Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated cyberpunk

Files in Category:AI-generated cyberpunk

All of these images are noneductional fan art created by AI images. Plus most (if not all of them) lack information about what prompts were used to generate the images, which is a requirement for AI generated to be hosted on Commons. So the images should be deleted as OOS unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, and by evidence I don't mean vague handwaving nonsense about the technology or anything else along those lines.

Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most. Keep File:Cyberpunk city with not enough funds to protect against the rising sea, using the polluted water for cooler air.jpg in use to illustrate "Climate fiction", and File:NightCitySphere (SD1.5).jpg in use to illustrate "Stable Diffusion", both uses seem appropriate. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, File:NightCitySphere (SDXL).jpg is in use to illustrate the img2img process for the same article. Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 22:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some of the excessive cyberpunk girl images at the first half of this overly indiscriminate list as well as some of the Dream by WOMBO images in the middle but

Keep those that were in use and the higher quality ones at the bottom in general

The user objects to AI images in general and I've never seen them vote for anything but indiscriminately for delete in DRs. Moreover, no valid deletion rationale has been provided but instead a provably false statement fan art created by AI images. The user still hasn't looked up definitions of fan art.

Image on the right is the nearly only if not only art image on WMC showing homelessness and is useful for modern cyberpunk digital art / subjects, in particular possibly the only cyberpunk image of the cyberpunk genre without neon lights which often as a misconception seems required in cyberpunk art. It's also one of the few dystopian modern digital art images. There are very few images of Cities in science fiction art despite that it is a notable subject. The same goes for social science fiction. The image can for example be useful in a visual illustration of cyberpunk being dystopia, not LED lights and it's one of the few images that have not just the prompt but also the parameters, negative prompt and so on.
- Usefulness in brief: where this file is in use I wrote "Illustration of the cyberpunk genre, a street scene without e.g. neon lights which are present in most if not all comparable free media depicting the genre"
The second image on the right, also in use and even three times COM:INUSE, is the first art image on WMC about climate change if except for 3 images of one study that I uploaded earlier; Category:Climate fiction. It can help illustrate Climate change in fiction (possibly also 'cyberpunk and climate change') among other things.

I hope reasons and WMC policies still matter here at least to some extent. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to every nonsensical, ill relevant thing you've said. Except I'll point out that i've told you multiple times now in more then a few discussions that I have zero issue with AI artwork in general. So you attacking for supposedly having that opinion is beyond ridiculous, if not bordering on bullying at this point. Secondly, I'd appreciate it if your going to comment DRs that I've started if you skip the walls of copy pasted text with multiple off-topic, vague bullet points and just say why you think the images should be kept in a concise way. Just doing rambling handwaving about art genres isn't really helpful. Nor is it an effective way to convince people the images should be kept. It certainly convince me of anything. Really, it's just useless noise. So please skip it and just make point next time. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, you are calling legitimate, civil criticism of your frequent bad arguments “bullying” yet hypocritically dismissing anything Proto has just said with insulting, condescending language like “I'm not going to respond to every nonsensical, ill relevant thing you've said.” rambling handwaving” “useless noise.” I get the feeling you don’t actually care about quality of arguments here and will w:wp:bludgeon your opposition to any votes that disagree with you. Dronebogus (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Just to cite a few of the many comments Prototyperspective has made about me in regards to this "the user seems to be fed up with AI images", "The user is opposed to AI images", "that it can be useful is enough of a reason to not ban it based on your unsubstantiated assumptions and quite clear anti AI bias." Sorry, but repeatedly saying someone has a clear anti AI bias or anything else along those lines isn't "legitimate, civil criticism." Especially since I've told Prototyperspective many times now that I have zero issue problems with AI artwork. I'm also not really sure what your talking about in regards to me w:wp:bludgeon votes that disagree with me since there's plenty of DRs, including one's voted in, where I haven't responded to people I disagree with. Including Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hyju where you weirdly made the same sparious accusation even though I didn't respond to people who voted keep even though I though disagreed with their reasons. But if I tell someone to stop attacking me or writing walls of text in my own DR that must mean I just w:wp:bludgeon and any all votes I disagree with. Whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the arguments of everyone who disagrees with you are going to be “vague handwaving nonsense” isn’t particularly conducive to civil conversation. “Noneducational fan art” is also “vague handwaving nonsense”, given that they arguably are educational and are definitely not “fan art”. Dronebogus (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assume that about "everyone who disagrees me." Just Prototyperspective because they've been making the same baseless arguments for weeks now. Prototyperspective isn't "everyone" though and I'd appreciate it if you didn't treat me like they are. As to the civility, it's a two street and Prototyperspective clearly started this off on an uncivil footing by making it about my supposed bais towards AI artwork from the onset. I'm not here to just get dragged every time I nominate an image generated by AI for deletion. Sorry. I know you have to get your digs in on me because of that one time on Wikipedia years ago though ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t remember that, but okay Dronebogus (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep indiscriminate mass nomination with bad arguments like “fan art”(?!) that includes in-use and in-scope images. Recently I just nominated a bunch of crappy OOS copyvios which were kept as “indiscriminate nomination” so if that gets a pass so should this. Dronebogus (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mass sweeping of AI-generated images with nonsense arguments like "fan art" (really for such a generic cyberpunk imagery?), also falsely claiming that some images (such as File:NightCitySphere (SDXL).jpg, also in-use to illustrate img2img process) lacking prompts (please read file description first, I've even included the negative prompts and parameters for completeness).--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 22:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the couple of images that are in use. That was my bad. I thought I had checked them all. As to the images containing prompts, it's not really clear if sentences like "anime style girl in a cyberpunk world" in the description are the prompts or descriptions of the image that were added after the fact. Although I'm willing to take your word on it they were the prompts, but it's on the uploader to make it clear that's what they are and not just descriptions of the files that someone added later. As there's really no way to know with how they are currently written in the description. Admittedly it's clearer what the prompts are in your images, but then that was only one of multiple reasons I gave for why the images should be deleted. So it's not like this hinges on the files including prompts or not. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Full disclosure, I was brought here by this deletion notice on my talkpage. Rather than making a sweeping claim that all of these lack prompts and are non-educational, how about pointing out exactly which ones are lacking prompts, and which ones are non-educational? As an example, I created File:X-Y plot of algorithmically-generated AI art by different science-fiction subgenres.png, and I would like you to tell me with a straight face that it's non-educational, and don't understand why it's lumped in with the rest. Yes, there certainly is a problem with the excessive quantity of non-educational, poor quality AI-generated imagery on Commons, I don't disagree with that; my main issue with this nomination is that it's seemingly indiscriminate for all images within a particular category. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 08:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]