I did some research for a lot of AI generated cover images and their uploaded 3d-files.My comment are always like: Picture, Comment what is wrong and some other words.
Some of those people already blocked me, so i cant make more comments on their models. Sure. I postet on every model a negative comment. But if their whole existence is AI slop, should i not be allowed to call them out?
Looking at the AI image, I see three barrels coming off the front deck. On the sliced image, only two barrels. I would think that alone would be enough to say it’s a violation, but I haven’t paid much attention to how much of this they’re letting through.
So… the “AI slop” part is the reason. No problem then. Next time i’ll just make the screenshot without comments. Kinda sad, because the “ai slop artist” part in this case is a fact…
“In this case, the model only deviates slightly,”
I don’t agree with this statement. It’s clearly not the same model. And i don’t mean just the barrel problematic. In the generated cover its looks so sharp, well defined like a good model i could print in a high scale. The model self is a mess. Missing details, unclear lines, like made with hot-glue in the summer. Something that I call AI-Slop.
For the advice. Yes, i always do screenshots and report them as misleading. The right way. Sadly it changes nothing…
I get of tired of seeing this kind of garbage. It doesn’t matter if there’s a printed image afterwards. The cover image is still some AI generated garbage that doesn’t actually match the model. The models are often sloppy garbage too because the people behind this stuff aren’t actual designers. They’re just phoning it in as quickly as they can so they can make a buck.
what a complete and utter waste of resources. From the resources used to generate the AI image, to the resources used to generate the AI model, to the resource uses to store and display this garbage online.
Bambu would be better off deleting those models and putting up pictures of ducks instead. I would say it’s equally useless, but I imagine picture of ducks would probably be a more pleasing use of that disk space and would appeal to a far greater audience.
I didn’t really read the whole thread. I just started ranting when I saw more and more of that deformed benchy. I think about this sort of thing right here though, what Retrosharky said. I just ignore this junk on Makerworld. Sometimes I report really bad stuff. But meh. You don’t serve anyone but making yourself look a fool, when you go starting arguments in the comments like that.
Actually, I think discussions like this are more appropriate on the forum here. Even if we’ve had them before, I still think it is worthwhile when people bring it up again and again.
Bambu may not always be a visibly active part of the forums, but they do watch the forums and I’ve seen changes based on the discussions that go on here. This forum acts as one of the gauges of the community; what it likes and doesn’t like.
On Makerworld, when you engage in those petty arguments in the comments, you’re doing so in front of the customers, so to speak.
AI tools can be really useful, and powerful. It’s just the lazy abuse of AI tools to churn out content for people’s schemes of riches or clout.
I think it’s worth calling out. It’s not that they used AI, it’s that it’s poorly generated content by someone who’s only desire is to mop up those sweet sweet points. When you start to look at these models and break them down, they’re really bad, and they really don’t match the cover images. There’s always issues, details off, things that just.
There are a number of people that print this stuff out and just shrug it off because whatever, but obviously it’s an issue for a lot of people too. In any number of popular enough AI generated models, you’ll find people taking issue with ways the model doesn’t actually match the ai generated cover image, or other issues brought about because the model was AI generated.
I’ve come across a number of models that could have been fine enough, but then I realize what I like about that AI generated image just isn’t part of the model. Like Delta Prints. That dude does not create faithful reproductions of what’s in those AI generated images, and because of that, it often looses the part of the model I actually like; what sets it apart for me.
Most of these “designers” that pump this stuff out, just don’t see those issues. They’re not artist, they don’t take that same level of pride in their work. They didn’t actually put the real work into making it, so they don’t see how it’s off, the problems.
Like delta prints just fails to see the nuanced proportions from those AI models, and so what he recreates is just a lifeless copy. Which, I guess is funny that the AI version has more life than the one he made. But I think it goes to show that he’s not really an artist. He’s just churning content out for profit.
Ugh, and that’s one of the better guys. Like I can see why people gloss over some of this stuff. His stuff is mostly correct… I guess. But even with that, there’s people that see those issues and find fault with it. It feels like cheap marketing. It feels like we’re being sold a product that doesn’t match the promos. It’s like seeing that big juicy hamburger in the ad, but getting a sad little patty on a wet bun when we open the bag.
I do very much like Makerworld’s image to model generator. I think it’s awesome, and useful in a couple of different ways. I’ve been using it to create blockout models that I then model over in my authoring program (3dsmax in this case)
Fortunately, it’s Bambulab’s problem. Anyone who gets involved by Bambulabs way to deal with, should also by willing to dance with Bambulab.com ;-).
Google and YouTube even send authentication numbers via postal mail to confirm your identity. If you don’t, your features are severely hugh restrictionsthen and your content will probably never get even a hint of clicks. Anyone who does not comply with the webmaster rules will simply not get a placement… thats Simple is it… if you follow the rules and doing well, you get listed.
New you even should confirm if is there any Altered content on YouTube. One point: «Generates a realistic-looking scene that didn’t actually occur” is to answer by Yes or No - So aspect that you once in a life time will see marks like just like “AI generated contain” as you see on Vdeios “includes advertising”.
When YouTube was new, there was a huge fake account where a studio recreated a teenager. When it came out, every last viewer left immediately. Too-good films will never make it on YouTube. Than more effort, without errors (so make looking unnatural), then no one will watch at it.
I once saw someone who said they had 1,000 downloads on 30 models – wow, 1,000 per hour would be something that would count. 30`000 Downlode coud by done in a hour and is still nothing at all… 100 sales per houre, that would by something. How owns 360 Fusion? All drawed online means they know every dote and uploding is public and may no no longer privat
The bottom line is that all this discussion is superfluous and it has no future. AI makes sense, but what most people imagine will never happen. Because ultimately, people want social contact with people. Some will go to machines, but others will be happy to stand by a river with their children and their wife, enjoying an after-work beer and will ignore everthing else…
Hank, no offense but none of the situations you mentioned are what was being discussed here.
If Makerworld sent authentication numbers via postal mail to these accounts the person would be able to confirm the numbers. This thread isn’t accusing the account holders of being AI, it’s discussing the practice of using AI generated pictures that don’t match the models (and poorly designed models created by AI).
I believe you’re talking about “LonelyGirl15” which was an actress and production company posing as a real teenage girl vlogging about her life. It got huge numbers and internet sleuths figured out it was a hoax. It has nothing to do with AI… and it actually continued to get big numbers even after it was revealed that it was scripted.
PrinterMcgee, I like you, but somhow you never will get it but it is also not needed. How does Google keep AI include and keeping AI away, and why is Bambulab AI on its back? Where will it end, and why does nobody care whether Bambulab has AI?
In a nutshell, nobody cares whether Bambulab has AI in its store or not and thats way i do not need to answer or to need care about iven if 10 person clames me, becouse there is no money in on any money to find
But I also have good news for you: If you’re good, Google will find you. The only problem is that you have to be good and unique. Then you don’t have to care about AI anymore.
Hank I like you too, and someday I hope we can take a bicycle built for two through the park and then have a nice picnic… but for something no one cares about we sure have had a lot of posts here about it.
Yes you are right I answer to long. Somehow i just like to share that they may just can relaxe… The answer to the entire post is so simple.:
Do you know what it takes to verify a company account with Google? Activation of letters and postmen, ID checks, comparison of company registrations with tax numbers, announcement of the company management, and then official reports to tax authorities and so on…
No AI can do that or past by this as soon it matters. And currently there is still only one thing woorth something: The number one spot in Google search.
Bambulab may would only have to register ther buyeraccounts and why they don’t want to do that, you have to ask them yourself
That’s what the points and boost system is. I do believe it helps produce better models. It’s certainly gained me the ability to put the sort of focus into a given model that I would with my day job. Well, at least 40%ish of the same sort of focus, haha.
It’s an interesting thing though because it does open the doors to a lot of get rich quick schemes too, just by nature of how open the system is to engage and take part in.
I have felt before though that Bambu would be better served contracting directly with certain designers, to produce very high quality exclusives for their platform. I think it would be a better investment than the shotgun approach that points can be. (Both approaches have their pros and cons and I could see both working well together to expand the high quality content available.)
In general, I agree though. Like when there’s money behind something, it gives people more resources to focus into their projects. There’s a lot of great work done for free, don’t get me wrong, but yeah. Still, people need to earn money to eat and live, and so when they can focus their time and not worry about it eating into their ability to afford food and rent…!
Yesss, this. It reminds me of how I felt about visual effects in movies. I actually wanted to be a visual effects artist. I didn’t want to do star-wars (prequal) type of effects. That vomit of CGI. I felt that the best visual effects are the ones you never see. I remember seeing a making of video for the movie The Patriot. There were a couple of scenes in that, that were visual effects, and I just would have never ever known if I hadn’t watched that making of video.
I’ll kind of pile one to share what I would hope to see as a user of the platform:
A real photo of the printed item as the first photo.
An indication in the model description of how AI was used.
Personally, I am ok with AI usage but would hope that users do the work to test it and confirm that it prints well. If it doesn’t print well, I would hope that the creator would fix the model before uploading. Of course, this is hard to regulate as it relies on the uploader to follow this process.
For a current project, I’m using AI to generate an initial mesh but and then re-topologizing/redrawing all of it so that it prints well and has clean geometry. Of course, some users may not accept this kind of AI usage (which is fine!) but I’ll include that information in the model description so that they can make that choice.
Same here! If the model is cool or useful, I personally don’t care that much if AI was used to make it in some kind of way. That’s not going to stop me from downloading it. I do feel like it should be in the description though, because I’m probably not going to boost a model that was mostly AI generated. Using AI to get ideas or create a starting point is fine imo.
But if your main picture is not a real print, I’m getting to the point now where I won’t even click on it. I don’t care if you have a bunch of rendered photos in the description, I just don’t want to be suckered into clicking on an awesome looking model only to find out that the real thing looks nothing like the photo. I’m getting tired of scrolling down to the comments to see what something looks like once it’s printed.
It’s not hard to take two minutes to snap a picture or two with your phone and upload it.
One more thought that I didn’t include in my original post: it’s becoming more common for people to “edit” photos by uploading them to ChatGPT (or similar) and then asking the system to make changes to the photo. For example, they might want to clean up the background. This can be an amazing tool.
To some people, this result is just an “edited” photo of a real print. The difficulty is that ChatGPT is using the uploaded photo only as reference to draw a brand new photo. This means that it will change the model in small or large ways. To me, this means it’s no longer a real photo since it can be inconsistent with the actual 3D file.
I feel like we’re all still learning in this new AI world. I’m not an expert and I’m not anti-AI but I’m hopeful that we can find some common ground and best practices as a community.
the first step against you already did and this together with google 2 month ago… they can host your models as well and they do not pay with Vouchers, that pay directly to the bank account without having to remind them… You have identified the problem, now you have to solve it completely. You can do it and god luck
How it the world was my comment “This comment was removed due to the inclusion of sexually explicit and/or suggestive content.”
oh no… one of his cannons fell into the water!!
I like the features:
“Flat bottom for improved bed adhesion.”
well done!
“Maintains the benchmark features of the original Benchy”
does it?
“Great for print quality testing: overhangs, arches, windows, round holes, and fine details”
Bonus: it also does quality testing for supports!! i always wanted that from a Benchy!
ok. this is the last model of you i check. i got to the next ai slop artist.
Because i talk about cannons?!
Not only that. I reported today 5 posts from cipriani3design (he also makes youtube videos about his design which look like AI, “but im not sure” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP1d1xrjsXU ). I reported them because auf misleading tags. my reports always have screenshots with what is the problem. like his:
i reported this. later got a notification from makerworld: “We have blocked all tags that are not related to the model.”
and what changed? nothing. tags still there. they did absolutely nothing.
its one thing to do nothing. but its another to just then say: hey, we resolved this issue…
i have a really hard time to believe that they are doing anything about those ai problems.
your are completely missing the point… i know that maker world supports ai tools. and this has nothing to do with misleading cover images. whatever, i got you point and you. not really mine, but its fine.
ps: i don’t upload here i use other platforms. and after the interaction with this platform i wont in the near future.
you are the one insultig here, mate. you write a lot. passive aggressively. go on. act like the holy grail of this community. so mature by explaining me how the world works.
if you dont like me or my attitude i dont care. i’m not here for you. you are not the moral compas here. you dont have to interact with me. i’m done wasting my time talking to you.
