Is it the pictures that are AI generated, or the models themselves? I tried to print one of the headphone holders and it flat out failed multiple times. I assumed it was just a corrupted upload so I just went with another model.
The pictures. At least i think that he does the models but they almost never are the same as the generated photos.
You should have rated accordingly and explain the issue with the model. But seeing what he normally does, probably it would report your comment so it would be deleted.
I was glad to see that the MakerWorld guidelines for Exclusive Models states that the primary cover image needs to be an actual photo of the printed object and not a render or fake image, but I can see that designers have already overlooked this ruleā¦
6 Likes
iād get on this, lets do it!
There are so many times iāve wanted just a small and simple discussion with some people on makerworld, and itās really hard to get a good discussion going on reddit these days, itās also a bit tricky to start a forum thread on just āhey lets have a chat about this contestā etc
2 Likes
On the topic, a recently released video about āAI Scamsā by Corridor Crew:
Thereās a great quote at 13:10-13:20 mark:
I find it so funny: itās a bit ticket item [ā¦] and first thing they serve you is AI-generated image. Thatās kinda scummy and gross.
Next good quote around 18:00-18:10:
If youāre gonna sell it you need to be truthful with your pictures and AI image of it isnāt truthful
Last one Iād like to highlight is at around 19:30-19:40:
The more of it [the content on online platform] is generated, the less real people, real moments [ā¦] the less people [are gonna use it]. Weāre here to find authenticity!
Overall - quite interesting video and sorta on-topic since they show a way of how to easily recognize ai-generated images.
5 Likes
Thanks for sharing Johnny,
Changing clothes, eating and drinking during a video are currently the limits - for how long and whether those limets have already fallen?
Interssting - what do you think, they ever ware those shirts? That was pretty much the first thought in my head when I saw the photo first time, the photo is simply just too good to be true:
Sorry, Iām not sure what you mean 
Could you clarify?
Iām sorry, I quoted the wrong post
1 Like
Did it change? Because it does not say this at all
Yes it did change. Just 2 days ago it did say that cover cannot be render/ai generated image. Now it says:
All Exclusive Models require at least one photo of the actual printed model to ensure print quality. All models using only screenshots or rendered photos as model photos will be removed as Exclusive Model.
I shouldāve quoted verbatim the cover rule in my reply commenting on subjective vs objective guidelines as it was IMHO good, clear and objective. Now it doesnāt differ from standard profile upload rules 
3 Likes
Makerworld should wait and see how the exclusive models develop, instead of backtracking now. Iām sure that if you insist on real photos and donāt allow any rendered or AI-generated images at all, people will create them if they care about the exclusive program. Makerworld should demonstrate how to create appealing photographs. Inconsistency is one reason why people donāt take the rules seriously.
2 Likes
Exactly, he began personally attacking people, name calling, gaslighting, harassing, and mocking. Heās already doing it here also to get a rise out of people in hopes this one gets shut down too.
3 Likes
I appreciate your cordiality and the good faith effort of the poll, but my previous points about only reaching a tiny, tiny sub-type of the community still stands.
The poll only has 30 voters, yet thousands of people have indirectly voted some variation of āNo, it doesnāt bother me enough to not like, download, print, boost, positively rate the model, as well as follow the creator.ā
Of this userās 227 models, only roughly 40 of them have less likes than the total number of voters in this poll. With a total of almost 34,000 likes across all the models, and 64,000 downloads. The total number of commenters in this thread are merely a drop in an ocean in comparison.
I see your point, but itās a logical fallacy of āargumentum ad populum.ā
The images look appealing thatās why people download the models, then people print them and then āhey it printedā is basis for positive rating since profile rating is disjoined from model rating. People following and printing might be accustomed to difference between cover image and output thinking thatās about as it gets, but thatās accepting sub-par standard and being lied to. Iād even consider that a form of psychological abuse, because if you look and stunning image of somebody elseās model and you assume āoh, itāll be mediocreā due to your previous experience with ai-generated cover images instead of thinking that this designer put effort into actually making the item that good, then youāll be disinclined to consider the better model. That also goes the other way - a model of same quality but presented honestly will be looked over. This harms users and creators: users by eroding trust and creators by eroding motivation to create good models and good photos.
Even if users arenāt bothered now, this consistent deception could alienate dedicated creators and new users damaging community in the long run. Truth and honesty ensures level playing field for all.
Also think about fairness - honest creator is disadvantaged from the start: no AI tool to outsource creativity to, no eye-catching AI-generated image, no magic scenery that works and is perfectly arranged to display the modelā¦ How are the honest ones supposed to compete even if their model is of better quality? Thatās unfair advantage, because honest creators will refuse using deceptive methods. Thatās also why steroids are banned in competitive sports 
Also - look at the video I posted in the topic earlier - thereās a quote that can be summed up as: the more content is generated, the less people are gonna use the platform. Neither MW, nor creators nor users would benefit from the platform dying slow death by generated content and/or creeping distrust.
7 Likes
argumentum ad populum: " we make an appeal to what most people think, like, or believe, instead of justifying our position with evidence"
That sounds a lot like whatās going on in other comments in this thread, your comment, and even my earlier comments. But, in the previous comment I provided numbers, evidence, against the evidence of the mini-poll.
Do you have evidence for the following?
- āThe images look appealing thatās why people download the models, then people print them and then āhey it printedā is basis for positive rating since profile rating is disjoined from model ratingā"
I would also argue here that they are completely happy with what they got, which is the aim. I think the likes and collects reflect that, there are many prints in the comments of models that they can check to see if itās good or not.
There are a lot of assumptions, as well as presumptions, of the people, as a population, in your points.
Honest creators can be honest just fine, though I believe people will download what they like, not whatās the most honest, or the most fair. We can argue this.
I hope you see my point.
On other points:
" Iād even consider that a form of psychological abuse"
Iām sorry, what, can you expand on this?
āAlso - look at the video I posted in the topic earlier - thereās a quote that can be summed up as: the more content is generated, the less people are gonna use the platform.ā
This is not a proven fact, this is their opinion.
If you want to bring logical fallacies into this, hereās the ones chatGPT finds in your comment. He did the work for me
The post presents several arguments against using AI-generated images as cover images for models, suggesting that this practice is deceptive and harmful to both creators and users. However, in making these arguments, the post contains several logical fallacies:
- Slippery Slope Fallacy:
- Example from the Post: āEven if users arenāt bothered now, this consistent deception could alienate dedicated creators and new users damaging community in the long runā¦ the platform dying slow death by generated content and/or creeping distrust.ā
- Explanation: The author assumes that allowing AI-generated images will inevitably lead to the platformās decline and loss of trust among users and creators without providing concrete evidence or logical reasoning to support this chain of events.
- False Analogy:
- Example from the Post: āThatās unfair advantage, because honest creators will refuse using deceptive methods. Thatās also why steroids are banned in competitive sports ā
- Explanation: Comparing the use of AI-generated images to using steroids in sports is a false analogy. Steroids are banned due to health risks and unfair physical advantages that compromise the integrity of sports. In contrast, AI tools in creative fields are widely accepted as they enhance creativity and productivity without inherent deceit or health risks.
- Appeal to Emotion (Pathos):
- Example from the Post: āIād even consider that a form of psychological abuseā¦ This harms users and creators: users by eroding trust and creators by eroding motivation to create good models and good photos.ā
- Explanation: The author uses emotionally charged language like āpsychological abuseā and āeroding trustā to persuade readers by appealing to their emotions rather than presenting logical arguments or empirical evidence.
- Hasty Generalization:
- Example from the Post: āPeopleā¦ might be accustomed to difference between cover image and output thinking thatās about as it gets, but thatās accepting sub-par standard and being lied to.ā
- Explanation: The author generalizes that all users are being deceived and accepting sub-par standards without providing sufficient data or acknowledging that experiences may vary among different users.
- Ad Hominem (Implied):
- Example from the Post: āThatās unfair advantage, because honest creators will refuse using deceptive methods.ā
- Explanation: By labeling those who use AI-generated images as not āhonestā and using ādeceptive methods,ā the author attacks the character of these creators rather than addressing the legitimacy or impact of using AI tools.
- Non Sequitur:
- Example from the Post: āTruth and honesty ensures level playing field for all.ā
- Explanation: The conclusion that only ātruth and honestyā (implying not using AI-generated images) ensures fairness does not logically follow from the arguments presented. It assumes that using AI is inherently dishonest without establishing why this is the case.
- Red Herring:
- Example from the Post: āAlso - look at the video I posted in the topic earlier - thereās a quote that can be summed up as: the more content is generated, the less people are gonna use the platform.ā
- Explanation: Introducing an external video and a generalized quote diverts attention from the main argument about AI-generated images and doesnāt directly support the claim that such images harm the platform.
By relying on these logical fallacies, the authorās argument becomes less persuasive and undermines the validity of the concerns raised. A more effective approach would involve providing empirical evidence, considering counterarguments, and avoiding emotionally charged or accusatory language.
someone is having fun with chatgpt 
6 Likes
Your argumentum ad populum is ālook, loads of people are downloading and not complainingā and Iāve explained why I think that might be the case.
Next - youāre comparing a mini-poll in a limited thread with limited number of participants to the scale of deltaprints numbers, thatās another argumentum ad populum.
My father had a funny saying about appeal to the crowd: āletās all eat ā ā ā ā - billions of flies canāt be wrong!ā
Further on:
Yes! Quite frankly youāll find one in this very thread where @Square3D shared his experience with model his wife found appealing and wanted to have. Also - I did download one of those, saw it in the slicer and went: āwaaaait a minute, this wouldnāt come out like in the imageā and ultimately didnāt print. Then I went over cover images and decided Iām not gonna bother. As to the experience of other users - you know very well that neither I nor you have access to statistics that would have the data. The fact that youāre asking me to provide a data you know I donāt have access to nor means to gather rubs me the wrong way. However, I have 2 data points: mine and Squareās experience. In both cases negative. I can make inference from them.
Thereās something Iād like to highlight in your thoughts:
right after assuming:
Iād say - not a great look.
To the topic:
Iāve explained that honest creators are negatively impacted by dishonest practices and itās unfair to them. The cover images not reflecting what people download runs contrary to your āwill download what they likeā because they canāt like the item based on the cover image - they can and do like the cover image.
Iāve explained in the post - it trains people to except mediocre result from good cover image.
1 Like
āNext - youāre comparing a mini-poll in a limited thread with limited number of participants to the scale of deltaprints numbers, thatās another argumentum ad populum.ā
Iām just trying to prove a counter-point by doing what other people here are doing, fire with fire. I donāt think itās fair to single me out.
āIāve explained in the post - it trains people to except mediocre result from good cover image.ā
You do know what psychological abuse is, right?
Iāll edit this post later with more.
Edits:
āMy father had a funny saying about appeal to the crowd: āletās all eat ā ā ā ā - billions of flies canāt be wrong!āā
So lets do what 30 people do instead? ā30 people canāt be wrong!ā
āThe fact that youāre asking me to provide a data you know I donāt have access to nor means to gather rubs me the wrong way. However, I have 2 data points: mine and Squareās experience. In both cases negative. I can make inference from them.ā
We both know you donāt, I thought that was obvious. I was trying to prove a point by showing that you were doing the same. 2 data points, compared to millions(?) of users, Iād say thatās an irresponsible inference from your bubble of influence.
āright after assumingā
Can you please specify what exactly is the assumption that we are meant to be discussing here? And also address your assumptions? If youāre using assumptions yourself you donāt have a right to complain when itās used against you. If itās not a good look, we both have it in common.
āThe cover images not reflecting what people download runs contrary to your āwill download what they likeā because they canāt like the item based on the cover image - they can and do like the cover image.ā
I donāt see how, and by this point I donāt care anymore to argue with a brick wall.
Iāve exhausted my allotted time for the week arguing online, and I donāt see this going anywhere.