Not every piece of art you don't like was made by AI

[Ruin Explorer]

We see it all the time. News agency prints a front page headline(whether physical or on first page of website) and gets it wrong. The retraction will be 12 pages in behind Granny Fanny Packs or something and virtually no one will see it.

Accusations are sensational!!! Proof and retractions not so much unless you are very, very high profile person.

Nope.

Example with an accusation of using AI art that was false. AI art isn't like being accused of a serious sex crime, like your example. Those are almost impossible to disprove and life-altering. This is neither life-altering nor hard to disprove. Indeed it's trivial to disprove (for the artist themselves - as Morrus pointed out, if art is being bought without a clear individual source it can get more complicated but that is really on the seller to be very certain about his sourcing).

 

[Maxperson]

Nope.

Example with an accusation of using AI art that was false. AI art isn't like being accused of a serious sex crime, like your example. Those are almost impossible to disprove and life-altering. This is neither life-altering nor hard to disprove. Indeed it's trivial to disprove (for the artist themselves - as Morrus pointed out, if art is being bought without a clear individual source it can get more complicated but that is really on the seller to be very certain about his sourcing).

Er, I didn't speak to any specific crime or even a crime at all, let alone a serious sex crime.

This is a well known thing. Retractions simply rarely get anywhere close to the same visibility as the accusations do. One is sensational(accusations) and the other is boring(retractions and proof). People aren't into boring so media buries it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Er, I didn't speak to any specific crime or even a crime at all, let alone a serious sex crime.

This is a well known thing. Retractions simply rarely get anywhere close to the same visibility as the accusations do. One is sensational(accusations) and the other is boring(retractions and proof). People aren't into boring so media buries it.

Like I've said, this isn't comparable to that on any level, so it's a nonsensical worry. It's just fear-mongering on your part imho.

 

[MarkB]

Nope.

Example with an accusation of using AI art that was false. AI art isn't like being accused of a serious sex crime, like your example. Those are almost impossible to disprove and life-altering. This is neither life-altering nor hard to disprove. Indeed it's trivial to disprove (for the artist themselves - as Morrus pointed out, if art is being bought without a clear individual source it can get more complicated but that is really on the seller to be very certain about his sourcing).

Several of the more recent AI art accusations with WotC and other companies haven't been about art pieces built from scratch using AI, they've been about pieces that were enhanced with AI in-filling tools that can add, alter or enhance details within a nearly-finished work. That is much harder for an artist to disprove - simply having work-in-progress files of the image won't do it, since these embellishments are added near the end of the process, once the image is otherwise complete or nearly complete.

 

[Cadence]

RE: The title to the thread

There was something appealing to me about imagining Rob Liefeld's marvel mid-90s comics work actually being the product of a very early AI...

 

[Maxperson]

Like I've said, this isn't comparable to that on any level, so it's a nonsensical worry. It's just fear-mongering on your part imho.

No, it's not. When an accusation of this nature happens, it gets spread on social media very quickly. When proof is shown, it hardly gets talked about at all. That's the exact same situation as I described in my posts. The accusation gets spread because people are into sensational things, which AI art is right now, but the proof of innocence does not get spread like that, because proof isn't sensational. It's boring.

 

[Distracted DM]

For me as a small publisher I loved shutter and adobe stock, was a lot of fun to have a sub and curate art. Definitely is being ruined by AI, I mean where one search used to pull up 20,000 hits, with AI it jumps to 80,000. One can hit the no AI button, though the sites turn that off automatically so you have to be constantly going back and clicking it. I know another prominent RPG author said it increased his work flow. I bought pieces of art accidentally and put them in books so that after looking at the artist's description, I noticed they had changed it to being AI. There are a lot of artists that use AI and then change the picture, so that could be an overlap between the two. Having AI stuff constantly rammed down your throat is further en$!&%ification of the whole internet. Esp since 90% of it is crap eg Sturgeon's law. I mean otherwise, people doing stuff for themselves, posting it in their own places, I don't care about.

Yup, it's filled my art searches with crap. Filters only do so much

 

[dragoner]

Yup, it's filled my art searches with crap. Filters only do so much

Exactly, and in a really annoying fashion such as a hundred pictures that look virtually the same, and all are bad. I mean there is already bad art there, except now with so much more? This has been a general complaint across the internet.

 

[Morrus]

Yup, it's filled my art searches with crap. Filters only do so much

Yeah. It's also not being labelled correctly. If the stock art sites don't fix this, they won't be around much longer. Why would you pay them for something somebody made for free using a tool you also have access to?

 

[Reynard]

Yeah. It's also not being labelled correctly. If the stock art sites don't fix this, they won't be around much longer. Why would you pay them for something somebody made for free using a tool you also have access to?

The industry is actively working on this.