Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="J.Quondam" data-source="post: 9224951" data-attributes="member: 7030100">It absolutely is &quot;one-sided,&quot; by definition; and yes, they absolutely are making an serious, personal accusation that someone both used AI and lied about it, but who apparently continues to deny doing it. I mean, why mention any of that to backers, instead of &quot;We had a problem with an artist who submitted AI generated art. We're serious about our no-AI policy, so it'll take about X more weeks to replace those pieces. Thanks for your patience.&quot; And the company has also chosen not to name the accused artist for whatever reason, despite the seriousness and despite the possibility the artist could still be outed in some other way, which threatens to reignite the mess at some point in the future.Speculating why they do what they do would be conspiracy theorist thinking, but pointing it out is not. So yeah, Occam's Razor tells us to take the statement at face value, which is fair enough; we've got no other choice, after all. That doesn't make the statement any less provocative, unprofessional, or screwy.Fortunately, it's a small company trying to do right by its backers, so good luck to them. Hopefully, too, the artist in question doesn't go on to cheat another small publishing house in the same way. But in the absence of more info, the industry will just have to trust that doesn't happen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="J.Quondam, post: 9224951, member: 7030100"] It absolutely is "one-sided," by definition; and yes, they absolutely [I]are[/I] making an serious, personal accusation that someone both used AI [I]and lied about it, but who apparently continues to deny doing it[/I]. I mean, why mention any of that to backers, instead of "We had a problem with an artist who submitted AI generated art. We're serious about our no-AI policy, so it'll take about X more weeks to replace those pieces. Thanks for your patience." And the company has also chosen not to name the accused artist for whatever reason, despite the seriousness and despite the possibility the artist could still be outed in some other way, which threatens to reignite the mess at some point in the future. Speculating why they do what they do would be conspiracy theorist thinking, but pointing it out is not. So yeah, Occam's Razor tells us to take the statement at face value, which is fair enough; we've got no other choice, after all. That doesn't make the statement any less provocative, unprofessional, or screwy. Fortunately, it's a small company trying to do right by its backers, so good luck to them. Hopefully, too, the artist in question doesn't go on to cheat another small publishing house in the same way. But in the absence of more info, the industry will just have to trust that doesn't happen. [/QUOTE]

Verification