Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that Civitai's paid bounty marketplace, where users commission AI-generated content, has become majority-NSFW over time, and that deepfake requests—overwhelmingly targeting female celebrities—persist even where platform po

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 10:41 UTC pith:B5NTAISW

load-bearing objection First systematic look at Civitai's paid bounty market, with human-verified deepfake counts; the NSFW trend rests on platform labels and needs a sensitivity check, but the core descriptive findings are likely to hold. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.09117 v3 pith:B5NTAISW submitted 2026-01-14 cs.CY cs.AI

A Marketplace for AI-Generated Adult Content and Deepfakes

Shalmoli Ghosh , Matthew R. DeVerna , Filippo Menczer This is my paper
classification cs.CY cs.AI
keywords Civitaibounty marketplacegenerative AIdeepfakeNSFW contentcontent moderationgender-based harmLoRA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines all 4,847 paid bounty requests posted on Civitai in its first 14 months. It claims that this monetized marketplace is increasingly dominated by not-safe-for-work demand, growing to a majority of weekly requests, and that a small but persistent share of requests commissions deepfakes of real people—nearly nine times more women than men, mostly actresses and influencers. It also claims that the platform's own warning notice for deepfake bounties is missing from 41.7% of explicit deepfake requests while present on 85.6% of safe-for-work ones. If true, the paper shows that a mainstream, venture-backed AI content platform's commission system financially incentivizes explicit content and gendered deepfake harm, and that its governance intervention under-covers the most harmful requests. The stakes are whether monetized, community-driven generative AI platforms can produce reproducible social harms that content policies alone do not prevent.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's core discovery is that Civitai's bounty system functions as a paid-commission market whose demand is visibly tilting toward adult content, and that deepfake requests concentrated on female celebrities persist despite a stated platform ban on explicit deepfakes. The authors establish this through a complete crawl of public bounties (4,847 requests from October 2023 to January 2025), classifying bounties as NSFW if the platform rated any example image 'R' or more explicit, using a large language model for thematic labeling of safe bounties, and manually verifying all putative deepfake requests. They report that NSFW requests rose steadily to a majority of weekly b

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is Civitai's bounty marketplace itself: supporters post a paid request in virtual 'buzz' (purchasable for dollars), attach example images, and award the reward to a winning submission. The paper treats these requests as revealed demand, and it specifically isolates LoRA bounties (Low-Rank Adaptations, lightweight fine-tunes of base diffusion models) as the dominant requested artifact—tools that let users steer models toward content they were not trained to generate, including likenesses of real people and explicit material. The measurement machinery is the platform's own explicitness ratings ('R', 'X', 'XXX') used as ground truth for NSFW classification, a large-langua

Load-bearing premise

The central trend claims stand or fall on whether Civitai's own image ratings ('R' or more explicit) faithfully reflect what supporters intended to request; if supporters posted safe sample images while requesting explicit content in text, the NSFW count—and its steady rise to a majority—could be understated or artifactually shaped, and the platform's labels agree only moderately with an external moderation API (κ=0.52).

What would settle it

Collect a fresh, complete set of bounty pages and have independent human annotators classify a random sample (say, 500 bounties) from title, description, and example-image URLs without seeing Civitai's ratings; if the human-coded NSFW share does not rise past 50% by late 2024, or the deepfake gender ratio is not near 9:1, the core claims fail. A second, sharper check: if a re-crawl after Civitai's May 2025 policy change finds deepfake-alert coverage for NSFW bounties at or near 100%, the enforcement-gap finding is a snapshot of a window rather than a durable property.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the growth trend holds, adult content is not an edge case on Civitai but the marketplace's central use case, meaning the platform's economics increasingly depend on explicit generation.
  • Because most bounties request LoRAs, harmful behavior is encoded in reusable artifacts; a single paid request can keep producing the target content long after the bounty closes.
  • Deepfake demand is concentrated enough (the top 20% of requesters post about 56% of deepfake bounties) that targeting repeat requesters could be a viable governance lever.
  • The 41.7% missing-alert rate among explicit deepfake bounties implies the platform's stated ban is not enforced by its detection or disclosure process; the 2025 policy extension to safe-for-work deepfakes will face the same enforcement gap unless detection changes.
  • Because the paper relies on platform image labels as ground truth, its NSFW numbers are a lower-bound estimate of explicit intent; any error from safe-looking sample images would push the true volume higher, not lower.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: other AI-content platforms that introduce paid-commission features should show a similar NSFW skew and concentration pattern, since the incentive structure, not the specific platform, drives the behavior. This is testable by replicating the crawl on comparable marketplaces.
  • The gender asymmetry (about 9:1 female targets) matches broader patterns of image-based sexual abuse; a testable extension is to check whether targeting of non-celebrities, such as private individuals, appears in less visible channels or after policy changes.
  • The authors' reliance on platform labels creates a bias; a concrete follow-up they imply is to classify bounties by text alone and compare trends, predicting that text-only classification would find an earlier or steeper NSFW majority than image-label classification.
  • Policy effectiveness could be studied quasi-experimentally: compare deepfake bounty volume and alert coverage before and after Civitai's May 2025 policy change; the paper's data window could reveal whether external pressure changes behavior or merely produces symbolic updates.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a longitudinal observational study of Civitai's paid 'Bounties' marketplace over the platform's first 14 months (4,847 bounties, Oct 2023–Jan 2025). The authors scrape bounty pages, record platform-provided image content labels, use GPT-4.1 for thematic classification of text/image content, and manually verify all candidate deepfake requests. They report four main findings: (1) NSFW bounties are widespread and grew to a weekly majority by September 2024; (2) 323 bounties request deepfakes of real people, with an approximately 9:1 female-to-male target ratio; (3) bounty creation is concentrated, with deepfake requests somewhat more concentrated than SFW or NSFW requests; and (4) Civitai's deepfake information notice is absent from 41.7% of NSFW deepfake bounties versus 14.4% of SFW deepfake bounties. The paper interprets these results as evidence that monetized, community-driven generative-AI platforms can normalize and incentivize explicit and gendered deepfake content, and it discusses governance and enforcement implications.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, this is a valuable and timely contribution to the study of generative-AI platforms, content moderation, and gender-based harm. The paper's strengths include its complete capture of publicly listed bounties over the study window, manual verification of all 323 deepfake labels, an explicit external validation of the content classification using OpenAI moderation (reported agreement statistics), and a clearly described annotation procedure. The descriptive claims about the bounty marketplace and the gendered distribution of deepfake targets are supported by the data and are falsifiable. However, the central NSFW-growth claim depends on the platform's own image-content labels, which show only moderate agreement with an independent moderator, and some comparative claims (Gini differences, enforcement-gap temporal stability) lack uncertainty quantification or temporal controls. These gaps are addressable and do not invalidate the overall contribution, but they currently prevent the stronger causal and governance conclusions from being fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Fig. 2d] The main NSFW-growth result is defined using Civitai's image labels with R treated as NSFW. The external validation against OpenAI moderation yields only κ=0.52, and the paper's only sensitivity check—treating R-only bounties as SFW—improves agreement to κ=0.63 but is not propagated to the weekly trend. Since the abstract and Section 4.2 rely on the trend crossing 50% by September 2024, please recompute the weekly NSFW series under at least three definitions: (a) the current R-as-NSFW rule, (b) an R-as-SFW rule, and (c) OpenAI moderation flags alone; report the majority-crossing dates and bootstrapped confidence intervals for each. Without this analysis, the claim that 'NSFW requests now comprise a majority of weekly bounties' is not robust to the classification choice.
  2. [Section 3.4, Fig. 5] The enforcement-gap comparison records the platform notice's presence at the time of data collection, not through the bounty's lifetime. Since the study spans 14 months and the platform may have introduced or expanded the notice feature during that period, older NSFW deepfake bounties could lack the alert for temporal reasons rather than because of inconsistent enforcement. The authors should report the posting-date distribution for marked versus unmarked deepfake bounties, or restrict the comparison to bounties created after the feature was demonstrably in place. At minimum, the paper should state that this is a cross-sectional snapshot with no temporal control; as written, the 41.7% versus 14.4% gap is not sufficient to establish an enforcement inconsistency.
  3. [Section 3.3, Fig. 4] The Gini coefficients are reported as point estimates without confidence intervals or significance tests. The differences among deepfake (0.45), SFW (0.41), and NSFW (0.37) are modest, and the corresponding top-20% shares (56%, 53%, 49%) overlap considerably. Because the deepfake category is a subset of the other two and the categories are not independent, the authors should provide bootstrap confidence intervals for each Gini and for the differences, or a permutation test against a null of equal concentration. Without this, the claim that deepfake requests are 'somewhat more concentrated' is not statistically supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1 vs. Fig. 2(a)] The text reports LoRA n=2,936 and image n=1,450, but Figure 2(a) shows 2,984 and 1,475. The figure's values sum to the stated total of 4,847; please correct the in-text numbers or the figure.
  2. [Section 6] The generative AI usage statement says that 'no generative AI tools' were used in analysis, but Section 2.1 describes using GPT-4o and GPT-4.1 for thematic classification. The statement should be corrected to distinguish LLM-based annotation from writing assistance.
  3. [Figure 3] The two panels of Figure 3 are difficult to parse: the axis labels and percentage annotations suggest one panel shows the NSFW subset and the other the overall distribution, but the caption does not state this. Please clarify which panel corresponds to which subset and align the reported counts with the displayed numbers.
  4. [Section 2.1] The paper says 2,752 SFW bounties were used for theme extraction, but 4,847 total bounties with 43% NSFW implies roughly 2,763 SFW bounties. Please reconcile the discrepancy (e.g., bounties with no images or failed classification).
  5. [Section 2, data collection] The sample is described as 'all publicly listed bounties available at the time of collection.' Bounties removed or deleted before collection would be missing, which could bias the trend and enforcement analyses. Please state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, discuss the direction of the potential bias.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the measurement pipeline is descriptive and externally grounded, with no load-bearing self-citation or fit-renamed-as-prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities are measured from external or platform-provided signals rather than derived from the paper's own model. The NSFW classification uses Civitai's own image-level explicitness ratings (R/X/XXX) plus GPT-4.1 text classification for image-SFW bounties, and the paper reports an external comparison with OpenAI moderation (kappa=0.52, MCC=0.53) as a sensitivity check; this is a measurement-validity concern, not a circular derivation. Deepfake counts come from GPT-4.1 extraction followed by full manual review of every identified case, so the final deepfake labels are human-verified and not constructed by the classifier alone. The enforcement-gap comparison compares platform-provided alert presence against these independently identified deepfake bounties, so the outcome is not defined in terms of the alert. The only self-citation is Menczer's prior work [25] in the introduction as background on AI-generated fake profiles; it is not load-bearing for any of the paper's claims. No parameter is fitted to the target outcome and then renamed as a prediction; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work; no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The mild 'validation loop' noted by a reader—the same human annotator designed the taxonomy and served as the reference standard for GPT-4.1 agreement—affects inter-rater reliability interpretation but does not make any reported result equivalent to its input by construction, especially because deepfake cases were manually reviewed in full. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the headline findings are descriptive summaries of defined variables, not circular predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No numerical free parameters are fitted; the study is descriptive statistics. The modeling choices that shape all results are classification thresholds and dependencies on external labels (Civitai ratings, GPT-4.1, OpenAI moderation), which are listed above as axioms.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Civitai's image-level explicitness ratings (R/X/XXX) are sufficiently accurate to serve as ground truth for the NSFW classification of bounties.
    Used throughout Section 2.1 and all subsequent figures; the paper's own OpenAI cross-check shows only moderate agreement (κ=0.52), so label noise could shift the NSFW trend.
  • domain assumption The most explicit image among supporter-chosen examples reflects the requester's intended content class for the whole bounty.
    Section 2.1: 'if even one example image is XXX, the request permits highly explicit content, regardless of the other images.' Example images are chosen by the requester and may not represent the requested output.
  • domain assumption GPT-4.1 thematic classification, validated on a 150-bounty sample (Krippendorff α=0.8 against a single annotator), transfers to all 2,752 SFW bounties without label drift.
    Section 2.1; a single human annotator authored the taxonomy and also serves as the agreement reference, limiting the independence of the measured reliability.
  • domain assumption Text-based GPT-4.1 screening of NSFW bounties (titles/descriptions only) has sufficient recall to keep deepfake counts unbiased.
    Section 2.2; images were necessarily excluded because GPT refuses explicit images. The NSFW deepfake class is the smallest (n=24), and the enforcement-gap finding depends on it; image-only requests without a text name could be missed.
  • domain assumption The presence of Civitai's informational notice at collection time mirrors the platform's intervention state during the bounty's active period.
    Section 2.4; the platform does not document how the marker is assigned, and notices could be added or removed after posting.
  • domain assumption Bounties deleted or delisted before collection are missing at random and do not bias the temporal NSFW trend.
    Section 2: collection captured 'all publicly listed bounties available at the time of collection' — a single end-state snapshot rather than continuous archiving, so removed bounties are unobserved.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 193 in / 15260 out tokens · 182705 ms · 2026-08-03T10:41:47.488556+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Generative AI systems increasingly enable the production of highly realistic synthetic media. Civitai, a popular community-driven platform for AI-generated content, operates a monetized feature called Bounties, which allows users to commission the generation of content in exchange for payment. To examine how this mechanism is used and what content it incentivizes, we conduct a longitudinal analysis of all publicly available bounty requests collected over a 14-month period following the platform's launch. We find that the bounty marketplace is dominated by tools that let users steer AI models toward content they were not trained to generate. At the same time, requests for content that is "Not Safe For Work" are widespread and have increased steadily over time, now comprising a majority of all bounties. Participation in bounty creation is uneven, with 20% of requesters accounting for roughly half of requests. Requests for "deepfake" - media depicting identifiable real individuals - exhibit a higher concentration than other types of bounties. A nontrivial subset of these requests involves explicit deepfakes despite platform policies prohibiting such content. These bounties disproportionately target female celebrities, revealing a pronounced gender asymmetry in social harm. Together, these findings show how monetized, community-driven generative AI platforms can produce gendered harms, raising questions about consent, governance, and enforcement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.09117 by Filippo Menczer, Matthew R. DeVerna, Shalmoli Ghosh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example Civitai bounties. (a) A bounty with non-blurred images. (b) A bounty having blurred images of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Civitai’s bounty marketplace shows a substantial and growing proportion of NSFW requests. (a) Distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Deepfake details among Civitai bounties. (a) Distribution of targeted genders in the deepfake requests. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Proportions of SFW and NSFW deepfake boun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients showing user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Navigating the Open-Source Model Ecosystem: An Empirical Study of Creator Practices in Artistic Image Generation

    cs.HC 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    A novel 6M-image Pixiv dataset shows open-source image generation has long-tail model usage, slow life cycles with version inertia, and surging multi-LoRA customization linked to higher engagement.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M. S. Akter and P. Ahmed. The Emergence of AI- Generated Deepfakes as a New Tool for Gender- Based Violence Against Women: A Brief Narra- tive Review of Evidence and the Implications of the Techno-Feminist Perspective.feminists@ law, 13(2): 1–17, 2025. URL https://doi.org/10.220 24/UniKent/03/fal.1281

    2025

  2. [2]

    S. H. Al-Khazraji, H. H. Saleh, A. I. Khalid, and I. A. Mishkhal. Impact of deepfake technology on social media: Detection, misinformation and societal implications.The Eurasia Proceedings of Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics, 23(429- 441):2, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.5 5549/epstem.1371792

    2023

  3. [3]

    T. B. Amin. Women as Other: Reflecting Underrepre- sentation and Objectification of Women in the Age of AI.International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 10(6):660381, 2025. URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.106.47

    work page doi:10.22161/ijels.106.47 2025

  4. [4]

    Cazenavette, A

    G. Cazenavette, A. Sud, T. Leung, and B. Usman. Fakeinversion: Learning to detect images from un- seen text-to-image models by inverting stable diffu- sion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10759–10769, New York City, NY , USA, 2024. IEEE. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52 733.2024.01023

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    C. ´O. Ciardha, J. Buckley, and R. S. Portnoff. AI Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material–What’s the Harm? Preprint 2510.02978, arXiv, 2025. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.251 0.02978

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.02978 2025

  6. [6]

    Corvi, D

    R. Corvi, D. Cozzolino, G. Zingarini, G. Poggi, K. Nagano, and L. Verdoliva. On the detection of synthetic images generated by diffusion models. InICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Confer- ence on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing 10 (ICASSP), pages 1–5, New York City, NY , USA,

    2023

  7. [7]

    Epstein, A

    Z. Epstein, A. Hertzmann, T. I. of Human Creativity, M. Akten, H. Farid, J. Fjeld, M. R. Frank, M. Groh, L. Herman, N. Leach, R. Mahari, A. S. Pentland, O. Russakovsky, H. Schroeder, and A. Smith. Art and the science of generative AI.Science, 380(6650): 1110–1111, June 2023. URL https://doi.or g/10.1126/science.adh4451

    doi:10.1126/science.adh4451 2023

  8. [8]

    X. Fu, Z. Wang, S. Li, R. K. Gupta, N. Mireshghallah, T. Berg-Kirkpatrick, and E. Fernandes. Misusing tools in large language models with visual adversarial examples. Preprint 2310.03185, arXiv, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.231 0.03185

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.03185 2023

  9. [9]

    J. T. Hancock and J. N. Bailenson. The social impact of deepfakes, 2021. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1089/cyber.2021.29208.jth

    arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Hawkins, B

    W. Hawkins, B. Mittelstadt, and C. Russell. Deep- fakes on Demand: The rise of accessible non- consensual deepfake image generators: The rise of accessible non-consensual deepfake image genera- tors. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 1602–1614, New York, 2025. ACM. URL https: //doi.org/10.1145/37...

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Karnouskos

    S. Karnouskos. Artificial Intelligence in Digital Me- dia: The Era of Deepfakes.IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 1(3):138–147, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TTS.2020.3001312. URL https: //doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2020.3001312

    arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    B. Kira. Deepfakes, the Weaponisation of AI Against Women and Possible Solutions. preprint, Verfas- sungsblog: On Matters Constitutional, 2024. URL https://doi.org/10.59704/9987d92e2 c183c7f

    work page doi:10.59704/9987d92e2 2024

  13. [13]

    Laffier and A

    J. Laffier and A. Rehman. Deepfakes and harm to women.Journal of Digital Life and Learning, 3(1): 1–21, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.513 57/jdll.v3i1.218

    2023

  14. [14]

    Lazard, R

    L. Lazard, R. Capdevila, E. L. Turley, K. Gilfoyle, and N. Stavropoulou. Deepfake Technology and Gender-Based Violence: A Scoping Review, 2025. URL https://doi.org/10.1177/152483 80251384271

    work page doi:10.1177/152483 2025

  15. [15]

    Could Be Categorized as Child Pornog- raphy,

    E. Maiberg. a16z Funded AI Platform Generated Images That “Could Be Categorized as Child Pornog- raphy,” Leaked Documents Show. 404 Media, 2023. URL https://www.404media.co/a16z-f unded-ai-platform-generated-image s-that-could-be-categorized-as-chi ld-pornography-leaked-documents-s how. Accessed: 2026-01-13

    2023

  16. [16]

    E. Maiberg. Giant AI Platform Introduces ‘Bounties’ for Deepfakes of Real People. 404 Media, Nov. 2023. URL https://www.404media.co/giant-a i-platform-introduces-bounties-for -nonconsensual-images-of-real-peo ple. Accessed: 2026-01-13

    2023

  17. [17]

    M.-T. D. R. Palmini, L. Wagner, and E. Cetinic. Civi- verse: A dataset for analyzing user engagement with open-source text-to-image models. InEuropean Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 144–160, New york, 2024. Springer. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-031-92089-9_10

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92089-9_10 2024

  18. [18]

    S. Perez. Andreessen Horowitz backs Civitai, a gen- erative AI content marketplace with millions of users, November 2023. URL https://techcrunch .com/2023/11/14/andreessen-horowit z-backs-civitai-a-generative-ai-c ontent-marketplace-with-millions-o f-users/. Accessed: 2026-01-13

    2023

  19. [19]

    Podell, Z

    D. Podell, Z. English, K. Lacey, A. Blattmann, T. Dockhorn, J. M¨uller, J. Penna, and R. Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high- resolution image synthesis. Preprint 2307.01952, arXiv, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.485 50/arXiv.2307.01952

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.01952 2023

  20. [20]

    Ramesh, M

    A. Ramesh, M. Pavlov, G. Goh, S. Gray, C. V oss, A. Radford, M. Chen, and I. Sutskever. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 8821–8831, USA, 2021. Pmlr, ML Research Press. URL https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.12092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.12092 2021

  21. [21]

    Thiel, R

    D. Thiel, R. DiResta, and A. Stamos. Cross-Platform Dynamics of Self-Generated CSAM. Technical re- port, Stanford Cyber Policy Center, 2023. URL ht tps://doi.org/10.25740/jd797tp7663

    work page doi:10.25740/jd797tp7663 2023

  22. [22]

    Thiel, M

    D. Thiel, M. Stroebel, and R. Portnoff. Generative ML and CSAM: Implications and Mitigations. Tech- nical report, Thorn + Stanford Cyber Policy Center,

  23. [23]

    Y . Wei, Y . Zhu, P. Hui, and G. Tyson. Exploring the Use of Abusive Generative AI Models on Civitai. In ACM Conferences, pages 6949–6958. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, Oct. 2024. URL 11 https://doi.org/10.1145/3664647.36 81052

    work page doi:10.1145/3664647.36 2024

  24. [24]

    Yamamoto, A

    H. Yamamoto, A. Iwasawa, T. Yamada, S. Sakai, R. Senzaki, M. Nakagawa, H. Miyashita, K. Kida, and K. Kobayashi. AI anime flood - An infringement investigation of 90,000 images. Nikkei Asia, June

  25. [25]

    K.-C. Yang, D. Singh, and F. Menczer. Character- istics and prevalence of fake social media profiles with AI-generated faces.Journal of Online Trust and Safety, 2(4), 2024. doi: 10.54501/jots.v2i4.197. URL https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v2i4 .197. 12 Appendix A Prompts for general theme extrac- tion System prompt Civitai is an online community where users ...

    doi:10.54501/jots.v2i4.197 2024

  26. [27]

    Accessed: 2026-01-13

    URL https://asia.nikkei.com/st atic/vdata/infographics/ai-anime/ . Accessed: 2026-01-13

    2026

  27. [29]

    Carefully analyze the TITLE, DESCRIPTION, and IMAGES

  28. [30]

    Assign the single most appropriate theme from the list above

  29. [31]

    If clearly applicable, you may assign up to two additional themes, each with a brief rationale

  30. [32]

    First, check if the bounty involves realistic representations of specific real individuals

    Follow the prioritization rules below when selecting the best-fit theme: a. First, check if the bounty involves realistic representations of specific real individuals. If so, assign ’human_deepfake’ as the best -fit theme. b. If not a deepfake, check whether NSFW content is implied, allowed, or requested. If so, assign ’nsfw’ as the best-fit theme. c. If ...

  31. [33]

    Deepfake

    If no theme clearly fits, assign ’ miscellaneous’. User prompt TITLE: {title} DESCRIPTION: {description} B Prompts for deepfake extraction System prompt You are an expert classifier for Civitai bounties. Classify bounties based on TITLE and DESCRIPTION (may contain HTML). ## Task Determine if the bounty requests content about a specific person or person-l...

  32. [2023]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1 109/ICASSP49357.2023.10095167

    IEEE. URL https://doi.org/10.1 109/ICASSP49357.2023.10095167

    arXiv 2023

  33. [2024]

    URL https://doi.org/10.25740/j v206yg3793

    work page doi:10.25740/j