AI and Literotica, for improving the experience.

[inSOmnya]

How far are we from a AI generated BD or even a FM Video for our stories? I was thinking after seeing a fully AI generated video on YT,

, would't it be great to see our stories come to life?

A question, can I use AI generated images, BD style, to illustrate a story?

Thanks

 

[Katie_Mae]

A question, can I use AI generated images, BD style, to illustrate a story?

Yes, you can, but you are not allowed to publish it to literotica, you'd need to find an alternative platform that allows it.

https://www.literotica.com/resources/art-publishing-guidelines

o publish art on Literotica, you must certify the following stipulations to be true:

• You’re 18 years of age or older and legally able to create, write, publish, and read, erotic material;
• You’re the creator of the work, you own the copyright, and you grant Literotica the legal rights to publish the submitted work;
• Your work does not contain any nonpublishable content as defined in our Content Guidelines;
• You grant Literotica the right to use all legal means available to protect your published work from unauthorized use by other parties.

And nonpublishable material as defined in the content guidelines.

• Works generated by artificial intelligence (AI), large language models (LLM), or other non-human automated systems. Literotica publishes works by human for humans. For more information, see our AI policy.
  
  ....
  
  The above guidelines apply to all content published on Literotica, including but not limited to – stories, poems, audio, artworks, comments, feedback, and forum posts.

 

[StillStunned]

From the FAQ about illustrated works:

• Like all other submissions on Literotica, images must be your original work which you own the copyright to. For example, photographs that you yourself took, or paintings or drawings that you yourself created. Please do not submit photos or other images you have found online, or that you do not own the rights to.

In conjunction with the FAQ about AI:

Literotica’s Publishing Guidelines are clear - you must certify that you are the author of AND you own the copyright to any work published on Literotica. While simple AI tools (spelling and grammar tools, for example) do not usually interfere with an author’s copyright, there are unanswered questions around copyright when using some of the latest AI technologies that generate large blocks of text. If there are any questions about copyright related to any work you’ve used AI tools to help you create, we ask that you research and be 100% sure you own the full rights to the work before attempting to publish the work on Literotica. If you publish a work on Literotica to which you do not fully own the copyright, it may open you up to future legal repercussions.

I'm pretty sure the answer is "no". But to be certain, you'd need to ask Laurel.

Personally, I prefer to see my stories come to life in my own mind, and I'd rather have my readers experience them that way too. That's part of the reading experience: picturing the scenes gives us a sense of co-creating the story, and increases the engagement. That's why reading is often much more immersive that watching a movie or television.

 

[gloomyMoron]

I'm going to quote something I just said in another thread:

That being said, using AI of any sort for creative processes is a slippery slope while also being a moral quagmire. It should just be avoided for any serious/non-personal work.

And, in the time it took me to go get that quote, two people have responded (in a more thorough way then I would have) that use of AI is against LitE policy.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Ban it completely.

Ban all posts about it.


Consider TempBans for those who start threads about it.

 

[onehitwanda]

would't it be great to see our stories come to life?

They already do through the words.

 

[Steph_McNeal]

, would't it be great to see our stories come to life?

If the result is as flat and dull as that planet 9 vid you included, then hard pass.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

One of my NaNo projects I'm currently working on is meant to be turned into an animated film. It's a long-term project, but I have most of the skills, and those I don't I can acquire by actually learning them. The budget is not really an issue as of yet because I'm using one of the cheapest and easiest animation techniques: pixel art.

In the same amount of time it'll get me to make a film with AI, I can spend that time actually doing the film. Maybe even quicker than AI. Just recently I saw someone sharing a screenshot of AI generated images from a few years ago, and it took AI the same amount of time it takes someone to learn how to draw. It might have even taken longer.

Anyway, suffice to say is that if I want to see a story as a film, I'd rather make it myself instead of tossing it to the machine. If I have the skill, why not use them? And if I don't, why not learning them? And if I have the money, why not hiring the people?

 

[symphonia_]

I'm team nah as well.

For my ongoing story, I've commissioned an artist to create a cover for it as the copyright ones looked pretty meh.

I could use AI but honestly I'd rather outline my vision to someone who has actual talent and pay them a fee for it.

 

[Callum_M]

The joy is in the journey. If the interest is only in the end result, the purpose of art is missed. It’s to express more than it is to create.

Even if the words are from stories written by a person, the AI video cannot replicate the nuanced choices of an actor, voice actor, or animator. It won’t play with the lighting, experiment with camera angles, or find it in the edit. If it tries to, it’s copying something it found and is creating nothing unique.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

At some point that will become the norm.
People will reflexively turn up their noses at AI stuff, but the mass audience won't care.
Plenty of animators from the hand drawn era made complaints about how modern computer animation was "soulless", not "real art" and so forth.
Audiences didn't care.
People want a good story, if the images are real actors, hand drawn animation, computer animation or AI, isn't terribly relevant at the end of the day.
The longest running scripted TV series is a poorly drawn cartoon.

It takes significantly more skill to get good video from AI than people here in the AH want to admit. It's easy to claim "you just type in a prompt and it does all the work for you" but that isn't at all accurate.
It's a creative process requiring review, edits, creative decisions all along the way.

 

[gloomyMoron]

It takes significantly more skill to get good video from AI than people here in the AH want to admit. It's easy to claim "you just type in a prompt and it does all the work for you" but that isn't at all accurate.
It's a creative process requiring review, edits, creative decisions all along the way.

Sure, but, in the terms of creative stuff, it should only ever be tool; not a replacement. And even then, using it is risky. A lot of (read: all) AI models were trained off of stolen and/or not properly credited works and the creatives behind the materials that trained the AI weren't compensated AND the AI is taking their work on top of their style. Using AI for any sort of public facing project (especially if you are paying for it) only enables that poor behavior and rewards theives.

There are plenty of great and necessary uses for AI. Medicine. Research. Physics and so on. "Creative", generative AI shouldn't be one of them.

Finally, your assessment that mass audience won't care has already been proven to be wrong. At least in the West. AI games are reviled. AI ads are disliked and often get backlash. The use of AI art, especially in professional projects, gets mocked.

 

[Rob_Royale]

At some point that will become the norm.
People will reflexively turn up their noses at AI stuff, but the mass audience won't care.
Plenty of animators from the hand drawn era made complaints about how modern computer animation was "soulless", not "real art" and so forth.
Audiences didn't care.
People want a good story, if the images are real actors, hand drawn animation, computer animation or AI, isn't terribly relevant at the end of the day.
The longest running scripted TV series is a poorly drawn cartoon.

It takes significantly more skill to get good video from AI than people here in the AH want to admit. It's easy to claim "you just type in a prompt and it does all the work for you" but that isn't at all accurate.
It's a creative process requiring review, edits, creative decisions all along the way.

That is the plain truth of it. You can get all militant about it, gnash your teeth and whine, calling for bans, but in the end, that's just tilting at windmills. This is the future and as we saw in the elections, it's a big deal to a lot of folks. But more so because of the resources required than the ethicalness of a machine creating from stolen data.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Sure, but, in the terms of creative stuff, it should only ever be tool; not a replacement. And even then, using it is risky. A lot of (read: all) AI models were trained off of stolen and/or not properly credited works and the creatives behind the materials that trained the AI weren't compensated AND the AI is taking their work on top of their style. Using AI for any sort of public facing project (especially if you are paying for it) only enables that poor behavior and rewards theives.

There are plenty of great and necessary uses for AI. Medicine. Research. Physics and so on. "Creative", generative AI shouldn't be one of them.

Finally, your assessment that mass audience won't care has already been proven to be wrong. At least in the West. AI games are reviled. AI ads are disliked and often get backlash. The use of AI art, especially in professional projects, gets mocked.

Can you cite specific examples? Actually reviled by a mass audience?
Was it reviled because it was AI or because it was inherently a bad product?
There have been plenty of successful AI ad campaigns.

https://blog.wask.co/ai/best-ai-advertising-campaigns/
"According to Adobe, 81% of creative professionals already rely on generative AI tools such as Midjourney, DALL·E, and Stable Diffusion. Of those, 62% reduced their task time by about 20%, while 69% unlocked brand-new creative possibilities. Momentum is accelerating: in a recent industry poll, 76% of professionals agreed that AI is now essential to their creative workflows."


But sure, everyone mocks it...

 

[Britva415]

BD means what?

 

[Britva415]

Bans for those who start threads about it.

You have some control over that, on your own side. It doesn't stop other people from seeing their posts, but

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

BD means what?

Folks have been hurling that one about for a week or so lately.


Apparently the BD part of BDSM.



Bondage, Domination ....

 

[Britva415]

"Improving the experience"

Are we even writers or what?

 

[SmilingLez]

I'm going to quote something I just said in another thread:


And, in the time it took me to go get that quote, two people have responded (in a more thorough way then I would have) that use of AI is against LitE policy.

Only the (writers) hypocrites will say AI images good but AI stories bad

 

[Bramblethorn]

Absolutely not.

 

[bi_cathy]

I'm planning to turn one of my stories into a book and I'm definitely commissioning an artist to draw the cover, which is based on a very important scene in the story.

I have a couple of leads, one of which is an excellent artist who captures LS eroticism so incredibly well. And that fills me with so much joy

 

[BeechLeaf]

I'm definitely commissioning an artist to draw the cover, which is based on a very important scene in the story.

'A starry late-March evening. A rooftop. A haze of cars and people speeding on the roundabout below. And two silhouettes for whom time had stopped.'

Oh yes, we want to see that. That was pivotal in Strings Attached.