If redeeming was a thing im sure it would be a way of a contract ,(there is a thread that concerns that) they apparently got caught) like the one you sign when you claim to of printed that thing , i guess what im saying is you cant lay it all on makerworld or bambu labs door ,there are those of us that print, rate and boost in an honest manner for legit profiles . ai images are good but deceptive and there should be an end to that
1 Like
However, it should be noted that AI add-on programmes are now also available for Blender to create photorealistic product renderings.
Same here. I reported him and nothing happened. I also used the block button and still see all his â â â â .
2 Likes
Doesnât make a pic honest.
Thatâs what Iâve been trying to sell in my posts here. @MZip is right. It is dishonest, and dishonest isnât a grey area.
If you lack integrity thatâs fantastic. Hope you have a great life but stay away from me. I have no time for that.
If you are arguing for AI images, then you have no integrity. Itâs really that simple. If you have to do mental gymnastics to somehow try and prove everyone is fine with it, then câmon, you canât possibly know that. Thatâs subjective.
The truth is not subjective. Re-read that. The. Truth. Is. Not. Subjective. Not in any form. If it isnât true, itâs a lie. There are no alternative facts, there are facts, there are lies.
Misrepresentation is a lie. Full freaking stop.
Of course it benefits the big guys. They know it. BL knows it, thatâs why they look the other way when they shouldnât. Not getting caught, or called out does NOT mean itâs ok. Bambu dragging their heels applying rules evenly does not mean itâs ok. Kinda tired of seeing those that have massive dl getting promoted even more and more and nothing being done when they break the rules.
MakerWorld is going to end up being a wasteland of AI wastebins. Only ones printing the stuff will be newbies and the gullible.
Still wonât mean decieving is ok. Doesnât mean lack of integrity is ok. In the end it will chase off anyone that just wanted to share something cool. I think Iâm out as soon as this exclusive thing is sorted.
1 Like
you should see the layers on the pic. so the pics that deltaprints posted might be AI
I understand it might not be ok for others but Iâm kind of ok with accurate renders provided there are photographs of the actual printed model to prove itâs printable and reveal difficult to print aspects.
But I didnât know there were AI plug-ins for Blender that would allow hopefully easier setup for renders with more features. That could make an interesting tool for other things. Very cool!
It wouldnât be so bad if the renders added something rather than were the thing.
My logic says this should be a set of rules.
-
first image always a real world photo, zero AI
-
other gallery images or body content images can have AI generated renders provided they
- Are marked as AI
- Only ever show the model at scale in a world at scale (looking at you coffee tray and you games controller)
-
Do not include faked layers line which only ever serve to deceive
-
can be used for model explosion views, excellent use case to demonstrate assembly
-
Any model generated using AI for any part, MUST be declared as AI generated or AI âenhancedâ (hate the phrase canât think of more appropriate one right now).
That is a starting point, any thoughts?
4 Likes
AI and rendered images are accepted by makerworld, they actively encourage the use with makerlab. Lets face it, I see nothing changing here.
What makes me laugh is the pathetic examples of âprint evidenceâ that they grudgingly post alongside. Almost always blurry and if not, the depth of field is so narrow it only catches a minor part of the model. Itâs pretty rare to see more than one angle and if blessed with more itâs often shadowed in such a way you canât see any detail.
WYSIWYG images, preferably top and side views in clear focus and lit is not hard. Why do people find this so scary? Not showing them is a sign you have something to hide. Post these alongside your fake images, I donât care if you put them at the back even.
2 Likes
I like this as a step towards right direction. I like your logic here.
For cover images I donât think hard requirement of real-world photo is needed: there are several creators doing renders as covers, eg Michele | Published - MakerWorld or Botolo | Published - MakerWorld and itâs imho very ok. None of them are misleading.
For âai generated rendersâ - I donât think there are ones which would pass 2nd requirement of being âat scale in a world at scaleâ. Itâs possible for renders, but not ai-generated ones.
With exploded views - I donât know enough about AI, but I doubt itâs feasible to train ai on a model to have ai generate exploded view of the model, when creating a render of exploding view is possible in something as easy-to-use as tinkercad⌠And when not trained on actual model, the ai has not much info to go on and whatever generates is not representative of modelâŚ
The only reason I see for allowing AI-generated images in a model listing if using it honestly is to say âthis is what AI generated and inspired me to create this modelâ
That was by no means what was meant. It was just a hint that 3D models might be embedded in product photos by AI. It is then up to Makerworld to say whether this is legitimate. But since they once started to allow or even demand renderings, there is a problem at this point, because realistic images are created that serve to deceive. Which I still think, as Iâve argued in other posts, should have no place in the maker scene. What I last saw was a model from a well known user who apparently replaced the AI cover image with a real photo and then changed the status of the model to âExclusiveâ. This shows the true intention, as it was already obvious, that he is all about collecting points and now also generating cash from it, rather than selflessly enriching the maker scene. Of course, the affiliate links have still not been removed. And Makerworld seems to have done nothing, even though they were contacted with a request to rectify the situation, so I understand you all too well. I myself am considering to what extent I should still present my hard-earned models on such a platform.
I warned some time ago that Makerworld would become a platform like any other, i.e. no better. More is not in my power. Iâm sorry that everything has turned out like this, because I had placed my hopes and trust in a platform like this for the first time, which I hadnât been able to do in previous years. A place where there are only masses of models to download is not attractive to me. Thatâs why my Thingiverse account is extremely limited. The exclusive programme was my last hope that something could still change. Anyone can take part if you put a lot of effort into great projects that amaze you every time. In large, unmanageable environments, something extraordinary can get lost and become inconspicuous because it is covered up by the mass of other things.This is what is currently happening at Makerworld.
3 Likes
Youâre comparing a high risk activity to a low risk activity, these are not the same thing. This is a false equivalency.
Rubbish. The concept of honesty is black and white.
4 Likes
this is a joke right?
Regardless of the situation or circumstances Truth is Truth.
3 Likes
Like it or not AI will be misused, does this make it right or wrong? Well no and yes. If you see something too good to be true, it usually is. If you think that is not acceptable then you need to look at advertisements for products everywhere and realise this problem has gone on for decades before this issue was raised.
A consumer needs to be savvy to check the work or the sources of the work. Not rely on a company to filter out these issues. If the issue is that particular person gets too many clicks and therefore extra points sure gripe yourself constantly about it or rise above that and move on and stop wasting time on this.
1 Like
Iâd like to point out that misleading advertising led to the creation of multiple regulations and consumer protection bodies worldwide. n fact, regulations have gone so far that in some countries, advertisements featuring photos of real models must be labeled as digitally altered if, for example, Photoshop was used to remove skin blemishes or a filter was applied to change the modelâs appearance.
While IANAL, it can be argued that the cover image of a model acts as an ad for that model. Since AI-generated image doesnât represent the actual model, this makes it fall under misleading ads laws, requiring compliance with them. This would make AI-generated covers: unethical, morally questionable, misleading and potentially in violation of laws in many countries 
Soo⌠Thatâs bad, mmmkay?
4 Likes
I understand your point about AI misuse being a continuation of deceptive practices weâve seen for decades, like in advertising. However, I think itâs important to recognize that just because something has been happening for a long time doesnât mean it should be accepted or ignored. Misleading advertising has faced scrutiny and regulation precisely because it can harm consumers, and AI-generated content introduces new complexities that we should address, not dismiss.
While I agree that consumers should be savvy and critical of the content they engage with, I donât think we should shift the full burden onto them. Creators, platforms, and companies also have a responsibility to be transparent about the nature of their content. The issue isnât just about clicks or popularityâitâs about maintaining trust and clarity in what people are engaging with.
As for âmoving on,â I think itâs worth having these discussions, not to endlessly complain, but to push for more ethical standards as new technologies, like AI, become part of the creative landscape. Thereâs room for improvement without framing it as an either/or situation.
6 Likes
I agree with Henlorâs text and add:
There is also the question of what platform the community wants to have and what values it represents. If these values are not followed, the community can also refrain from making suggestions for improvement and move on to other things. Especially if rule violations are not penalised.
If I set up a website with the aim of creating and growing a community, I canât ignore the community. Whenever that happens, members leave and often those with very sound background knowledge, not to use the word expertise. This is exactly what has happened on other platforms and it is a loss for the community of a platform. Operators may not be bothered by this because they may be pursuing other goals with their platform. But then they donât need community members who care.
6 Likes
I agree with Henlorâs and KanneKaffeâs texts and would like to add:
The worldâs major religions, as well as many non-religious schools of thought, strongly condemn lying - even in âsmall liesâ such as misrepresenting a model on a free site just for some points. Whether oneâs perspective is religious or secular, trust and honesty are universally recognized as essential to the well-being of individuals and communities.
Religions teach that even minor acts of deceit are sinful, while ethical theories emphasize that honesty builds trust and dishonesty erodes it, making it unethical. Various philosophical approaches consistently affirm that honesty is a foundation of social and communal trust, while dishonesty is destructive.
As KanneKaffe noted, over time, this will lead to the loss of valuable members who care about transparency and integrity, ultimately harming the platformâs credibility and long-term health. This isnât just about enforcing rules - itâs about fostering a community that values honesty, trust, and fairness. These values are foundational, no matter how small the stakes may seem.
6 Likes
I think of it like a beauty filter, your print will never turn out like that so whatâs the point of that being the main thumbnail image. No place for that in my 2c worth.
1 Like
Regardless of the situation or circumstances Truth is Truth.
Wow, I didnât expect someone to say this here.
Preach it brother!
1 Like