The thing is that Nestor was likely one of the artists that was "sampled" from for the creation of these algorithms so it makes perfect sense that he would have a similar art style

@TMKing_MS

7 ай бұрын

Bingo!

@Franimus

7 ай бұрын

My thoughts exactly

@adamhunter1223

7 ай бұрын

God, imagine perfecting your craft over years and then having some entitled techbros steal your work and use it to poison the market and discourse so badly *you* get accused of being a scam.

@Citadel97501

7 ай бұрын

Yeah, frankly that AI engines creators should be sued into the ground for stealing his work to "train" their AI.

@duncbot9000

7 ай бұрын

@@adamhunter1223 This happens all the time. To reference a recent event someone (stupidly) wrote a fanfic Lord of the Rings sequel and then sued the Tolkien estate for copying their ideas. In this instance they obviously they lost the case, but in many other situations where the original creator is smaller profile they can just be stepped on.

One can easily prove that their work is not AI by showing their process and or master files. In Nestors case he had years of art in his portfolio.

@MikeAetherial

7 ай бұрын

Yes, but AI is "trained" using source materials, so portfolios are not only useless in proving this was not AI, but actually INCREASE the possibility of training an AI to make artwork in the exact style of its human trainer.

@erfarkrasnobay

7 ай бұрын

Do you mean every artist must use hundreds of GB on their drives to have hours or recording of every step

@Feridire

7 ай бұрын

Not really anymore, I'll have to look into it again but I believe AI was starting to be able to develop WIP frames for the full art.

@ConnorSinclairCavin

7 ай бұрын

They can for now, however, there are some programs being created that allow people to reverse engineer how pieces were made (this was created for restoration use mainly), however, by having access to “the base code of the painting” one could easily not only “show their steps” with Ai, but also use it to train a program and make years worth of art samples (combined with real-art-printers they would even have the ability to have them be made of typically human only materials), but then again, comes the question; if an artist trains an AI to make the art, are they really not making it themselves? The whole topic is… quite complex.

@iPYW

7 ай бұрын

I mean, that WOULD prove it. You could get a VHS tape I guess and set it up too. Just some proof-of-work. @@erfarkrasnobay

I think the thing people need to keep in mind is that AI is always pulling from something. Some artists are going to look similar because AI is trained in a ton of different artist and styles so it's bound to happen eventually.

@Kaprak10

7 ай бұрын

I've also seen the accusation thrown at some of MTG's "anime arts" where they hired professional mangaka to do art. Because AI creators tend to go for a lot of "anime styles" so much of the things people have seen are that, so they jump to conclusions.

Man I hope that he isnt lying and that people stop accusing him. It's sad that every time someone has art that has little details that don't make sense its accused as AI now. What if I'm just not good at making fingers? Fingers are hard.

Worth pointing out a few things: 1. Stable diffusion doesn't need to have that sheen. It's down to the model you're using, and many models are generated using people like Nestor's work, which do have that sheen. Why a sheen? Because it adds depth, and having a front/front-ish side lit character makes it more readable. That's why professional artists do it. Hell, it's why I do it when I draw. 2. You can also have characters offset in SD, they don't need to be centred. I've done a few with characters as "bookends" on the left and right of the image. 3. Detailed/undetailed backgrounds is up to the prompt writer. Many pictures I generate have perfectly detailed backgrounds because I include things like "no depth of field" and "detailed background" What bothers me is people ranting about how AI art is the devil and so on. Do you not like Star Trek? Because AI art generation needs to be a thing if we want holodecks. It only sucks right now because the AI doesn't understand what its generating. It's just aggregating what it has been shown and then using the most common hands (for example) to make a hand for your image (including from multiple similar poses, leading to 6+ fingers at times). But we're going to be getting better at that in the coming years. And with things like MeshGPT coming out, it's entirely possible we're going to get to the ultimate sandbox inside of 10 years, allowing you to don a VR headset and just start giving voice commands to the AI on board to generate whatever you want to interact with. I don't support people pawning off AI artwork as their own actual drawing ability. I support people showing off work that they've generated by way of prompts, because some people are much better writers than painters, or incapable of drawing because of disabilities (even with age. Essentials tremors for example make drawing an exercise in frustration once they get bad enough). And I do support ownership of an image for the person who generated such a piece to do with what they please. What people aren't happy with is the relative ease with which they're using a tool to generate "the perfect artwork". But it does take, at times, hours to days of generating, tweaking, generating, iterating, blending, to finally produce a piece you can point at and say "this is great, please enjoy." And ultimately that's what you need to gauge. Are you getting enjoyment from the images you're seeing from the generator? What's wrong then? Art is about enjoyment, not the medium used to create it. It's like complaining that the 80s was the decade of synth when it's literally all we're nostalgic for now. It's like complaining that an artist is using Krita to draw entirely digitally when "real artists use oils/water colours/copic markers". It's just a new medium for a different artist to use, and right now, sometimes, that medium feels like using crayons, or like it's a 5 year old autistic child having exceptional presentation skill but no real concept of form.

@DrAnac-qh5dc

6 ай бұрын

Nailed it. Thinking their is a "Stable Diffusion sheen" that gives away the AI generated art is just ignorance of the AI tools and their capabilities. You can easily make AI art that most artists could never tell was AI - esp if you clean it up in krita or photoshop. I also wonder if people have the same issues with chatgpt generated text? If not, why not? Same concept.

If the artist has that expansive of a portfolio, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out Stable Diffusion generated images look the way they do partly because somebody chucked this artist's entire portfolio into the "training" data the AI draws from.

The next step is for someone to make a model that retroactively makes project files so even those cant be used as proof anymore.

@272arshan

7 ай бұрын

that already exists

This is actually one of the things I have been worried about since the start. Also I fear that they will start coming for sculptors next. It's kinda scary being an artist.

@TMKing_MS

7 ай бұрын

I think that many of these fears will likely be overplayed by the management who don't know anything about what goes into making art.

@casem8723

7 ай бұрын

As a digital artist myself the scariest thing I’ve ever heard someone say about my artwork is that it looked ai generated.

@Ragnaroknrol

7 ай бұрын

Yea, I know that artists have been worried about their work being fed into one of the AIs and then everyone thinking they just used the AI. This just shows how quick that came to be.

@nickgennady

7 ай бұрын

@@casem8723Dang. That sucks.

@duncbot9000

7 ай бұрын

As an AI researcher myself, I think you are safer than most for using a physical medium. But 3D printing has come a long way scary quick. I don't know if true generative 3D printing is a thing, but I think the quality would be low for a long time (guess I need to do more research!). Digital 2D stuff is much much easier to produce.

There was a university Professor who fed into chat GPT all of the essays of his class and chat GPT said that every one of them was written by AI. So, he failed each one of them for using AI to cheat. The problem is, all of the students had proof that they wrote the essays themselves and the professor did not budge.

@rb98769

7 ай бұрын

Yeah, AI detecting software is mostly very unreliable and shouldn't be taken super seriously. I really don't think this is something that is ready to be used in a very decisive manner. I myself wrote a short story the other day and tried checking it with one of those tools and it told me it was 70% AI-made lol.

First AI detection tools have never really worked. Also due to the fact that AI art is trained off real art, that means that AI generated art will naturally look like the work of popular styles, popular artist or artist that produce a lot of works.

@Homiloko2

7 ай бұрын

Not really, nowadays with LORAs you can train a generalized AI to look like any specific artist with some samples from that artist. You don't need to build a model from scratch, you can get an existing model (that was trained off of thousands of artists/images) and make a 'plugin' of a specific artist or style to produce that specific style without needing so many samples.

@rb98769

7 ай бұрын

You can specify what style you want from the AI, and I mean even these highly accessible free AI tools like Bing. A lot of people get the sense that there is one single AI style but that's just plain wrong.

Thing is it doesn't matter if this was ai or not. The fact they fired so many artists is proof enough to me that they want to use ai as much as they can get away with

@Houston810

7 ай бұрын

Why shouldn't they? Actual artist aren't needed to produce quality goods.

Sorry, but I think we need to go a little more into detail on what happened with the Glory of the Giants artwork to understand why “rightfully” is not what should be used to describe the speculation of today: 1) The artist who made the AI pieces is Ilya Shkipin, a *freelancer* who Wizards of the Coast had been working with since 2014 in the Monster Manual. He obviously hadn’t been using AI way back when, and WotC had no policy against using the technology. When confronted about whether the art he did used AI, Ilya was open and honest: he painted the picture then rendered it in the final steps using the algorithm. There was no “secret AI push” from Wizards and the man didn’t hide the fact he used AI: he genuinely believed in the tech and used it of his own volition. 2) A lot of people wonder how these “obvious” AI tells were able to slip through the cracks. Well, today in 2023 these things are obvious to us, and the book was published this year too! However, the art was made over a year ago, when the technology was still fresh. If you used a simple text to image prompt, the AI at the time honestly was quite crappy. However, that isn’t what Ilya did. Since the piece was 80% human work with an AI filter passed over it, it is 100% within reason to believe that an art director would think of them as intentional design decisions (much like with the current human art people accused of being AI-made). 3) WotC’s response to the art being AI made was swift and decisive. They immediately updated their policies to bar the tech from being used, publicly apologized for what happened, pulled the pieces off of D&D Beyond, and even replaced them with pieces being made by human artists. What more could you expect of them? They honestly did everything right here after realizing the mistake for what it was: a mistake. None of this screams “soulless corporate decision trying to make a quick buck” to me. They genuinely did nothing wrong here and even updated their policies to prevent this from happening again. The fact people would think that they updated their art policy just to sneak more AI art in is honestly quite sad and shows how toxic the community has become.

@Mercadian

7 ай бұрын

I mean, it doesn't help that they laid off almost their entire art department for both MtG and WotC though.

It's kind of interesting that the camera pushed artists to more impressionist, urealistic styles... and now AI is having the opposite effect, pushing artists to scrutinize for perfect logical consistency. I take a really dim view of the "AI is theft" argument, since it's such a pro-copyright stance, so I appreciate you sticking to the more reasonable issue of job loss. Unfortunately it's kind of just the nature of technology. If Stability didn't do it, someone else would have, and it would probably be a closed-source corporate product like so many already are. I hope we can all agree that would be far worse. At least this way artists can adapt and use it as a tool on their own terms. The thing that worries me about AI is the potential for disinformation. People's likenesses being used for nudes gets a lot of discussion, but even beyond that. Propaganda, slander, blackmail. That stuff matters so much more than hobbyist or professional art IMO, but it doesn't get as much attention.

@nessesaryschoolthing

7 ай бұрын

I guess it is a pro-copyright stance, but are any of universally against copyright? The current copyright laws are stifling because they're too long-lasting and give too much protection to long-established, massive media conglomerates, not because they allow living artists to keep the rights to their recently produced work and make money. As long as people need to make money from their work to live, there should be copyright, just more reasonable copyright laws.

@Skullivon

7 ай бұрын

@@nessesaryschoolthing I agree. By "pro-copyright" I'm folding in a lot of thoughts that felt too off-topic to expand on. Maybe it would have been better to say "copyright maximalist." Basically, I've always considered Creative Commons the copyright good guys, and Disney the copyright bad guys. Insofar as the world has clear lines like that, anyway. The Copyright Alliance, which includes Disney as well as several other ghoulish corporations, argues that AI training is copyright infringement. CC argues that it's fair use. I know whose side I'm on between those two.

@nessesaryschoolthing

7 ай бұрын

​@@Skullivon I respect it, but, you know, sometimes the bad guy has the right idea, even if it's for all the wrong reasons.

Looks more like Nestor was one of the main artists whose art has been stolen and fed to Stable Diffusion.

I feel like people worried about AI replacing artists have a fundamental misunderstanding of the value that artists bring. Art isn't (only) technical drawing, shading, or painting ability. Art is the ability to conceive of an idea, come up with a plan of how to express this idea in a medium, and then implement that plan. And the existence of AI doesn't really do anything to dampen that.

LOL the AI detection programs are themselves AI. Technology has been overrunning craftsmen since the start of the Industrial Revolution - and the problem isn’t AI per se, it’s sleazeball human beings robbing other human beings of their work. I wish I could recommend a solution for that problem, but it seems to be endemic.

This is truly the worst dystopia. Machines are doing creative work while humans are relegated to menial tasks.

@FirstLast-wk3kc

7 ай бұрын

Good thing their creativity sucks af. It seems this kind of dystopia is cornered in a dead end. Not like managers and etc understand it, so a lot of resources would be wasted

@lobobanguela6349

7 ай бұрын

Menial? Oh why, go on. Study the AI. Learn how to use the correct prompts in the correct order to get the image you want. Learn how to train the AI. Go on, its so menial, isnt it? Its a much more specialized area than what you give credit for. That goes to show how much knowledge you have about the subject.

@AnneOmimus7531

7 ай бұрын

@@lobobanguela6349no, I’m talking about humans being relegated to non-artistic things while the AI gets to create. It’s a complete inversion of most utopian/sci-fi literature

@12thLevelSithLord

7 ай бұрын

​@@lobobanguela6349Oh no, you have to type words in a text box to get the machine to give you the image you want. That must be sooooo hard for you.

@nessesaryschoolthing

7 ай бұрын

@@lobobanguela6349 "Menial Tasks" = working at Walmart

Most artists will use a programm that allows them to work on multiple layers, only making a final, single layer image for publishing. That multi layer image will be the telltale. I doubt AI will get anywhere close to making that.

@adamhunter1223

7 ай бұрын

I hope not, but entitled techbros are nothing if not committed. Like that guy who pirated twenty thousand or so books to feed into his new "revolutionary" AI thing so it could spit out useless "metrics" and spoilers. Dude spent a decade on it and never once consulted a lawyer. Then he went all surprised Pikachu face when the authors and publishers got wind of it and threatened mass legal action unless he shut that shit down. He eventually did, but he also sent out a bullshit notpology that confirmed he would happily do it all over again if some could cover his ass legally. The techbros, of course, came out in DROVES to leap to his defense and to accuse the actual authors of being entitled whiners.

I as an artist can rarely get myself to work on anything digitally, let alone take pictures of my physical work cause of "AI" it's damaging me psychologically. I have autism, some people already joke that I am a robot and this mess does not help. I dont even think I can create anything anymore. Even despite the fact that I prefer physical mediums over digital.

As an artist, it is relatively easy for me to tell that this fighter picture is not done by AI. It's all the little details and brush strokes, and I can see how the artist drew it.

@DrAnac-qh5dc

6 ай бұрын

As an artist I guarantee you would not be able to tell the difference between a manually digitally created image or an AI generated one by someone who knows how to use the tools. Same concept as someone who knows photoshop really well creating/enhancing an image vs someone just dropping a filter on the image.

Treat it just like math in grade school and “show your work”. When an artist submits a piece of art they also submit their sketches and rough drafts and samples as they proceed. This is especially easy for digital artists who typically do this anyway on a commission and have multiple saved files of the same piece of art in various stages of completion.

I love using AI art, but I never would want artists to lose there job, I dont view AI as a replacement to real artists work.

Artstation was one of the platforms which was used for sampling for many AI art generators. It's extremely likely that Nestor's art was used in AI training. Which is unfortunate for him, and also explains why his style might look a lot like Stable Diffusion's.

We dont have to worry about paizo. They are pretty transparent and trustworthy with their stance on AI and their artists they loyally support. But hasbro is full of villians who just fired most of their dnd art department, even if nester was able to prove with sketches and part work, i guarantee d&d is going to be using AI as much as they possibly can.

There is still a number of ways to prove an artist is legit. Artstyle consistency, showing long standing portfolio like what you found. Showing the process in detail. Showing physical art as much as possible as examples (such as sketches etc) None is perfect however, and it is sad we are getting to that point.

@BrandonVout

7 ай бұрын

Not just art style consistency, but output consistency. Someone passing off AI art as their own will regularly come through in solo projects but struggle with collaborative work, as they can't explain what they're doing or why. Most people getting hired on fake portfolios alone will quickly get exposed in a corporate setting, assuming they don't bomb the interviews.

@KalaamNozalys

7 ай бұрын

@@BrandonVout That is a very good point !

@nickgennady

7 ай бұрын

@@BrandonVoutperhaps but consistency can change.

It's probably going to become the norm for artists to record themselves creating their work.

@Revan_7even

7 ай бұрын

And then the AI gets trained on that too. If AI gets trained to that point it will be purely for deceptive purposes, the only practical and commercially viable reason to use AI is to skip to the end result and cut out the process time of a human.

It would be beneficial for AI generators to embed some kind of tag into the metadata of the image, or creating a series of pixels in the image that are undetectable with the naked eye but can be used as an AI fingerprint. That way AI detection softwares could look for that tag and accurately detect AI presence.

@theagentofchaos1600

7 ай бұрын

I have heard that there are standards currently being built for this, having an encrypted portion of the metadata that gives the source of the image, but this only works if people use the standard

@collin4555

7 ай бұрын

Metadata is easily defeated by reencoding. It would do precisely nothing to the bad actor boogeymen everyone is worried about, and certainly wouldn't be something you could check when it's printed on a book cover. The only real potential way to do this is to record the metadata steganographically into the image, but if the means to read the metadata so embedded is known, then it's trivial to modify the output to erase it without substantially altering the image visually. It's also likely to be lost incidentally by reencoding into lossy formats like JPEG or by printing.

@robblincoln2152

6 ай бұрын

@@collin4555 wasn’t this what block chain was supposed to provide? Was that just more tech-bro bullshit?

@collin4555

6 ай бұрын

@@robblincoln2152 tech-bro bullshit, yes. To be more detailed: First, you would need a way to get from the image to whatever record exists. So we're looking at hashing the image (which would be necessary anyway, since you can't actually store very much data in a blockchain, and so things like NFTs typically store references to data stored elsewhere). We would want to use one of the hashing algorithms that are designed for image data, to be as insensitive to changes to the image as possible. But "as insensitive as possible" doesn't mean it will register a match through any amount of edits, and if you know what the hash value you're trying to dodge is, which you do because it's a public value, then you can continue making edits until it's no longer detectable. Furthermore, even being registered on a blockchain in this fashion relies on the AI generator cooperating in good faith; but if they're doing that, why not just operate a conventional database (ie, what does blockchain add?) And furthermore, you'd need to be vigilant to ensure no non-AI generated images ever get accidentally registered to this blockchain, or else they'd be subject to the exact witch hunting we see today, only with the false confidence of authoritative evidence that really only amounts to "this guy said".

I'm starting to conclude that the primary problem with ai art is it being trained on copyrighted works. Most other arguments I hear seem to be emotional ones that don't hold up to historical comparisons like the industrial revolution. I predict ai art will be seen as a tool in the future, where new artists curate what is fed to the ai for both learning and generative prompting. Scamming will certainly continue to be present, just like up until now with plagiarism and copyright violations.

I studied AI for eight years at university and consider myself both an AI evangelist and AI critic. I have fought against the hype on LinkedIn and other platforms where it is rampent. The real problem isn't the AI technology itself, but the human use of it. I don't want AI to take over our fantasy art so much that everything looks the same and talented artists are ignored. But I do see AI generated art as a useful tool. One use case is generating art and then trying to copy it in order to learn. I think we can all agree that this can help new artists as well as experienced artist wanting to try a new style. In the end, I want to see AI making humans better rather than replacing us.

If I were a company looking for art assets, I wouldn't touch AI with a 10-foot pole right now. I can't imagine intellectual property laws are going to look favorably upon models built on unlicensed images in 5-10 years. Of course it's only a matter of time after that until we start seeing legally populated datasets, and then it's going to be the same problem, but still.

So, I see AI as a tool rather than a positive or negative thing. It all depends on how you use it that makes it good or bad. For example I'd have no problem with an artist using AI art to create a piece of art which they then use as a template to make the process easier especially if it allowed them to make art faster and cheaper.

@MalzraAirwynn

7 ай бұрын

The problem is with peoples work being fed into these programs on mass without consent.

@Alex-cq1zr

7 ай бұрын

Main problem is that it's trained on art without permission to use that art. Second problem is that corporations might use it to cut headcounts, but that's the general "no ethical automation under capitalism" problem of a system, which requires being productive and providing what machines can't provide (a range of jobs which is constantly shrinking) to stay alive.

Verifyng should be simple enough if the artist has the original project saved on their device. Just take a screenshot of photoshop showing the different layers and sketches and there. For hand drawn art maybe take a few pictures of the process of drawing/painting. Sounds inconvenient but it unfortunately sounds necessary to avoid AI art accusations

I find AI-generated pictures acceptable for personal use, like generating a portrait for your D&D character if what's needed cannot be found easily (for example there are thousands of digital battlemaps for few bucks on Patreon). On a professional level I only support real artists.

No one should ever need to prove their art or writing isn't AI. People constantly looking to accuse others of AI smacks of bullying and cancel culture. No artist or writer should need to prove anything to anyone. If someone doesn't like or trust a person's art, move on and get over it. All this accusing people is just scummy. If AI "infiltrates" our way of life, oh well, because it will, and already has for years without anyone really realizing it. At this point, there is literally nothing we can do about it anyway. Busy-bodies need to just leave people alone and mind their own business.

I agree with your thoughts but I think it's important to point out that "AI detection software" has, as far as I'm aware, never worked well. A college professor got in hot water earlier this year for failing a bunch of students because AI detection software identified several students essays as AI generated. The essays were not made by AI. There is a rush for AI detection and protection tools and we need to be on the lookout for scams coming from that end as well. It's not a great situation all around.

I struggle with the concept. I've been in IT my whole life, since 1989. Building and Selling Computers, then going into servicing, the creating and designing networks, and then working for hardware vendors, I moved out of hardware and into architecture maybe 5 - 10 years ago now, and AI is not something I work with every day but I have looked at it for personal use. I've never been great at 'art' drawing, painting, whatever. Whether it's because I don't have the affinity, or just haven't invested the time. So to use something like Midjourney to make NPC portraits for my game was fun, and a lot less expensive than paying a human to do it. I'm not selling what I'm doing, I just don't like boring blank icons in my tabletop game. But what bothers me about the AI, is how it 'learned' to make the images. They essentially scoured the internet and scraped anything they could get their hands on - with no respect for the licensing of that art to 'learn' from. I mean at least if I wanted to learn I could pay someone to teach me, but Midjourney and others just skipped that whole pay part, and are now farming out that work at a much greater rate than any artist could have. I see the appeal to a 'corporation' who wants to move faster, stronger, and make more money and the way you do that is get rid of labor costs because computers don't care what they do all day long, people do. This seems broken, if a computer can take away a tasks from labor it should have 'costs' that even that out. If you're going to strip thousands of jobs and capabilities from individuals, you should pay into a fund that helps those people survive. The future I wanted of AI was helpers and laborers, not music and art. The implementation seems broken and dystopian. Essentially it can put a whole area out of work, and the response to it is 'welp guess you'll starve' not anything else.

@minikawildflower

7 ай бұрын

Totally agree with all this. AI art in a vacuum I think could be cool, but that’s not what these generators make, they’re just designed to mimic real artists and cut them out of the picture.

@gahfwa3541

7 ай бұрын

The cost you're speaking of should be the cost of training the AI on copyrighted works, paying the original creators. Unfortunately these AI companies were not and continue to not be beholden to any law, regulation, or ethics board on this matter. This needs to change. Yesterday would have been a good time for these changes, but I can compromise for today.

@Magicwillnz

7 ай бұрын

Yeah, I use AI for personal ttrpg stuff too, I think that's a benign use of AI. Question is, would you give that up to get rid of A.I. generation generally? I would in a heartbeat. I definitely enjoy AI text generation for my solo rpgs, but if making the art community human again meant never touching A.I., I'd happily do it. Ultimately, AI needs to be controlled. It was incredibly irresponsible to unleash it upon society in the first place. Now we all have to suffer the consequences. Maybe the genie is better put back in the bottle, which would be a serious logistical challenge.

@Tsudico

7 ай бұрын

@@gahfwa3541 If you mean paying the original creators with royalties I agree with you. The trouble is that once the AI has gotten to a decent level, it can be further trained on its own output to improve which by that point cuts out the original creators even if it still is using their style. Society will need to start thinking of taxing technology where it replaces human labor and using that tax to pay for the welfare of all the citizens who will be replaced by that technology. If we don't, there will be a divide between those who own the technology that makes everything and so can afford anything while all the rest of us do not have the means to live because we have been replaced.

@rosemurphy8026

7 ай бұрын

The issue is ai generates art the same way people do, no one comes up with an original piece of art they base the creation of art on the things they've seen and the skills they've built from the things they've seen, the issue is anyone who uses ai art and claims it as their art is stealing credit from the ai

as an artist, (albeit a failed one) i can tell you that concept art is often created using many of the same methods that AI uses to put images together. a good example. You take stock images, (preferably one you own) and you use them to layout textures, pull colors, and generally get a pallet set up. you normally do this over top of your sketched out design, then you start layering your painting over top of all of that. when done correctly, you would never notice the stock images, because there is pretty much nothing left of them. AI does the same thing, but it cannot draw, it can only copy layouts that are fed into it. so what it does is just the layering of stock images. It's getting better and better at it which is why detection programs are having trouble now. Also, another thing causing trouble is that i'm betting more and more concept artists are using less and less of their own photographs to do their concept art. more and more of them are likely either using AI generated images or stock images they find on websites, which are the same stock images that many AI use. It sucks, but that's a thing that is happening now as artists become less and less important to society.

@RedTailedSmeargle

7 ай бұрын

I wouldn't say artists are less important (I draw and have failed as a concept or artist myself, but Ive flourished I ith other skills). It's moreso that the unique commodity they represents has been shifted away from them. It happens every couple of decades, but the problem remains due to who and what causes it. Peoole forced or we're forced to copy Frazetta's art style by cause it sold well. People were forced to copy the cumbersome yet beautiful way Disney does Animation because it sold well, and then the whole animation scene took a backslide when those artists were thrown away for 3D, with Disney doing the same; but cause it sold well. Hell, we're seeing the same thing with CGI and practical effects, depending on which is easier and what sells well at the time. In a just world, there wouldn't be starving artists. Going to say, this is a neutral stance on ai art. I think the tech is a part of the process, but it's showing the flaws of people who cared more about the commodity rather than the process or the people. Techbros ruin everything they touch. Something something 'Look what they need to mimic even a fraction our power'.

My 1 pence... AI Art has it's place... that place is for individuals to use for themselves. It should not be used by corporations to make money such as WotC or Paizo, or any other game publisher. To use it for your own youtube channel or personal game, it is fine. That said, not everyone can afford an artist to make art for them, and searching the internet and nabbing someone's art is a WHOLE other BIGGER issue... that is basically copywrite infringement and theft of it's own. I use AI art for my youtube channel. I do not push it off as anyone's art, nor do I claim I personally did it. I have a very good friend who does art done on the PC and he keeps getting accused of using AI art which is not true (K.L. Turner). So before you say someone is using AI Art, best make 110% sure it is before saying it is AI generated. They can look very similar if drawn on tech, vs generated by tech

Anyone else miss when this channel was about Pathfinder? Well, in case it wasn't apparent, I do!!! It's been nearly three weeks since we got a video that was actually about Pathfinder(not counting the one where he reviewed one of his old videos). Some of this could be because he's taking time for the Holidays(which is GREAT and I commend him for, even though he thinks Downtime in PF2 is unimportant!), though I doubt this as he's taken time to make videos like this the last few weeks.

I think AI art is useful for generating my D&D tokens or art for my characters in private games. I do not endorse its use in commercial software, only for private use.

Either Internet will have to learn to be polite and reasonable in questioning the authenticity of artworks (because that's CLEARLY something possible), or artists will likely have to learn to deal with random accusations of producing AI imagery all the time. Oof. Even worse because they're not the ones responsible for the distrust caused by AI in the first place, if anything they're the first people affected by it.

There's multiple problems in this discourse. People already had blood in the water after the Hasbro Layoffs. The fact that much of the internal art team was let go, people were already raising pitchforks that WotC was going to start using AI. That bias, and the current outrage meta combined to create this perfect storm of ragebaiting. It's fine to be skeptical, but there were some creators outright calling this artists work "AI Trash". The creator since retracted it, but more people are going to see the ragebait video and form opinions and never look at the retraction. There are tons of reasons to be disappointed and unhappy with WotC, we don't really need to fabricate them. Another issue is these AI detection tools aren't always reliable. It's about as best of a guess as their algorithm can provide, but they are already far from a reliable source. People would feed 2014 art from D&D into it and get a positive flag. That should never be the justification to crucify an artist for their work. The internet just needs to pump the brakes and stop trying to gut any content creator for every little thing, unless there is actual verifiable proof of wrong doing.

well said. I have a friend who's an artist and even she's getting accused of using AI

To be fair, AI detection softwares/sites etc, never worked properly to begin with, AI art creation has come to a point where it needs a more technical HUMAN analysis to notice some inconsistencies. The obvious details like weird hands extra members and all are going to disappear completely eventually, design choices that look like something an AI would do is not an argument for whether it's AI or not, because AI USES OTHER ART to generate something, so IT WILL look like other human made arts.

tbh the most workable solution to this is regulation, as flawed as that is. There are already big lawsuits from artists suing the AI companies cuz they stole their work to train the AI model, and I hope something may come out of that, which will really limit what AI can do cuz they cant as easily get the MASSIVE amount of data to make AI art look good without getting sued. It way also be possible to regulate AI to force it to have some sort of watermark, fun fact, printers by law in the USA already do this, they print a watermark on everything they spit out in invisible ink that shows up under a black light.

As it turns out, a machine that is built upon stealing art and plagiarizing art from artists is... going to produce art that looks like what it plagiarized, which was made by humans. Huh, funny, that. Like, those "stable diffusion" tells didn't just come from nowhere. They're there because they were deliberate choices artists made, and they show up *so much* because they just amount to 'basics of composition 101: make the character stand out from the background'. I hate that artists are being accused of using AI while being victims of the people who made the AI and the people who use it for scams. I would suspect that if we went into the LAION dataset we would find a huge amount of Nestor's work in the training data.

@undrhil

7 ай бұрын

In 20 maybe 30 years, books teaching art will be using AI generated art from the internet which means in 20 or 30 years AI will be teaching humans how to draw.... let that sink in for a minute LOL

@Faolain

7 ай бұрын

press x to doubt@@undrhil

Best solution is to make the process of generating art and it's sources/artists compketely transparent. If that means credits alongside every piece of published artwork: good.

I have a friend unable to do normal art anymore because of several health issues and he uses AI art to get a creative outlet. Until we can teach AI to fully self create art I can easily see how anyone would have a problem with it and even more so if it’s computing or sampling their art. Many artiest can copy another style and many I know who do art learned because they loved particular styles and now that is their style. I think AI art has its place, mostly for people not wanting to monetize it and just making a rando character or what have you had as a base for designing a PC or NPC for their campaign or even better finding/making a AI art that is kinda close to what you want and handing it over to an artiest and saying “like this but a half orc or Minotaur instead of a human or add a glow here or I really love this pose but on a cliff top fighting a dragon.” So it has its place but its place is not replacing all artiest to save a buck! In the future I hope they can encode art tags for authentication and human artists start putting out short videos of them working to confirm it’s human art.

You can't tell, and it doesn't matter. Yes its scary, the worth of talented humans has decreased massively in this arena. Yes that worth will continue to decrease, possibly to nothing. A whole class of human, "creatives", might be so devalued as to be seen as no more talented than a toddler that can tie their own shoe; impressive but anyone can produce the result really.

2:00 I'm... I don't... this feels like a BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG STRETCH to me, but sure, I guess! Besides, that Dwarf has a perfect number of fingers! Most AI I have seen of hands thinks everyone is a 6 plus fingered alien, sometimes they even have three hands!

The websites that check for AI usage are bunk. Just zooming in or out on images screw the percentages and I have been seeing college students get flunked for their essays popping up as high AI percentage on many of those websites professors use to prevent that when they infact did they work. Whats really worrying is the new art director position WotC posted after their last one got laid off that describes wanting experience in retouching images in Photoshop. WotC is the largest patron of fantasy art in the world. This is whats worrying me.

I guess this will turn into another example of people being so focused on punishment that they end up hurting the victims more. The only answer I see is to always record yourself drawing so you can prove that you did it.

I don't mind IA(AI) art. It's ok.

The question we should ask is: How many of the employees that the Dragon fired as Crispmas gift were artists? For a capitalist / company leader it makes perfect sense to ditch expensive humans and employ AI techs where they can.

"figure in center low detailed background" is kinda dumb arguement, it just common sence of any basic composition. You not put a lot of details to background to not shift viever attention to background over front. It so witch hunty that after those style of acquisition there is no reason to hear those luddites.

As a person who has a degree in illustration I can tell you that the industry was in a bad place 10 years ago. AI art will kill the careers of most professional artists and the few who remain will be due to them either embracing AI or them producing something AI can't. Our culture incentives efficiency and profitability over everything else. The detection tools will never be better than the creation tools made to fool them, and the very tools we use to protect artist can be used to persecute them as this example clearly shows. All of my friends who are in the industry have come to the same conclusion, they will have to adapt or find new jobs.

@PlatonicLiquid

7 ай бұрын

I'm really holding out hope that digital artists will come up with a way to utilize image diffusion while keeping with the spirit of the medium in order to compete within the industry. I know there was already some contention with the algorithmic tools and masks digital artists are able to employ over traditional mediums, but obviously AI art is on a whole other level. It's just unfortunate because it really seems like someone opened Pandora's box and now we are left with the consequences. I don't want artists to be made obsolete in the pursuit of efficiency and profit.

AI image detection software has never been great at actually detecting AI generated images (I will not call it art), that's not new. But the concern that AI generated images will become indistinguishable from human artwork is legitimate. In fact, that is the explicitly stated goal of the people designing Stable Diffusion and its competitors. It's a major problem, and I don't have a solution. It's depressing.

One of the biggest things I hate about AI is that it calls into question every piece of new art made from now on that isn't clearly AI and eventually it might become indistinguishable. As someone who cares that what I see is made by humans who where paid properly for their effort it bothers me endlessly.

I agree with you. AI is going to cause problems in so many ways beyond artwork. Also, I love your shirt. Where can I get one? This video also makes me appreciate that you use a good microphone in your regular videos.

Other artists I spoke to also feel that certain styles will become difficult to distinguish from AI, exactly because these styles have been used to train these algorythms. And it sickens me that the use of AI is so prevalent in the TTRPG scene. What so far helps is that artists actually know the fundamentals and can spot mistakes, that someone that would be able to paint like that not do anymore. But that will become more difficult in the future. Lawmakers already work on it though.

I’m working at an AI startup making software that detects AI images. I don’t believe its the case that as AI gets better it will become necessarily impossible to detect, since we use the same methods to detect if something is AI as are used to create the image. In other words: the ability to detect AI can advance at the same pace as the ability to create it. Or put another way, AI is getting as smart at image creation as it is at image analysis, and there’s no obvious reason for this to not continue. Having said that, it’s not difficult to take an AI image and then manually alter it until it no longer appears as AI. In that case the best the software can do is say it’s partially or probably AI.

People said the same things about digital art thirty years ago. Using photoshop was cheating etc. They said the same thing about light boxes and tracing (pretty much half the comics you've ever read). Hell they said it about the dang camera when it was invented. It's another tool artists can and will use in various ways to create art. Some derivative, some creative, some ground breaking, some straight up rip off. It is funny that people think they can definitely tell if something was made by AI or not. Sure there are horrible images and weird artifacts in sloppy art that can stand out, but great art indistinguishable from "real" art (whatever that is) is being made all the time by legit artists who accept it as another medium or tool in their arsenal.

There is a cover for Alan Scott: Green Lantern #5 by Brandon Peterson of a newly created Red Lantern. It has that 3D style of rendering and my first thought was that it looks like AI. From what I can tell it is not, but AI garbage has irrevocably changed how I see a specific style of rendering. What once was an interesting style now has me second guessing every image I see with that style.

I feel that a good way artists can help combat this problem is by posting on social media the different stages of the artwork in question, for example, the basic sketch, without color, without shading, etc. This can defiantly help when people are like "That's AI generated!" You can just be like "Naw dog, here's my process."

@shadow-faye

7 ай бұрын

Until the AI bros start generating process pictures too

@Feridire

7 ай бұрын

To my knowledge its already in the works for that to happen.@@shadow-faye

They are already unreliable, you cannot rely on the programs that claim to detect AI art- the software that was used by the content creator when he made the accusation said a Larry Elmore original was 94% likely AI art.

So AI "art" has reached the point of passing the Turing test. All hail our robot overlords

@nessesaryschoolthing

7 ай бұрын

In this case, it was one of us FAILING the Turing Test, not them passing. But it's not too dissimilar.

The issue here is more paranoia about AI art generation, rather than AI Art generation. AI art generation can be an amazing tool for artists to have in their toolbelt. There's at least one studio photographer who has started taking the output from his photoshoots and running it through Stable Diffusion to alter lighting and tonalities in unique ways. Currently, artists are (somewhat) protected (at least in the US) because multiple courts have ruled that AI geneated art _cannot_ be copyrighted. So if a company used AI to generate a book cover, for example, anyone would be free to use that book cover however they wanted. If they hire an artist, however, everything the artist does is still covered by cooyright. Even if they use AI as a step in their process, the results kf every other step are still covered, so the final work as a whole is covered by copyright. Jobs are protected, as companies jealousy guard their products. Does AI still real artists work? Not really, it learns from other artists work, just like every human does, but _shouldn't_ reproduce work. There's two cases where it might: 1) a person using the AI feeds an existing piece of art into it and specifically asks it to modify that work. The result will be clearly durrivative. The same human could have used a photo copier too - that's a person steeling art, not an AI. 2) If the AI is asked to draw something it has seen few examples of, the result might be a reproduction. If you've only seen one apple in your life, and someone asks you to draw an apple, that is the apple you draw. This is considered a failure of the AI due to insufficient training, but it can result in a copyrighted work being produced. As AIs receive further training, such cases should occur less and less often. Biggest problem with AIs I see is that AI is very unreliable, and people keep behaving as if it is. For text profucing AIs, I really wish they would prefix every answer with "I heard a rumor that..." to give the reader an idea of the expected quality and accuracy of the output.

The ai detection software is already known to be flawed. There was a scandal a few months ago where a university professor flunked his entire class because he’d fed their papers into a piece of software that said they had all been written by ai. Turns out that the standard academic paper-writing style is such that almost all papers in that style look ai-written to ai detectors.

@nerdygamesmaster7299

7 ай бұрын

Minor correction the professor asked chat GPT if it was ai and chat GPT isn't an ai detection software

Plot twist. That wasn't Nonat. That was a deep fake video of him.

Maybe the AI art could hide some kind of digital signature in their images? That way you don't need software to detect if it's AI art directly, you just need software to scan the digital signature. This is one of those things tho where the law hasn't caught up with need technology yet and until it does this likely won't happen.

@collin4555

7 ай бұрын

Any signature which can be detected can be removed by applying the detection method

Or are we all just AI who don't know it? The problem with the current version of AI is it is self-replicating. The more instances is something online the more this AI presents it and adds it to the source used to decide what is presented. Eventually, AI says/draws it because other AI said/drew it.

I'm very concerned with the fan reaction. With AI tech growing more sophisticated, fooling other programs and even humans, there are going to be cases where some artists get unfairly harassed by an uninformed community. About a year ago the artist Seiro was physically unable to work and wanted to use their art to make end's meat, creating NFTs because they made so much more than paltry commissions. NTFs have a bad reputation, but this was an artist creating their own work, selling it to genuine enthusiasts, over an exchange system no significant damage to the environment. But because the community was turned so hard against the very -idea- that anyone could actually enjoy or benefit from an NFT, the artist faced an unprecedented volume of harassment. And not "someone was kinda snarky" but death threats, calls for suicide, all that nonsense. All because they used a non-conventional payment method. So I can only imagine what will happen if people get too heated over AI art while also losing their ability to accurately identify it.

Artists are going to need to take Work In Progress pics to prove what they're doing. It's pretty much the only way to cover one's bases.

Sorry artists, you are the 70s factory worker, about to be replaced by a machine. My job will follow soon. That's just how things are...

AI can't create on its own and needs to learn from something. It's fully possible that AI snagged samples of things from Nestor's art and "learned" this style for itself. That is part of what is making AI art so dangerous. Sampling from existing artists and art styles coupled with being able to type in a style and the AI will crank it out for you. Hell, I am sure that if you punched in an option and added something like Wayne Reynolds or Nestor's name in there then the AI would pump out art of their styles.

@adamhunter1223

7 ай бұрын

It's not sampling, it's stealing.

@Dlnqntt

7 ай бұрын

@@adamhunter1223 As the AI is learning it is sampling. It becomes stealing when a person takes the image and uses it officially for a profit. I am also against AI, but its important to get the terminology right.

@adamhunter1223

7 ай бұрын

@@Dlnqntt unless the artist gives explicit permission and consent for the art to be used that way, it's theft.

@Homiloko2

7 ай бұрын

Nah, they can make a LORA with a few samples from a specific artist and the AI will learn to mimic that artist's style. This was most likely intentional.

@Barthenn

7 ай бұрын

@@adamhunter1223 But if I grab any art online and print it on a piece of paper and then put another blank sheet above and start drawing the shapes and lines to learn to draw better, and after a few years I am able to replicate somewhat the style of drawings I've been copying. Then I draw my own drawings with that style. Now my style is highly influence from the first artist, but its still my creation, my creation are not theft. Why is it that when AI comes into play, that the AI producing something entirely different but with the same style is seen as Theft. Are we going to pretend that every artist that draw something were not inspired by anything themselves to create their own unique style. I mean if the Art the AI does is an exact replica of a drawing from an artist and that person using the AI then sells that art and makes money with an ART generated by AI which is a 1:1 copy of their art they should be sued but if its different enough to be a different characters and has a different name and all. and a superficial resemblance then I don't think it should be illegal. I still believe its horrible that machine are able to steal jobs from Artist but I don't think its theft if the art is different even if the style is similar to real artist. Plenty of artist have similar styles.

A few things from an artist's perspective, first AI art is steadily getting worse because these engines are inbreeding with themselves. When AI is making art plagiarized by AI art from other AI art, it's like a flawed copy of a copy. Second, and this is the real problem, even if a piece is made partially using AI, but is then "fixed" by a real artist, it can sometimes be incredibly difficult to tell what is real. Hopefully AI art will crash eventually and we'll get our jobs back, but we'll see how things go.

Thinking people will stop advancement / automation is ridiculous on its face. Professions / Labor will always be iterated upon, and jobs will always be phased out eventually, this is how we advance as a society. It's on people to advance themselves and grow, not expect industry to conform to protect their positions. AI or not, people must adapt, not the other way around, you will never stop the advancements of industry overall, maybe in small wins, but never completely.

:holds traditional medium and paper: Let’s see an AI do this. In all seriousness though I do think we are getting to a point where artists may have to develop physical portfolios and do proofs in traditional media so that companies can see that they didn’t use AI. And that sucks. I really struggle with digital media compared to traditional media but digital artwork is just objectively more efficient. It’s faster/ easier to correct small mistakes. It’s easier to work over your sketch layer and then get rid of that layer. It’s easier to control fine details like color gradient…but the only ‘foolproof’ way I can think of to show that art isn’t AI generated is to use a pencil, pen, and whatever your poison of choice is for color.

@rosemurphy8026

7 ай бұрын

Trad art isnt safe as you can easily attach art ai to a mechanical arm and have it paint, draw etc... Imo the only solution to ai art is to start shaming people for stealing art from the ai, like the ai is the artist and though current ai hasn't shown signs of general intelligence it still creates art in the same way humans do, by doing things similar to things it has seen if i ask you to draw a bird and you'd never seen one or heard any description of a bird then you'd draw something similar to what you had seen which would likely look nothing like a bird, ai art bros are bad not because they pushing ai art but because they're stealing credit from the ai

My solution is receipts If your software gives you the option of saving your work as a video, do it. Time lapse vids of you making it.

I don't understand why people have a problem with the bricks on the floor, why can't they be from the wall of a building on the side that was damage by whatever magic or cannon ball or whatever. Maybe its a small alley or even maybe he is about to run inside a crumbling building and there is a hole inside the wall. I think the kind of random way the brick are on the ground had to the realism of brick tumbling down. There is also early sketch of his drawing that I saw in another video. So people not believing him, can continue being asshole. Also As someone who draw myself we have many sketches and on paper and on PC of our art so we can always show that to see a progression of our drawings.

The important is the result. Hand drawing, AI or mix of both doesn't matter

Much prefer the background of this video. All the minis and models, and other nerd stuff, looks good when your content is about nerd stuff. There's a slight disconnect when you're pacing around a yellow bedroom with old lamps behind you.

Like so many other things, digital art will be somewhat automated. Just like illuminators, cobblers, ferriers, and other jobs that have been changed with technology, digital created human art will be niche, not norm. Stop motion was killed by CGI, yet we still use it in movies sometimes. Its always more time consuming and limited, but still respected. So will handmade digital art.

One possible solution is for artists to start documenting their process more heavily, so that whenever someone accuse them of using AI they can say "No, and here's the proof" This might not be perfect but it's the best idea I've got

@infinitedm5396

7 ай бұрын

This sounds awful. :(

I'm glad you're still making vids nonat Thank you

I'll give you something worse to think about. Pictures are one thing but as modern humans we define our reality through videos. What happens when the AI videos are realistic enough that they are indistinguishable from a real video. Us political junkies are up at night over this one.

Photographers had to listen to this back in the 1800s. It wasn't considered art because a camera was utilized in the creation of those images. AI is an unapproved tool, and therefore its not considered art in 2023. Its the same argument, and its not a new one.

I just made a few images in colouring book style to have a little fun tomorrow evening colouring them. But I would never post them as "my art", even IF I am the one who erased lines and painstakingly coloured them with pencil and marker - because the base is AI art. It's illogical in places, it's wonky in others, but it can be a quick way to have some fun, or to throw an NPC portrait at my players when they decide to follow the Red Herring NPC and ask for their appearance. Or, I use it as an inspiration when my mind is blocked again. But it will never be "my art" or "art" altogether (as long as it isn't a conscious "mind" making the art, which is the next problem lurking on the horizon). When I post art, it's always what I have made myself - either a 3D render that I put together in DAZStudio, or a picture I drew digitally or mixed media. But I am aware of the problems that occur when you try to prove your art is yours. Friends of mine had their art stolen and were called out for copyright violations by the thieves! That's the reason I always keep my scenes, and .xcf files, and all things that show the steps I made in creating the artwork. AI just gave a new dimension to the problem.

And about replacement of artist. No artist would not being replaced. Same as photography didnt kill photorealistic and portrait artworks. Same as photoshop only advanced artist and photographer abilities to improve their quality of work. Concepts artistry would still require a hell ton of skill and taste, while common artist could juice out AI strenght better then any commonfolk. Correction, finetuning, manual redrawing, promt engineering, that all require a lot of skill. AI not generate images by itself, there are still human being who use AI, tune input, filter result and then postproduce result. If you want, you could just try to create something that is exact your vision/imagination, and not just take first result, but actualy force ai to create what you want.

I legitimately agree with you that this is a problem, but I don't agree as to why. It's not OK to demonize or harass other people about their creative works as long as they're not hurting people with the art. The problem is that because people think that inherently ai generated art should be worth less, people insist on making the distinction. This distinction is completely made up though as all people mostly care about is the final product. They don't care about your sob story or how many hours you put into it, they care about the results. Then they conflate something that isn't perfectly to their liking with being bad because the moral quandries around most current ai art exist, or they're just looking to get something cheaper because they're looking to cash in on the controversy. In a number of years, it literally won't matter to the average consumer whether something was created 0% by ai or wholly by ai as long as the result is what they want. Ironically enough, this is why you should advocate for treating ai the same as any other art, that way it rewards artists who do good work regardless of their medium because even if someone supposedly has it easier, if they can produce better results than you, why do your blood sweat and tears matter to the consumer. If you were truly interested in the artist making it all themselves, the you'd be interested in the process too and would then want verification at each step, but nobody is asking for that because they care about the finished result. Starfield was made by real people and it sucks. Bg3 was made by real people and it doesn't. If bg3 were made wholly by ai, 95+% of people would still prefer bg3 over Starfield based purely on quality. Stop making the distinction, and "real" artists are actually the ones that will benefit the most and this won't be a problem anymore.

Self-check out was created to lessen the burden on lines at stores but all it did was replace people's jobs.

AI art detectors are made using AI... And actually I wonder if anyone has read ther T&Cs to see if your piece is sampled simply by uploading it into the detection tool thus feeding the training sets of the other tool they are designed to detect. AIs individually are dumb, but it's when they work together they can do serious harm.

Now people are going to want to see the layers in Photoshop or a time lapse of the creation.

That's kind of the point. AI is copying from sample material. His art was probably part of the reference model.

I have that same shirt

I am amused at OBS being caught on your camera. :)

I don't give a single flip about AI art.

The main problem of ai/ml is a huge boost of a single artists productivity (who use ai). This will dramatically change the offers (number and prices) on market.

I'm using AI Art. Not for clout or anything, i don't even post my stuff anywhere online, i just use AI Art to generate Character Art for my TTRPG Characters and NPCs because i simply don't have the cash or time to commission like 10 NPCs that i need for a campaign for which one artwork costs like $70 to $100 or more. I also don't feel comfortable spending my admittedly limited income on a commission for a character that might not survive their first or second session. For me it's simply a tool exclusively used for personal reasons. I do think that AI has no place in spaces that are meant for actual art however. Artists make their living off of their art and there shouldn't be any competition by literal machines in that regard. People who post AI Art for clout online or even charge money as in commissions for AI Art should be FORCED to disclose if an Image is AI or not. I do think however that all of this is somewhat inevitable. Just like machines replaced factory workers to make more money for the suits sitting in their offices back in the day, at some point in the future, AI will to a certain degree replace artists to make more money for people that just want to sell art cheaper, more quickly and more efficient. It's all a tragedy really, but i'm afraid AI isn't going anywhere any time soon. There's just too much money to be made for humanity to just drop this technology.

AI has never been able to differentiate between ai generated things and human made things. They are not made for that. Image recognition is quite good these days, but bit without fail. If enough criteria match, it will say it's AI generated. Feed ChatGPT any well-written formal text and it will say yes, I wrote that, when asked.