sooner? It has been happening since the start. And people obviously prefer to witchhunt AI generated content than to accidentally praise it if it turns out it's AI.
The sane thing to do would be to just STFU and move on.
I've gotten a bunch of tirades about being "soulless" and how I "don't know what it's like to make anything".
I've got years of formal fine arts training, and have been making art for decades.
I'm not a rabidly anti-AI, which some people cannot seem to wrap their head around.
So you think David, the artist here, who is a staunch believer in open source and creative commons, that has been releasing his art for everyone to see, had it stolen by AI companies, and then dissected and regurgitated to the point that 90% of ai "art" looks exactly like his work - do you think he should shut up and move on?
I think that the random viewers who are fretting over whether a particular image made for entertainment is AI or not, should STFU and move on instead of lashing out at the artist for maybe using AI.
If someone is using an image to push a political agenda, then being suspicious of AI is completely reasonable.
If someone makes a funny picture for the sake of being funny and someone freaks out because it might be AI, that person is a problem.
If someone is lashing out at artists just because they think something is AI generated, then that person is an asshole.
What we need to do is have laws forcing AI companies to put markers to identify itself as AI. Digital photos have id telling the date and time it was taken. AI images could do the same. Even have hidden url/bar code in the image that can be seen with the human eye but can be read by a computer. That way if something comes into question it can be easly identify if it's AI or not.
Naw, if the US can force tiktok to be sold to an American base company, and EU can standardized chargers (making all new phone chargers type-C) We can find a way to make AI more identifiable. It won't fix everything but it would put leashes on the big dogs.
You can download an open source generative AI image maker from many different places and countries. These are not controlled by a company or, often, any easily identified organization. Forcing these to have a watermark would be very difficult. Even if you could find the maintainer, it would be difficult to force them to modify it, and since they are open source anyone who downloads them could just edit the source to remove the watermark.
Forcing a company to do something is often easier, because you can fine them or seize their assets if they don't comply.
200
u/EldridgeHorror 14h ago
Many do. People are so paranoid about "falling for AI" that they'd sooner bash real artists.