I have done a number of cartoon-like designs using AI to create the initial artwork. They actually look pretty cool. But all posted images will aways be easy, unsophisticated photos taken with my phone. WYSIWYG.
No apologies for the AI starting art, though. They are my concepts and my directions. Just AI drawing what I tell it.
Im with you on this. I welcome our AI overlords as I feel like weâre all probably safer in the Matrix anyway.
You know, they have been selling objects that look suspiciously similar in gift and novelty shops for decades. Except the ones sold in the shops are made of carved stone, which makes them suitable as a tea candle holder. PLA, if so used, runs the risk of turning into a ball of flames and a eliciting a visit from the local fire department.
In addition, I have been cultivating small succulents, like the ones shown in the picture. As hardy as they are, they would not live in such a condition.
Youâll apparently have lots of company. Our superior intelligence billionaire overlords are ponying up big monies to have their brains preserved and uploaded into computers one day so they can live on as long as someone maintains the computers and buys electricity I guess.
What they donât seem to understand is it wonât be them. If it even works at all however many years in the future, they will still be dead. Something may âlive onâ in the computer but Iâm sensing our billionaire oligarchs may just be extremely rich while being extremely stupid.
amen to that 
i agree with this one, itâs when bad actors use techniques to deceive, however and to bring my âfactâ back, an ai generated image and a render are not in the same category here
whilst i agree that the image, or model description could (should?) indicate that itâs a render, i believe that the render actually should match as much as possible the finished object, therefore layer lines would actually be a welcome addition, as most of the times the renders we see are all shiny, smooth and with colour transitions impossible to achieve in FDM, Iâd much rather see how the product will actually be in real life as much as possible - and i believe this is the goal with industrial designers, that want to reflect material properties and processes on their renderings
and just so that i make my point, i do not use renders, nor do i favour them, for the ones that have seen my work you know that iâm all about photographing actual prints 
I think MW is having an identity crisis, and only BBL can clarify this. Instead of providing sternly worded, but ultimately non-commital rules, how about they define what the purpose of the platform is?
Is Makerworld a library of printable objects, or is it a place to post aspirational concepts?
If Makerworld is a library of printable objects:
If Makerworld is a place to post aspirational concepts.
An extra note:
$$$ is inherently a killer incentive in a capitalist world. If MW is to be a library of printable objects, maybe consider only allowing models with a real print as the cover photo to earn points/money. That would change things overnight.
For my own personal taste, I like folks like Michele and StemFie3D. I think they do well to represent their work in a consistent manner, without making me feel like theyâre trying to pull one over on me. Theyâre going the opposite way. No fancy realistic lighting, no layer lines. I think it presents well though without bringing in questions of misrepresentation.
There are AI images that are exactly the same as the model, structure/shape wise, particularly if the creator just take the AI image and extrude from it. One example will be the Hueforge models. There were loud cries when these were used as the cover. If the criteria is based on how close to the actual model, then these Hueforge images would qualify.
Exactly. How the model came about is irrelevant. A render isnât any less shady if the render is based on a model stolen from others.
That can be true, but the problem with carving out exceptions, which MW has been doing, is that itâs subjective. I was following this forum back at a time when exceptions were made for some big accounts who argued that if they were required to test print their models they would have less time to design so they should be exempted from the rule. But thatâs true for everyone else.
Imaging if the rule about stopping at red lights goes like this: Always come to a full stop at red lights, but if you are not a shady driver then you donât have to. Or if you have been driving for 5 years and you have never had a traffic accident, then the govenment gives you the freedom to use your own judgement to decide if you should come to a full stop at red lights.
These are lovely, and tasteful. The renders are realistic. At the same time, the printed objects do look different. The ornaments on the tree end up having flat parts, and small issues with being unsupported. Of course there will always be (sometimes small) issues like this between a render and a real print. I donât think these creators are trying to deceive, but I would still argue for putting one of their printed images first - Iâd like to immediately know what I can expect to get if I download and print this.
Many years ago I wrote a computer program using LISP, the original AI language. It took scanned and digitized images of topographical maps and output 3D models of the landscape depicted on the map, including roads and rivers, all in 8-bit color. It even created smooth elevation transitions, unlike the stair stepping that is often seen on models derived from topographical maps. My employer was so impressed, that my children had a very good Christmas that year. For an individual designer, it would take many months to do what my program could do in a few hours. The quality was built into the algorithms at a degree that would have been too tedious for a person.
The point being, a computer, or AI generated 3D model is not necessarily a bad thing. In some cases a computer does a much better job than its human counterpart. As far as this thread goes, AI is not the issue, just as computers, 3D printers, the internet, and MakerWorld are not the issue. The issue is the behavior of scoundrels. Everywhere you go, there they are. With each little advantage, no matter how small, no matter how decrepit, they feel emboldened and revel in their ill gotten gains with a deluded sense of superiority.
yeah i get what youâre saying and both show nice designs, and the renders are pleasing, however there are things that donât work for me that well, for example
this is not really a representation of how those curves will print
not saying that the designer is trying to deceive, thereâs a bunch of actual photos after that one, but i donât think this is a realistic render for FDM, maybe it would be on resin
me personally - and also because i like their aesthetics - i like the renders from the designers below
https://makerworld.com/en/@HpInvent
https://makerworld.com/en/@SabreDesign
sure they embelish a bit with backgrounds and whatnot, but the prints actually look pretty close to the renders
No one (as far as I read) is blaming the technology.
We are concerned about the deceptive nature of many of the uses in the promotion of models that often cannot be printed with the resulting model not looking like the idea the image presented.
Fraud is the key here, if the model canât be printed or looks nothing like the image presented, it is fraud.
I spent 35 years commercial writing software, I wrote software that made solutions to problems. The software always did exactly what it was meant to do for usually big businesses, governments or healthcare.
I donât blame the tools for the outcome, I do blame the fools for fraud.
Honest uses of the technology arenât a concern, but, we arenât discussing those or suggesting they should be stopped. Labelling creations based on AI as such would go a long way to both clear up any confusion.
Your situation is very different from the discussion here, YOU used a tool to solve a problem. The flurry of abysmal AI models here are those using the plethora of AI tools that convert text to images without regard for if it can print and zero talent by its so called designer.
The models that are generated are almost always based on compiled libraries images that are taken without permission by the supplier of the tools.
These is no skill in typing âmake me chairâ when the same person wouldnât have the first idea how to make a chair in the 3D or how to make it structurally sound or how to make it print. These are not designers as they never designed something.
I donât understand how people think the design they created is so bad that they need to provide a fake version to be the marquee image. It should always be the printed model. People want the model they can print, not the dream of a model that isnât even close to the image provided.
I understand there may be issues with designers not having extras for the photography like lighting or backgrounds, but, most of the time these are very inexpensive. Most people have an adequate camera on their phone.
Part of the journey is learning and improving. This includes the parts designers are uncomfortable with.
If people resort to using AI because their 3D design skills arenât up to it, either learn some 3D skills or donât pretend work generated at a text prompt is the same as a craft, it isnât.
Whilst Iâd give brain surgery a good go, Iâm not a brain surgeon, I donât pretend to be, I do not have those skills, plus my tremors might be seen as a negative.
Just as an example yesterday, I ran into this (in my opinion) beautiful clock. I got the clock kit with my A1 so I thought, why not. But the model page only used renders which made me quite anxious:
The added print profile was also a bit weird, with the coloured dots printed separately and simultaneously. Up to the point I asked the creator of he even printed it himself before committing. He dodged the question and I decided to give it a go anyway. Tweaked the model to print the dots directly onto the dials and the model came out perfectly:
For small parts or non-complex models I get that 3D rendering can be a fair representation. But with more complex models you just need to be assured that the print works, preferably in the main picture.
So Iâm also firmly in the âonly photosâ as main image camp. Even though the prints can be awesome, as a user you just need to be assured it works as a 3D printed model as well beforehand.
If needed I sometimes put details/warnings/explanation in my other photos and description. But judging by some of the comments I get from time to time, some users just see the main photo and hit print.
So it should represent the expected outcome in a trustful way: photo. Especially for more complex/challenging models
I see it like this.
I go to the store and I buy a figure thatâs in a box. I canât see the actual figure, just the marketing on the box. Reputation and experience with that box is why I purchase without seeing what it is Iâm really buying.
Now, I purchase a different figure. This one has an artists (I suppose) rendetion of the charachter on a placard and the actual figure shown under a plastic bubble. This one I can spend my money on knowing full well what the figure looks like, despite the pretty pics. Itâs easy for me to see the figure.
Now I purchase a figure thatâs in a box. Super sylized pictures of the figure all over it. Some show it sitting in a collection, some show it posing. All are super detailed. Realistic backgrounds and all. Now when I open it, I find a cheap knock off thatâs a poor copy of whatâs on the box.
Of course I wonât buy it again.
These are retail exmples but they can be applied easily to cover renders. It shoudl be obvious, but the first is a nice pic of a model, and it matches the download perfectly.
The second is a render, but it matches the download because thereâs a print pic.
The last is the worst. All renders that donât match the file at all.
Just like I could tell the clerk the third option is â â â â , I can tell MW that the renders violate the rules. MW will ignore me just like the clerk will. Because one purchase, one download, brings people in. \
I can see why you guys care. I do. Just know that MW does not. Even the post they made about it is non-committal. Donât get too wound up.
Hell, they could do what another site has started doing. Not even telling you that your models arenât good enough for points and take you out of search results and even tagged search results. You know what ones didnât get taken out? Yep, renders and AI models. What are users gonig to do? Complaining has no result, not a one person is going to take their models down.
Sorry, I got off on a tangent. Anyway, I think the best thing to do is agree to disagree no matter how bad that tastes. Cause itâs not going to make a difference here, or anywhere really.
Sorry, old man tangent
Itâs rigged. Iâve gotten two printers, both clocks. I can bet most everyone else has gotten majority clocks as well. Just so happens that the clocks are the cheapest 
A1 mini⌠clock⌠rigged yes 
They say itâs a random mystery gift, but Iâm just saying I donât think that it is 
Oh well, clocks are cool enough 
Just like the âassorted mistery boxâ. Everyone got 2 lamps with a remote, 2 boxes of magnets and tealights⌠prove me wrong 
I have only received three hardwarekit boxes in my 6 printers (the recalled A1 mini didnât have one either).
I received the clockkit, lampkit and the boat motor.
I also didnât get the promised MakerSupply gift from the Black Friday sale worth ÂŁ35 with my P1S they promised on the original t&câs and then removed it.
