AI-generated art (topic) and tag warring on post #9016579

On post #9016579 there is a disagreement between two users on whether the AI-generated art (topic) applies. I can understand how it may technically apply because of the line "Rio? Sensei? This is AI-generated, right? Right?", but not every minor detail needs to be tagged and it can result in poisoning a tag. I'd argue the tag doesn't apply because the wiki says it should be used if the subject is about AI-generated art. If I'm searching that tag, I'd expect to see post #9070252 and not a throwaway line.

These two users are currently bickering on the Discord server, so I'm making this thread to get other's opinions and not have this confine entirely on the Discord.

Leaving that server was a great idea.

Anyway I don't think this is enough to warrant the tag.

So we're basically dealing with 3 different arguments here:

• @TKX 's original argument was "it's so small you can't see it" (asset #25329614)
• There's the question of whether we need something more specific for the topic of deepfakes and such (comment #2504508)
• Whether some throwaway line is sufficient.

At the time it was added it was already discussed briefly, leading to its addition. I just happened to be the one doing the actual edit. TKX singlehandedly went against this, and now tried to remove it without discussion again a week later, hence the feedback.

Some sort of deepfakes (topic) (name pending) tag would be more specific and would work, but TKX was trying to remove the tag without adding anything back, ensuring it'd be unfindable if something does get made.

Regarding the third point, personally I'd say it would apply, since the single line is still in the context of the entire image (since the entire post is frames as a fake screenshot). It'd be different if it were in a panel on a comic, for example.

ANON_TOKYO said:
Regarding the third point, personally I'd say it would apply, since the single line is still in the context of the entire image (since the entire post is frames as a fake screenshot). It'd be different if it were in a panel on a comic, for example.

IDK man, if someone is merely mention a character who is not present in the image, you wouldn't tag them into it. Likewise, a mere mention of "is this AI?" is not enough to tag the image as such, as posts in that tag is either derived from AI images or make the topic the main subject of the image.

Also about deepfake tag, idk if it's even worth creating one, but well futureproofing is fine too I guess.

I agree with TrueKringe, a passing mention of AI doesn't make it the topic of the entire image.

As long as something is topical, it has the potential to be taggable. That said, ai-generated art (topic) wouldn't suit it as much as some kind of deepfakes tag. But wouldn't deepfakes imply ai-generated (topic)? The subject of faked pornographic material has been around for a while already- maybe deepfakes isn't the best example.

I've removed the ai-generated art (topic) tag because I don't believe it is applicable to the post. I don't think a deepfake tag would fit either, because the post isn't about a deepfake, it's just some passing comment.