Marc's AI calendar has caused a stir within the community and a selection of messages have been sent to Steve and myself expressing disappointment with the growing use of AI images on the site. These concerns have be expressed a little in the past but seem to have reach a place now that we need to consider a ruling on the use of these images to be put into place for 2024. 

There is a certain irony in this as we we also asked to write an article for the latest H&E about the growing concern of the misuse of images within naturism and how we should view the new laws and concerns being considered. The growth of new-ish terms like  "down blousing", "up skirting" and  "deep fakes" the sharing of revenge porn and the use of sneaky or stolen imagery on the internet. 

The Terms of Service of ANW currently state that members cannot post images of "Photographs where strangers are the main subject of the image taken without their knowledge." This seems a very fair rule and one that has served us well for the last 3 and a half years. People share images taken by themselves, of themselves and of family and friends. And very few people have shown a want to do anything other than that. 

We have also vocalised our concern about following social media profiles that are full of images of strangers on beaches. The owners may say they "love naturism" but they are simply attracting attention using other people's nudity - either hijacked from other profiles and websites or taken through the use of hidden cameras. Both uses strike fear into naturists sharing naturism in real life or on the internet. Such posting behaviour is something we feel should be  rejected by users of social media and not allowed on ANW. 

The use of AI images on ANW seems to upset people on a few levels.

1 The simple dislike of AI images themselves - a sort of gut reaction that has nothing to do with naturism.
2 The concern that AI images undermine genuine artists and replace their much laboured craft.
3 The idea that some of these images look too real and appear to be based on genuine photographs that have been slightly altered if changed at all. Nothing more than a little airbrushing or "photoshopping" at best. 

I feel that the first two concerns are maybe not anything we should really be debating in terms of ANW and naturism. However if you feel differently do share you thoughts in your posts below. But lets quickly bare them in mind.

1 If of course the site became bogged down with nothing but AI images this would not be a good thing, but the occasional use to illustrate a blog title can surely do little harm while used in moderation. Although we always prefer genuine photographs used by the bloggers, sometimes these may not exist and a nice work of art may "paint the right picture" - Do share your thoughts. 

2 Yes AI may be cheating genuine artistry, but is that something a naturist site should be overly concerned about? We promote naturism in art, we offer the body reference library, we encourage members to share their art work and also have a group run for artists. No one would ever wish this genuine art to lose favour but the times are changing and lots of changes in art have happened in the past - yet despite all these changes paint and pencil on canvas or paper continues to capture our souls. Computer animation was seen as cheating, xeroxing for 101 Dalmations was seen as cheating, Photography would surely remove the need for painting, but actually encouraged artists to experiment and move away from simply capturing the world as accurately as possible, tracing reflections and pinhole cameras have been used for centuries. Buying paint rather than mixing your own was seen as short cutting and not getting as involved in the actual creation, what about artists who had apprentices to do the less important parts of the scene. All these things and more have asked questions of art, including what is art? A tent with stickers? A cow cut in half? They are not something I want to see but others do. So how involved should we be,  as a naturist site, in deciding about AI art? Do share you thoughts  

3 And this seems the big one. What about AI images that seem to be real. What is to stop people sharing real photos that are stolen and saying- it is OK they are AI? What is to stop people sharing image after image of naked  images that may be AI but creating profiles that appear to everyone as simply attracting attention through the nudity of strangers (real or imagined)? What is to stop people fearing that their images may be treated in the same way, here or elsewhere, and be concerned that by walking down a beach they may find themselves on a website somewhere. The images may be 100% AI but if they appear real the message of concern will appear real too. The viewer will assume that these are a casual group on a beach that have been photographed without them being aware. The realistic AI image may put others off naturism and may make ANW appear unsafe and unprotective of people's privacy. And continues to ask the question how do we police and manage what is real and what is fake? Even if we are told by a website that these are AI images how do we know to what level they are created. Are these naturist versions of "deep fakes" with genuine people being manipulated to appear real/fake. Could my face be on a AI image eating a steak and saying how much I love meat? Or wearing bikinis on a beach promoting the danger of naturism? These images can be too real to be considered anything but real. No different maybe to placing Kiera Knightley's head on a naked women in a sexual act with a naked man with Donald Trump's head. The message of reality and fakery is a concerning one. Consider this. Naturism is about being honest and open, genuine and real. Is there not something that undermines naturism itself in the use of fake images? Is there not something in the idea that real naturists don't want to share real images and so they share fake images instead? That could suggest we are actually more hung up about our bodies than we pretend to be? What if a naturist federation website shared images of an event and then it turned out these images were of people who were not actually naked and they have been undressed by AI to promote an event because the naked people didn't want to promote the event, or didn't look "good enough" naked or simply didn't turn up? What if a naturist federation decided to use fake images of Kiera Knightly and Donald Trump to promote naturism? Beyond that what message do we share when promoting naturism with images than have taken bikini's off people and placed them on beaches? Are we not suggesting that maybe there is a shortage of genuine naturists out there and so we have to resort to stripping people on photographs to make it seem like a legitimate and real life choice? Does it maybe also suggest a wishful thinking? We want so much to see attractive young women naked on beaches that we create fake images to allow us to see them? Does it suggest that naturists would like to do the same to attractive young women in reality? Naturism is not about stripping off clothing it is about not needing to be covered - is that nuance lost in these images?  What about those members who want to pretend they are naturists to take part in ANW but actually share fake imagery, ones that match their verification ID but using someone else's body on a beach? Some people who make their living from naturism convey a fear of showing their "naughty bits" that we believe is very confusing to those who are trying to understand naturism, are these AI images a way of all of us hiding our genuine nudity and instead creating a fake nudity, not just allowing us to never show our real breasts and genitalia but also making them "bigger and better" than reality. Remove the sags and the stretchmarks, increase your cup size, slim down your waist and add a few inches to your penis. Are these images that seem to show people at their peak actually doing harm to the acceptance and body confidence arguments that naturism is for everyone and how you look simply doesn't matter. These AI images actually seem to pander to the media's concept of perfection. There is an idea that these images are 100% AI and yet when you can see that these images have hidden bikinis and swimsuits and added genitalia and nipples you have to ask why would the bikinis and swimsuits exist in the first place to be removed - it suggests these are manipulated images used in other ways at other times?    

Steve and I feel that this new and ever improving and realistic art form needs to be considered in terms of ANW and in terms of naturism. How much damage could it do to the appreciation  and understanding of naturism and our community? How much confusion could it create? How do we say a realistic AI image of strangers can be shared but a genuine image of strangers cannot and how do we work out which is which? We would love to see a healthy debate here that helps us recognise the reality of these fakes and find the truth in how we find a balance in their use on ANW and maybe within naturism around the internet.  We have great pride in the genuine respectful attitude our community has towards naturism and we feel that the use of these images needs to be in keeping with that. Please share your thoughts in comments below.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic Anna. No doubt AI has come to stay and is already influencing our life in so many ways. I use it on a daily basis myself. When using AI I make the people I communicate with aware of the usage just as I do when using any other source. If AI is misused like any other tool, it can make a lot of damage as you are saying. But ordinary photos can also be faked by using e.g. photoshop or similar tools. If a photo is chanced or enhanced artificially it should be mentioned in order to prevent misuse, misunderstandings or misguiding etc.

Using AI or any other tool for the matter to chance the body or parts of the body is NOT in line with fundamental values of naturisme in my point of view.

In short, the usage of AI is ok in my point of view and most likely unavoidable in the future but must respect our shared values as naturists and it should be clearly mentioned if used.

I hardly feel I have anything to add to what has been said above. Anna's thoughts are very thorough and organized in expression. So, I will make my couple of comments, knowing that what I'm saying is not contributing, but confirming. Tom Hanks is currently suing a company for using him in a dental plan ad that he had no part of. I don't think that is an isolated occurrance right now and it serves to give weight to what Anna said about putting famous faces on naked bodies and causing upheaval in their lives. There may be good uses for AI; but it can also be used very destructively; and taking into consideration human nature in general (history itself bears this out), it will be.

Regarding use of AI images on ANW, my concerns are few and simple. Aren't we supposed to be about accepting one another 'as is,' and not praising someone for their beauty or disrespecting them for whatever toll life has taken, whether it be misfortune or simply the aging process?  Yet, whenever I've seen AI 'photos' here, the image has always been the young, healthy, beautiful person. Although I have to add here, that some of them have been creepy in their 'almost realness.'  Not creepy because they look almost real; creepy because they do not quite look real.

This last part is only my opinion and I offer it as such, because I do not expect 100% agreement with it.  People can have numerous reasons for being reticent to post actual photos of themselves nude. I needn't list them here; we can all think for 5 minutes and come up with a list of legitimate reasons for that. But for those who are not held back from it, the posting of ourselves either in non-sexual, family-friendly recreation, or DIYs around the home, or just smiling and waving at the camera, is what ANW is and should be about. The word 'naturist' is what makes this website more than just "A World." If we're going to hide our real selves behind computer-generated false images, we may as well each adopt our favorite cartoon character and use them as our profile photo and adhere to that identity.  If we do that, I choose Donald Duck. At least he doesn't have to wear pants. If we're going to present a real image to those who might be 'looking in' for the first time and considering the lifestyle (in many cases with trepidation), then let's BE real.

For years British adverts have used voice impersonators who sound like real celebrities and real celebrities to promote items - when you listen it is hard to know if you are listening to the distinctive (and trusting voice) of so and so or just hearing a good impersonation. Of course by not saying it is so-and-so it is hard for the impersonated to do anything but feel a little cheated. It is a legitimate argument that other people have deep voices, or Geordie accents etc - but if you start using their image - as with Tom Hanks then that is dreadful. I hope Tom Hanks takes them to the cleaners. 

There have been many cases on the internet of people's faces/images being used to promote a story or a product. Martin Lewis is a good example - internet sites use his face and quote him selling their insurance etc (Martin Lewis is a financial expert). He has taken out notices on the internet stating he will never make any adverts or make statements on social media away from his actual website so please ignore them, and I believe took some to court too. It is a big problem. 

The way AI imaging is progressing we will soon have the ability to make films starring a fake Tom Hanks and no one will be able to tell the difference. 

Thanks for adding this post here, Anna, up until now, this is not something we have considered deeply, but you raise some very important points about how AI is used, and in regard to the rules of ANW, thinking about it we feel that your above has highlighted a very important issue in regard to membership we had not thought of.

There is a very valid need for discussion here, and we cannot believe this is at all an easy call for either Steve or yourself to make, so it is right that as the members we all add our views so an agreeable policy can be formulated.

In Marc’s defence, we would add that we have had no issue with the work he has placed on the site, we have always known that his artwork for his posts have been AI generated as he has never hidden that fact, and we will add, that some of his more watercolour based works, we have really enjoyed seeing as they are very artistic and we love good artwork. We have ourselves posted images from the past of what we think is less well known paintings we come across, and do share here for others to view and admire

We can fully understand how people may be concerned about recent images, which have been surprisingly realistic. As far as we can tell to date Marc had only added two images to his advent, the first one of a couple, which whilst being very realistic, we did feel was a very warm and enjoyable wholesome image. The beach scene obviously did show that the image had been lifted by the AI and was altered. It was very clear the swimwear had been removed, as it did show lines on the skin where it was obvious bikinis had been removed, and the skin colour pigments were different which made it very obvious.

We will admit, we did not consider the repercussions of this, but clearly the AI has taken this image from somewhere, so it is at heart someone else’s image, which the AI has used, so that begs the question, from which source was this image lifted?

Anders makes a good point, that AI is here to stay, and yes, it is being implemented at a very fast rate in a great many places, which for us as people who work within the creative industry, that is not always the best thing, and we do actually believe that people should be very aware of how it is being used.

Rob is a writer, an industry that has seen many aspects of criminality where AI has been used to lift written works and used without consideration of the Author. It is quite possible to quote large parts of his work without accreditation, which does impact on his ability to earn a living, it is not an image, but the impact is the same, and it is creating some major hurdles in the writing fields currently, because it is theft, something the large online operators are happy to ignore.

Rin is a digital artist, who creates images using programs that layer her digital images together to create one image, as you know, one of her string of creations are the images she creates for the RnR blog, which involves many layers added together over a long period of time. Yes, they are cartoon like, but nevertheless they do take time, and each one is a unique piece of artwork. Would it be easier for her to use AI, yes it would, as that would take seconds, but would it be as fun, no, because she actually puts a lot of love and care into how each image is created.

AI poses aspects like all things of criminality, which in regard to naturism, that could be very problematic. This year we were involved with NWNS as organisers, where we oversaw the aspect of managing the images that were taken and used of the events. There was a very strict code of practice in force, as it was overseen by five members at all times, as we controlled what could and could not be photographed. It was no easy task, because even with coloured wrist bands we were highly aware that people had cameras. Luckily everyone of the site understood our concerns, and acted accordingly, and we managed to gain the consent of other people at the event which allowed us to show a very good representation of people have an enjoyable time here on ANW. Behind the scenes we had long lists of who could and could not be used in pictures, and yes, there was some editing out of people in the background using photoshop, before those images ever made it to ANW or our blogs, it was a difficult balance, which we were happy to achieve, so we fully understand the concerns that are being raised here.

Should we be using AI to take real images of dressed people and removing their clothes? Having consider this, we think not, as it constitutes the same violation, as it would posting a naked image of someone who specifically asked us not to.

The biggest question here we feel is the “Source.”

Where does AI gather its sources from, does anyone know, because we do not? In our work, some of which is book cover creation, we have access to listed legal sources that are consented to, and we can use commercially, is AI using those sources or is it just taking random images from the net? One of the distribution companies we use has banned AI, due to the legal concerns, which Okay, does not affect us, as we do not use it, but again, as we think this subject through, we feel it should be mentioned, and brought to the readers attention, which is the point of this feed.

AI may well be coming a part of life, but there are, like all thing’s, consequences to actions, social media is already filled with celebrity images, of which Facebook at the moment is particularly filled with them. It is amazing how Emma Watson’s weight gain and loss is almost hourly, which sadly, is a consequence of the AI picking over peoples feeds based on their likes, and we like the Harry Potter series, so get thrashed with endless images of her in swim wear, with various sizes of hips, bust, and backsides, it really has become quite tedious, because out of all the cast, Rob has a particular dislike of the woman, and gets annoyed that at times, every Potter page has her AI created images on it. It does highlight how easy it is becoming to create an artificial picture, and one could ask, whose body does Emma have this morning?

We feel that Anna and Steve are right to bring this to the members attention, because we had not considered the proposal of someone creating an account using AI, on what is a very safe platform for naturists. It is a pity that Marc has taken some time out from the site, we have a lot of admiration for his long standing contribution here on the site, and we would love to hear his thoughts on this, as he has been deeply insightful on so many other aspects of the site and naturism.

We have spoken today about this together, and we do feel that the AI paint like artistic images are actually well done, in context, and are obviously to be considered in the same context as other artworks, we do not have an issue with that in regard to AI, we have seen some wonderful art work created that way, although some of our artists friends do not agree with us, and we understand why, their living is made over weeks working on their latest projects. In the context of adding to blogs etc.., a nice piece of artwork is a good addition, and as we have said, we have enjoyed a large selection of some of the more water based images Marc has used to enhance his blogs.

It appears to us there is a need to add more to this conversation to highlight possible misuse of AI, and as membersn, we should collaborate, as this is quite a mine field for Anna and Steve alone, and we should all play our part in resolving this issue.