Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
The trouble with AI discussions at this point of its development is that everyone will have their own ideas on the morality of it, and likely it wont be the same as the next guy. All we can ulitimatly do in the end is do whatever feels right for us. To try to impose our morality beliefs onto others will simply end in argument and not change anything.
For me personally, art, however someone creates it is an expression of their creativity. If it makes them happy, then thats what counts. There is no reason to take that joy away from them.
Professionally, the use of AI is forbidden here, so for products here that doesnt even enter into the equation. But final art should be free to whatever brings the artist joy
We're at a point that if people are good renderers and know how to use the render settings along with texture touch up get called out as AI when not a single pixel of it is. Just because someone can't render that good doesn't mean others can't.
One major point of frustration for me is the conflating of LLMs (Large Language Models, aka “generative AI”) with AI. There are a wide variety of AI systems that have nothing to do with LLMs, and all the controversial ethics around them.
I know accuracy in language is a totally lost battle, but I still wish that folks wouldn’t use the term “AI” when speaking specifically about LLMs.
I’m personally in favour of criminalizing/banning the LLM companies and their products, but I am not in favour of banning all forms of AI. (One of my favourite examples is the use of non-LLM machine learning tools for protein folding to develop new vaccines—brilliant and life-saving work!)
Personally, I will not knowingly use AI to "improve" my renders. I'm still learning and to me, it's cheating and not teaching me anything. If I use AI to get me out of a predicament, how am I going to learn how to do the job?
That said, I may be forced to use AI at some point in my VN as I'm still yet to find a poseable goose to work in DS. The only PA who had anything remotely near that could have been modifed on commission is banned from here so I have no way of getting in touch.
Ken Gilliland has a number of excellent geese in his Songbird ReMix Waterfowl Vol 4 collection over at Renderosity, but I'd use Noggin's old but still workable Goose model here in the the DAZ store before resorting to AI.
Frankly, the issue will become important based on copyright law. Currently, AI generated art is not protected by copyright law. (in the US at a minimum) And if someone loses a lawsuit over that, it will be interesting.
That would be great, if only Renderosity wasn't blocked in every VPN location I have.....
Noggin's goose I've looked at and it isn't poseable unfortunately. I need one I can animate.
I think it's safe to say that AI is here, in all its forms- good and bad- and it's not going away. I agree with the perspective that it's a matter of how the AI is used. The OP was talking about disclosing the use of AI in promotional images of products. If a site is going to allow this, it should also require a certain number of promo images that show the product in an unenhanced form. Let people get creative with their promo images, but retain the ability of buyers to see what they're actually buying.
This illustrates the Myth of Inevitability -- that because something has been created and released into the world, it is inevitable that it will continue and we just have to live with it. That argument has long been used to justify all manners of evil and the unintended consequences thereof. When we use it, it is sad in its hopelessness and surrender. "Just because we can do a thing does not mean we should do that thing" nor that the thing cannot be stopped.
Have looked into this in a few places. General consensus is that if the work is transformative (not purely created by AI) then it's defensible in most countries. The bar for transformative, especially with AI as the original author, is incredibly low. Especially since most areas need a plaintiff.
On AI tools being confused for AI: AI detectors currently are using patterns in pixels or words to identify AI generated works, or using reverse image search within their own set (I have my own concerns with that honestly). If you're using the remove tool in Photoshop (which can use AI) it doesn't currently insert this pattern AFAIK. That does leave it to the AI developer to waterwork their work, and it can absolutely be overcome. Even though the signal is quite resilient by signal standards, it's not that resilient if a user is dedicated to removing the waterwark. It then becomes the task of "proving" your work either by showing the creative process which a lot of freelancer places are now doing. I personally don't love it. I don't like showing my creative processes. A lot of what I do, people wouldn't hire me because of how much time something takes me... they hire me because I've learned how to do it all. Oh well.
In game devleopment and other areas the line is kind of falling into: if the AI use is visible to the user, and is replacing talent you should disclose it. For example, generated text or images. If the AI is automation, tool use, or back end then no one cares.
For me there is still one question open, that is, if DAZ will give us the possibility with a button beside the product, that it was made in parts or entirely with AI.
And the answer, that it is forbidden to use AI in the making of, here at DAZ, isn't enough for me, cause it's obvious that AI is already in use by many vendors.
So please, be open and fair, since I really don't wanna support any kind of AI.
Give us customers a honest and fair notice with the product.
Thanks :)
If Daz clearly has a rule that there is no AI used, then there would be no use for such a button...how can you list something using AI when AI is not allowed?
If products can be shown to have been made using AI, then they should be pointed out to Daz via a ticket so that they can investigate.
It is one thing to casually judge a product for AI use, but it is another thing to prove it...and thats where the problem lays.
Right and Thanks RawArt, I forgot that important point.
No one will admit the use and to prove it becomes more and more difficult.
So there is only one thing left to do, if in doubt, don't buy. Saves me a lot of money.
One thing you can do is keep a list of vendors you don't trust, for whatever reason (whether you don't like how they typically build products, or suspect IP violation, or suspect AI use, or politics, or comments somewhere, or astrological sign, or... whatever).
Alternatively, you could keep a list of vendors you DO trust/like and stick to those.
Many artists sell AI products in other stores, but they don't only sell AI products. Sometimes they say "it does," sometimes they say "it doesn't," of course, it's up to the artist. Even if another store has an AI label, it's not very reliable. There was one product I bought that only showed "artificial intelligence was used" months later. What could I do? I could only laugh it off.
we could confess our misdeed - dear DAZ, I have used AI in my , xxxxx (whatever it may be). I did use AI a couple days ago on an image. I had an Ultracenery figure, but could not get the background to line up correctly or look natural. After a pretty long time, this eureka thing when off in my head and I brought the image into an AI program, did a simple request to produce a background that looks natural and blends correctly. Viola, less than 20 seconds later, a finished masterpiece. That is another part of AI that isn't stated much, its a tool, or can be a tool, no different than using phtoshop, or any paint program. No different than generating a 3d figure here and then exporting to Blender. etc etc. I object to AI more on the upcoming environmaental and cost factors, more than anything else about it.
I did run into AI use at REndo just yesterday on promi images for a product. You know how we always ask what dress that is, or hair, etc? Well, I was interested in a dress on a promo pic and found out the PA basically created it in AI. So there we go, and I think we all have our opnions now, but as time goes by, all this discussion will go away and we will use it or not. Just like Photoshop.
I have given up on the arguments about whether to use it or having seen huge amounts of hypocrisy on either side
my only caveat is it's use should always be disclosed just like postwork or if it's in any way computer generated on any image should be, especially photographs
especially for photography in historical, educational and news media etc
misleading people by any means is wrong, whether one uses AI or clever photo editing
even prop food in advertisements
can use it but it should have a disclaimer (food shown for display purposes only), yours won't be basted with shellack and linseed oil and served on a bed of polystyrene rice
hopefully