click buttons, using the values I want to create the images that project my themes and plots, and have a comic done in a matter of days instead of months. All I had was silly computer tools 25 years ago! Poor me :)

When I turn 65, I'm sure AI will be obsolete and I can sit on my couch and use a headband to just think of images and project them onto a screen of some sort.

Lastly, when I use AI, I always label the art as so. I know this is a sensitive topic, and we are in the middle of another artist revolution in along line of them, and I never want to commit fraud/lie to someone. Same goes if someone asks me if I painted a piece or did it on photoshop - I tell the truth, as to no scam/lie/deceive a potential customer.

plymayer wrote:

Is A.I. art, art? Is it the same as when folks started using cameras? Is it a tool? Or cheating. I don't know.

I think most people agree that art has to have a significant human element to it, since it's the conveyance of human emotions and ideas. By default, A.I. products can't have any of that, they're just law of averages based on other peoples' works, and a few prompts aren't enough of a contribution to get it over that threshold IMO.

I can see where you're going with the photo question. If you take a picture of a mountain at sunset it's not like you made the mountain OR the sunset, but there's still a lot of effort in finding the right angle, using the right equipment, finding the best locations (travel-wise and just being there in general), touching it up in Photoshop, etc. Photo webcomics are a whole different ball game, since you have to physically have all the props and manipulate them in just the right way to tell your story. I remember seeing a “making of” video for a panel of Doll Revolution, and believe me, Intotheabyss probably put at LEAST as much effort if not more into that panel than I did into some of my more elaborate hand-drawn pages.

Oh, I also wanted to add one more thing. The creation of a new market does not mean the destruction of a previous one.

Because Starbucks exists ( which started out as a local thing), nearly everyone I know buys “local”.

Just like how, in 2023, people, like my wife, will only buy real life paintings, and those painters still make a wonderful living.

AI assisted comics would just be another genre you could easily label, so that readers/customers can use their own free will and value system, and make their own informed choices.

There will still be and always will be a market for people who want to buy/pay for “traditional” comics.

edit - which, if you think about it, the internet did to real life, physical comics what digital assisted tools ( photoshop, ai, etc ) did to painting/hand drawing. Create a new market, and people can enjoy whichever products they want.

I mean, the american physical comic book industry is failing/dying while the japanese market is booming and flourishing. Why? Good, engaging stories with coherent themes/plots/etc.

Some people will buy ingredients and cook at home, and some people will buy pre made meals. Both hold value to the individual making those choices.

ai is not going to drive “traditional” artists away. If anything, if a site can correctly handle AI and not insult it's customers, you can easily create a site that isn't hostile to any customers base, respect them all equally, and flourish as a result of simply providing people choices.

I remember years or people telling me they wouldn't accept art that was made by/altered in photoshop because it wasn't real art. You could just import a picture, alter it, etc. Now a days, digital art and digital comics are as common as breathing air, even though people still use other artist's art as imported references without their permission. Such is life!

In my opinion, simply have creators label their comics/stories as ai created/assisted or not. Frauds will be weeded out very quickly in a burgeoning market.

Miss_Mlem wrote:
Just like how, in 2023, people, like my wife, will only buy real life paintings, and those painters still make a wonderful living.

Just ask Steven Stahlberg about this subject. Guess you've seen his comic already. He's a DD member, too.

Personally I adore Stevens art - but it is so clear, impressive and “neat”, that it essentially corresponds to what AI is bred for: Eye-catching, stunning, entertaining visual art that viewers are willing to pay for. (And many of us who hope to earn money with their art are now facing competition from AI optimized for customer acquisition).
I'm not talking about occasionally using AI as a tool to spruce up some scenes in a handmade comic. (I've done that too, because I didn't have the time or the patience to search for free photo references for a tiny detail or to invest hours of work in creating a meaningless but decorative backdrop. This kind of use, I agree with you, is in my eyes just a “new technique” analogous to the use of matte or digital techniques, which we have long since subsumed under the heading of “manual work”)

But when (and that day will not be long in coming) complete, slick comics with storylines that the AI knows have been successful in the market so far can be generated by prompt, then all this will be running a whole other dimension.

Although I think DD will be pretty much the last comic platform to suffer because creating such “art with a commercial guarantee of success” will cost a lot of money and will be marketed elsewhere than here.
But the ethical problem still remains.
What is “ethical AI” anyway?

For me, the use of AI becomes ethically borderline when I don't use it as a tool like a new paintbrush, but as a marketing instrument. Then it *must* be labeled as such and at the same time, because it is AI, remain in the public domain.

And yes - I think it is possible to verify this. Because as oceanocean already described: AI remains smooth and mediocre for marketing reasons alone, and these characteristics apply to very few of the DD artists. E.g. I am convinced that AI will never be able to copy Lothar's comics. It might be able to steal the visual style from Steven Stahlberg or me, but we will be able to uncover the AI activities on the storyline.

In my opinion, simply have creators label their comics/stories as ai created/assisted or not. Frauds will be weeded out very quickly in a burgeoning market.

I don't even think this is necessary. In my opinion, labeling is only necessary if the entire work is based on AI prompts.

I tend to agree with what you've said, good points.

My spouse is a professor, and she has to deal with young adults using writing prompts to create the ENTIRITY of their final material for projects, etc. Sometimes she catches them, and sometimes she doesn't ( she knows their writing style, punctuation style, etc etc ).

At the end of the day, people who substitute their rational minds with theft, fraud and deceit only harm themselves as they get older.

Well, a great discussion! But AI is here to stay, and maybe we should ask contributors that they designate it as AI and have a special section for it. Yes, partial use, a little bit of use needs tolerance, but this is an ever moving target and no one knows where it's really going. So let's make some simple rules and continue to observe the beast and adjust as it evolves.

Nah, I say we ban that garbage. Same as steroids.

Othosmops suggested I give my opinion here, thanks. Hi.
Basically I think AI is an existential threat to all creative human endeavor.
Funny how we the unknowing public thought truck drivers would lose their jobs to machine learning first… that we creatives would be the last to go…

turns out AI is monumentally unsuited for the kind of split-second high-level visual decision making involved in driving, BUT eminently suited for regurgitating a tepid flavorless blended slurry of stolen human art, albeit with frequent huge errors, which go unnoticed by 99.99…% of the population.
Also turns out this is perfect for capitalism, because whatever the 99.99…% are willing to pay money for, creates a tidal wave of profit that drowns out all protest, questions of morals and ethics, and words of caution.

From here, today, there's a good ending, and a bad ending, and not much in between.
The bad ending -
- AI takes over acting, game making, movie making, illustration, fine art, animation, music, writing, design.
- All young blossoming creatives give up their efforts, because they have to take up a trade like plumbing or carpentry to survive, or they stop sharing their work publicly. Maybe nonprofit places like DD survive indefinitely, but yeah.

The good ending -
-AI starts feeding on itself (it's already happening), and goes ‘crazy’ - it's been shown to happen in tests. When AI images are inadvertently harvested, due to not being tagged clearly as AI (which also happens increasingly often), and if this is repeated a few cycles, the AI degrades to the point of becoming unusable.
It's possible this could lead to it becoming unprofitable, and thus not interesting anymore to the venture capitalists. It would die a sad death, just like Elon's self-driving AI.

And that's our only hope I think. Lawmakers aren't going to protect us, because Microsoft, Midjourney and Google will spend billions to make them see things their way.

Miss_Mlem wrote:


I'm 43 years old, and I've been in the artistry field since the late 90s.

I remember this exact same thing happening back then ( probably before many of you were born ) when computer generated images were the new thing. Was it art, was it not art, etc… Same goes for Photoshop, and other digital tools.

I've already said my piece here and by newspost, and I've hogged enough of the conversation so I won't be making any further points/arguments. What I will say though is that in DD you'll be surprised to find a lot of us are of your age :) This is the Old Guard of comic makers site. We got new and aspiring young folk but we old folk are also here. ;)

Hapoppo wrote:

If you take a picture of a mountain at sunset it's not like you made the mountain OR the sunset, but there's still a lot of effort in finding the right angle, using the right equipment, finding the best locations (travel-wise and just being there in general), touching it up in Photoshop, etc.

Your point is spot on. If I took the same picture of the sunset, it would not be as nice (unless I got lucky) as the skilled photographer. The human element makes the difference.