Our thoughts on the recent discussion regarding AI generated models

MakerWorld
1

Recently, there have been growing discussions in our forum regarding AI generated models and cover photos using AI rendered pictures.

We would like to start off by saying thank you for all your support for MakerWorld and we appreciate all the suggestions and advice you guys provided.

After extensive internal discussions within our team, we have arrived at the following conclusions regarding our official stance on AI - generated models in MakerWorld.
We believe that Generative AI, like numerous other applications such as Photoshop and Blender, is a tool that assists in 3D modeling. We recognize that it has certain positive impacts on our creators and users. The Generative AI tools in MakerLab enable our creators to transform their ideas into actual 3D models more easily than ever, and are indeed influencing and making a difference in the daily lives of many MakerWorld users. Nevertheless, there are several issues surrounding AI usage within MakerWorld and we would like to address those topics of discussion here.

Currently, the main discussion topics seem to revolve around two issues.

  1. Creators using AI-enhanced/rendered pictures as cover photos can mislead users and create an unfair advantage over those using real-life cover photos.

  2. AI-generated 3D models sometimes lead to an influx of highly similar, low-effort models in specific areas of MakerWorld, disrupting other creators and users.

Concerning the first issue, MakerWorld holds the following views:

  • We firmly oppose model photos that are blatantly misleading and deceptive, showing a significant discrepancy between the image and the actual printed model.

    • We understand that some creators use renders to color their mono-color models. While we do not prohibit this, we strongly recommend that all creators use photos of the actual printed model as the cover photo of their model.

    • If you wish to use AI - enhanced/rendered photos to display the color schemes of your models, please avoid using them as cover photos. Instead, add them after the photos of the actual printed model to accurately represent the model’s printability. If we determine that the rendered photos are misleading in terms of the actual model, your models may be removed and face points penalty.

    • Models with actual printed models as cover photos will have a higher probability of being promoted and receiving increased exposure, while models with only AI-rendered photos will have little to no chance of promotion.

For the issue of AI - generated models flooding the new upload sections, we plan to take the following measures:

  • We will be more vigilant in actively reducing the exposure of models that are spamming, especially AI-generated models in the new upload section.

  • We will actively monitor the Trending section to limit models that solely use misleading rendered model photos, which may cause printability problems for our users.

  • Repeated offenders will have all their models removed and their accounts suspended from MakerWorld.

  • If you believe that your models have been mis-labeled as AI-generated models, feel free to submit a ticket and provide evidence of your actual modeling process and we will reassess the situation.

Additionally, our users can select the types of models they wish to see more/less on MakerWorld by setting it in the Model Preference section on the Preference tab at the Account Settings Page. You can also block Tags to ban more precise and specific genres of models from your MakerWorld feed. (As indicated in the following picture)

image
image1920Ă—919 76.6 KB

We’ll continue to monitor the impact of AI on our community. Please always share your honest feedback on how things are progressing, and we’ll keep all community members informed about any future developments.

As always, we appreciate your continued support.
The MakerWorld Team

32 Likes
2

thanks for the efforts you’ll be putting to address this topic, looking forward to see them actually taking effect, it’s beneficial from both a end-user and designer stand-point to ensure we are looking at what a design will actually look like, but i have to say that while i understand and agree that AI designs (not only the images) are becoming more common, this then falls into another issue, which is, they cannot have standard license, as AI creations are not subject to copyright, so this is something that you’ll also need to address

edit/ also i’m curious on how you’ll notify the users that their models are being “throttled” when their images are identified as AI generated ones - and what process you’ll have in place to actually perform this identification.

I personally worry because sometimes i receive messages from users asking me what rendering software i’m using for my pictures, while i only do actual photography :slight_smile:

5 Likes
3

Thank you for this balanced response and correctly identifying 2 main issues.

Regarding 1st issue, may I recommend adding a link to community’s effort to help creators in taking better cover photos? The Ultimate MakerWorld Photography Guide or have that transferred to bambu wiki with appropriate credits.
Also for the 1st issue - since print profiles require “at least one photo of real print” already, may I suggest requiring real photo to be a cover image of a print profile? After all - print profiles must demonstrate printability.

As for 2nd point, I echo @h3li0 concerns. I hope creators will be notified and given appropriate time and venue to defend themselves against false positive identification and you’ll use that to improve the process of identifying misleading and spammy models.

This is a topic for another discussion, but I need to express that this is way too limited - the blocked and preferred categories offer only top-level categories and limited number of them. For example: one cannot block that way hueforges and lithos and not block cool signs from Make My Sign.

4 Likes
4

Your continued use of the word avoid rather than a definitive don’t will only serve to continue this issue.

Yet again, you miss an opportunity to stop something and instead allow it to persist.

Excellent…

So close to an actual response that isn’t wet and weak.

Stop sitting on the fence, get a backbone and listen to those who are here to make it better for everyone else. We complain it is bringing the place down with misleading and poor quality and you shout loudly in a whisper “please don’t or I might be forced to do nothing.”

This means reports will continue to be ignored as you can’t ever make a definitive rule that we can point to and the rubbish keeps piling up. This will be like your profile new rules where only those trying to do their best get caught up and the flagrant rule breakers continue to get away with egregious rule breaking.

Tough words, zero real results.

8 Likes
5

Thanks Johnny, your suggestion is received and we might tighten our requirement for real pictures as cover image in the future.
For the 2nd point; once a model is being reported with using misleading AI render pictures, our moderators will first do a manual review of whether the picture is indeed AI generated.
There will be a group of moderators, alongside members from our MakerLab team, to ensure that models with models that do have misleading and deceptive model images are correctly removed.
If you didn’t use AI renders or you do have a real picture with your model uploads, and your comments are mostly successfully printed feedback from MakerWorld users, you should have nothing to worry about.
If you believe you are wrongly taken down by us, you can always submit a ticket and provide evidence to defend yourself. Hope this answers your questions too @h3li0 .

As for the last part, you can block tags in the same section to accurately ban more precise and specific kind of models from your feed. Thanks!

image
image1920Ă—919 49.8 KB

5 Likes
6

@makerworld, take a look at this account.

https://makerworld.com/en/@3DMDesign

BTW, the existing reporting system only allows us to report each individual model rather than “this account is repeatedly doing the same thing, please review all”.

The number of times I have submitted a report for 5 out of 50 from a single user and in each of the 5 said “look at all” for there to be no action on the 45 if I am lucky enough for any action on the 5!

2 Likes
7

Thank you @MakerWorld for watching this whole big topic, or several of them, and address some of these issues currently on your platform, that are also present in other platforms. This seems one big step to make Makerworld “the platform” to be. Together with your incentives and rewards it has achieved much in the community, together with your machines.
My opinion is that AI as a whole is not problematic, it even brings ideas and creativity to the table, as you also mentioned, and with your Makerlab generations also being popular, they also got a way to help users that have no CAD knowledge to achieve certain goals. AI is a great tool that will only keep growing, without a doubt. We can see it everyday evolving into software such as Fusion360, Blender, Adobe Photoshop and many more. AI is here to stay and i think we all can agree with that.

Point 1 and 2 are not the real issue, but it’s a good thing that makerworld is taking notice while also trying to bring fairness among creators. I also think that we can thank you for being proactive in regards to that issue.

This is the real quote that should be enforced as soon as possible and with the most urgency. More on that bellow.

This point is also important. Bambu brought many newcomers to the 3D printing world with their easy to use printers and Bambu owes those who supported them, newcomers or not, for what they are today. We, the users, made the platform what it is today and that is a good thing. But Bambu must also give back, in the form of trust and fairness, so that the platform keeps growing as it has been in the recent years. Most of those users have no idea of what is a good model or not and many times they print what they think they will get, based on the model pictures. Some are pleased because it’s “all new” for them, others have a more keen eye and start discussing in the comments on why the print is not like the image, being led to deception in many cases.

Unfortunately this won’t work. Many of those repeating offenders don’t use the AI tag and so, blocking the AI models will do nothing except stopping from showing the ones created with Makerlab. Those offending accounts will still be shown forcefully in the feed and in search.

To really understand the impact of the real issue, makerworld should read from the start until the end the already opened topic about this, with lots of information about the issue and the misleading practice of certain users. Those same users that also used Makerworld as an excuse for letting them do what they did and still do, by stating in public that having someone “close” inside Bambu/makerworld brings them benefits and that reporting said “creators” will do absolutely nothing. Screenshots are available, posted on that same topic with the creator name well visible. That is not a good practice for those who roam the forums to see. It creates a feeling of being “nothing” and that nothing can be done.
This right here is the elephant in the room that you are failing to address and to be honest, you should have addressed that immediately because it’s not an image that a big company would like to have and brings no trust for your consumers and creators.

Now continuing from this point. Why were all reports to those accounts ignored, and still are?
Why are those accounts allowed to break all of your rules in the guidelines? Why are those accounts allowed to have affiliate links in their description? Why are those accounts allowed to not upload real printed photos? And why are those accounts also still allowed to be on the platform, after being called out at least since 2023?
The same accounts that lure users into their patreons or paid subscriptions.

This all together is the issue you did not referred to and yet is well documented in only one topic, the same topic where Makerworld was repeatedly called over and over again and did not even once corrected the user who used you, Makerworld, as a cover to him doing what he wanted and still does.

I, like many here, am amazed on the quality of certain creators and models but also disapointed with others that led me to waste filament, time and eletricity. Those are all costs.
I am one of those people that is trying to get to an objective of getting enough rewards to buy your X1C machine since forever and yet i was only able to spend most of the rewards in filament because it is what i most use for prototyping models before uploading them, as it should be and an A1 Mini for my daughter. And yet i, and i bet that many others too, feel deceived that after all the work i put into printing the model times and times again so that users can download it and print it without any issues, comes with no rewards comparing to those who “dump” their deceiving models without testing them and they are the ones that make thousands monthly in your platform.

Thank you makerworld for bringing this up and will keep watching this topic as it grows with time.

As a side note. I am sorry if there are some grammar mistakes or if some of my phrases are not well built but English is not my native language and i try my best, as always.

2 Likes
8

Respectfuly Malc, I think this is actually the case where renders are “legit”. I agree with Moe over at AI generated models flooding the website - #340 by MoeStone regarding that account.

Thank you and I know that, however my request is to simply allow users to block sub-categories and not limit the number of blocks.

Banning tags is OK-ish however problematic due to possible misspellings (or deliberate misuse) of tags, see

obraz

Additionally being able to block users (so we don’t see their “models” in our feed) would bring another level of users being able to moderate their feeds.

2 Likes
9

The renders are on the first image.

This was my context.

1 Like
10

Oh then there are many such accounts, where 90%+ cover images are renders (and honest renders at that, not AI gen or deceptive) like eg very popular SabreDesign | Published - MakerWorld or planterpots made by uni3Dworld | Published - MakerWorld

11

I know, I figured we would test the resolve of @MakerWorld.

Renders are not honest when they add fake layer lines or are nothing like the actual model the provide which is too often the case.

The SabreDesign one you referenced is a prime example of a user that only renders, all fake and ni photo evidence of a successful print is provided, yet @MakerWorld constantly give them a pass despite blatantly breaking the rules they enforce on less popular accounts.

1 Like
12

Oh, then neither 3DMDesign nor SabreDesign fall into that category. The actual dishonest renders are Bobo | Published - MakerWorld & MrPurple | Published - MakerWorld

Respectfuly, you’re incorrect in your assesment. If you check their newest uploads, the photos in the galery indeed do not show printed models, but the 2nd photo of the print profile (not cover) does show printed object and it doesn’t fall far from the render IMHO:

1920Ă—1440 69.6 KB

So they do post print evidence, but it’s quite hidden. (unless I’m mistaken and it’s a render with all the stringing and print lines and imperfections of real print, in which case it’s even worse…)

13

The image you provided as an example still looks like a fake render to me, everything is out of focus except the models.

I have gone a reviewed some of the older ones, it seems some have had recent photos added to the models as you can tell in the image url which includes the dates.

We are arguing over semantics though.

That account publishes renders as the first image, something we have been arguing to stop being allowed.

MakerWorld have tepidly said they might do something in a very non-committal way.

We will see what happens.

Personally, I want all renders off the first image, no renders that look nothing like the model they provide, photo evidence of successful prints using a BL printer and any AI generated models to be declared as such with a prominent notice and all models it generates looking identical to the model in images, it must be printable.

3 Likes
14

I am starting to agree with Malc on this all situation to be honest. And i don’t like it :sweat_smile:

It seems that the elephant is still present in the room and it was not fully addressed. And that’s it. Well, of to another topic i go :sweat_smile:

5 Likes
15

One solution …to cut down few… if a model requires supports then a photo of model before supports are removed is also required… in model images.

2 Likes
16

oh there is more than one ignored elephant at this point. :elephant: :elephant: :elephant:

2 Likes
17

I had 3 suggestions in a post linked below. What MW now decided is to allow less chance of promotion for AI generated models, which is close to my 2rd suggestion which is to reduce expusore for AI generated models. I had hoped MW also take up my 3rd suggestion which is to grant AI generated models less reward points. But this is in the right direction. What counts in the coming months is if MW will enforce it.

18

This has been a long-standing suggestion from many creators. Renders, photos of non-3D printed objects (such as photo of a real porcelain toy or sculpture), AI generated images, etc. should not be allowed to be used as cover images,

We shouldn’t have to get into the argument on whether or not the render or AI generated image is close enough to the real model or if it’s worse than the real model. If it’s not a photo of the 3D printed model, then it cannot be in the cover. Period.

It’s not clear from the above @MakerWorld rule that an upload that uses render as the cover image will be penalized at all.

“models with only AI-rendered photos will have little to no chance of promotion.” Does this mean that models that use AI images as cover will be ok if there is one photo of the printed model at the end? What about renders? Why “little to no chance” instead of simply “no chance”? Too many loopholes, in my opinion.

2 Likes
19

This is the point I made earlier. So non-committal.

20

Anecdotally, I think that I have been seeing significantly fewer AI cover images in my MakerWorld feed.

Either way, I agree that the outlined stance from MakerWorld is somewhat “tepid”, but to be fair it’s not easy from their perspective. It can be hard when you try to take a harder stance on something like this because application of hard rules can be perceived as too tough or difficult to achieve, which then makes it easy to fail at or take time to implement causing people to complain. It’s a bit of a “you’re damned if you do. you’re damned if you don’t” situation. Though, in that case you might as well be “damned” by taking a stronger stance.

All in all, I appreciate that MakerWorld is showing an effort and, even if I don’t agree with the results of that effort, I’ll take some effort over none.

Lastly, what Square3D says about the one user is definitely a big issue that was not addressed. I’m not afraid to mention them by name, though. Along with being one of the worst offenders of AI generated cover images that misrepresent the model and violating the clearly stated MakerWorld guidelines by including affiliate links* in each one of their model descriptions, @Docsnyder78’s behavior on this forum alone is a problem. They are needlessly antagonistic to people who express valid complaints on this issue. Those valid complaints are at the foundation of this thread and the core of your stance against these behaviors. Worse, their claims about having an insider to manipulate MakerWorld to their benefit outlines their behavior of acting superior to others and disparages the people who are trying to discuss this situation respectfully. Additionally, MakerWorld’s lack of action about these claims make it seem that they are true, which sows distrust in MakerWorld. You can easily see in their post history on the forums [here] that out of a total of 49 total messages only one was not on a thread where they are antagonizing people because of these valid complaints.

*more information on this can be found [here]

2 Likes