Our thoughts on the recent discussion regarding AI generated models

MakerWorld
63

I’ll throw down some opinions. (I’m not picking on you h3li0, I’m just quoting that part to launch into my own blabbing good time)

We all have various views on AI. Some are staunchly against it, some see it’s utility, some think it’s an all powerful thing that’ll make humans obsolete; ushering in a new era. Praise be to the AI overloads, for you are kind, you are just; do not delete me.

We’ve argued back and forth on the merits of AI a bit. One of the big issues to come out of that though is the misrepresentation of a model. It’s not about AI, it’s about misleading marketing and dishonest designers. A hammer can be used to construct a cheaply made house, and the same hammer can be used to construct a perfectly made house. It’s those that wield it, that abuse it.

So let’s talk about the misrepresentation of models in the cover image. Does a render misrepresent a given model? If it’s a render based off the actual model used for printing, and doesn’t hide the fact that it’s a render (like trying to get super realistic with layer lines and stuff), is it misrepresenting? At which point is it fleecing the end user? Perhaps the line that is crossed, is when no other image of the final print is provided. That’s my opinion on where that line is.

I don’t think a beautiful cover image is a sin, even if it’s a render. The issue with AI generated cover images isn’t about the fact that it’s prettier than what the actual print could be; it’s that often times these images are generated separately from the actual model. There’s often a number of obvious and apparent differences. To what extent that bothers the end user, is subject to it’s own debate. Some are fine because they’re looking for the general idea. Some very much are not fine because there is something specific about that model as presented in the cover image that is lacking in the actual printed model.

I don’t think things are always so black and white as people want them to be. There’s a lot of room for interpretation, and different approaches one can take and still be honest; honest with themselves and with the users. There’s a number of users on this forum that use renders and we’ve never found issue with them. We don’t find issue with them because they aren’t being shady. It’s really not about renders, but about shady designers misrepresenting their work. It’s not about AI, but about shady designers misrepresenting their work.

6 Likes
64

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.

65

Im with you on this. I welcome our AI overlords as I feel like we’re all probably safer in the Matrix anyway.

1 Like
66

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.

67

You’ll 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 don’t seem to understand is it won’t be them. If it even works at all however many years in the future, they will still be dead. Something may “live on” in the computer but I’m sensing our billionaire oligarchs may just be extremely rich while being extremely stupid.

1 Like
68

amen to that :smiley:

i agree with this one, it’s when bad actors use techniques to deceive, however and to bring my “fact” 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 it’s 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, I’d 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 i’m all about photographing actual prints :wink:

2 Likes
69

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:

  • Show the real object printed. Yes, a render reflects the actual model, so it is better than an AI image, but printability is huge if Makerworld is a library of printable objects.
  • This will make more work for posters. That is ok.
  • There will be fewer (but better) models available. Some people will feel that it isn’t worth their time and effort. If it isn’t worth their time to know if their design can actually be printed, then the design isn’t done. That is what is meant by “design for manufacturability.” The design is done when the designer knows it can be made. This is also ok.
  • People downloading models will feel they are getting real value and will come back.

If Makerworld is a place to post aspirational concepts.

  • Allow renders as cover images. Allow AI images throughout. If the goal is to share ideas, share ideas.
  • Many more people will post. Some people will take the approach “throw it against the wall and see what sticks.” That comes with the territory.
  • MW may loose high-quality posters & also users in time, as people become frustrated by having to sift through models that don’t print well, and/or don’t look like what is pictured.

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.

2 Likes
70

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 they’re trying to pull one over on me. They’re going the opposite way. No fancy realistic lighting, no layer lines. I think it presents well though without bringing in questions of misrepresentation.

https://makerworld.com/en/@michelem

https://makerworld.com/en/@Stemfie3D

4 Likes
71

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 isn’t 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 it’s 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 that’s 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 don’t 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.

1 Like
72

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 don’t think these creators are trying to deceive, but I would still argue for putting one of their printed images first - I’d like to immediately know what I can expect to get if I download and print this.

73

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.

1 Like
74

yeah i get what you’re saying and both show nice designs, and the renders are pleasing, however there are things that don’t work for me that well, for example
image
this is not really a representation of how those curves will print
not saying that the designer is trying to deceive, there’s a bunch of actual photos after that one, but i don’t 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

75

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 can’t 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 don’t blame the tools for the outcome, I do blame the fools for fraud.

Honest uses of the technology aren’t a concern, but, we aren’t 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 “make me chair” when the same person wouldn’t 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.

76

I don’t 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 isn’t 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 aren’t up to it, either learn some 3D skills or don’t pretend work generated at a text prompt is the same as a craft, it isn’t.

Whilst I’d give brain surgery a good go, I’m not a brain surgeon, I don’t pretend to be, I do not have those skills, plus my tremors might be seen as a negative.

77

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:

17321337522293708962087742290130
173213375222937089620877422901301000×562 28.2 KB

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:

IMG_20241120_203400874
IMG_20241120_2034008741920×1440 168 KB

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 I’m also firmly in the “only photos” 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

78

I see it like this.
I go to the store and I buy a figure that’s in a box. I can’t 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 I’m 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. It’s easy for me to see the figure.

Now I purchase a figure that’s 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 that’s a poor copy of what’s on the box.
Of course I won’t 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 there’s a print pic.
The last is the worst. All renders that don’t match the file at all.

Just like I could tell the clerk the third option is ■■■■, 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. Don’t get too wound up.

Hell, they could do what another site has started doing. Not even telling you that your models aren’t good enough for points and take you out of search results and even tagged search results. You know what ones didn’t 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 it’s not going to make a difference here, or anywhere really.

Sorry, old man tangent

79

It’s rigged. I’ve 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 :thinking:

1 Like
80

A1 mini… clock… rigged yes :rofl:

81

They say it’s a random mystery gift, but I’m just saying I don’t think that it is :person_shrugging: Oh well, clocks are cool enough :slight_smile:

1 Like
82

Just like the “assorted mistery box”. Everyone got 2 lamps with a remote, 2 boxes of magnets and tealights… prove me wrong :sweat_smile: