We need to institute a cap on AI upload volume. Why are there 1273 images in this gallery? There's no way anybody inspected all this trash for quality.

Base +6, haruoneechan +6, Satanic_Neko +14, ekolthegod +6, doggiestyle007 +8, Harbinger74 +6, yupokamusi +9

I agree with imposing some sort of limit on AI-generated images per gallery. The variations on some of these images are so minor and inconsequential from a compositional standpoint, that uploading so many variations of any one image is utterly excessive and could even be considered an act of spamming.

AI prompters: You need to CURATE your output. Limit your uploads to only the images that you think are the absolute best out of a set.

Base +7, Male007 -6, Satanic_Neko +14, Testtype2501 +3, doggiestyle007 +8, yupokamusi +9

I don't entirely agree, although there is a lot of 'spam' here, as well as incessantly repeated galleries. I would prefer to plow through repeated images than have someone else decide what I'd have access to.
What gets me is this stupid censorship. How many great images are destroyed by various blurring and masking methods. What's the point? I can't imagine a logical reason for it.

Base +6, Male007 +6, Testtype2501 +3, yupokamusi +9

@jimbo_pp - " I would prefer to plow through repeated images than have someone else decide what I'd have access to."

I agree. I'm not suggesting that some detached second or third party curate the gallery. There's nothing wrong with suggesting that the *creators themselves* do it. Artists make these decisions about the quality of their work all the time. I see no reason why AI prompters should be exempt, especially if it cuts down on the bloat.

It's probably in the AI prompters' own best interests to be more discerning with the quality of their output because AI imagery already has a negative reputation of being push-button industrialized mass produced content. Uploading repetitious, bloated galleries just reinforces this perception.

"What gets me is this stupid censorship... What's the point? I can't imagine a logical reason for it."

Depending on where and how these works are being distributed, the local obscenity laws may require censorship. (E.g. Japan's Article 175.). The creator could just be avoiding any potential legal issues. And there could also be commercial reasons. Some creators may be restricting access to their uncensored works for members or donors.

Base +7, doggiestyle007 +8