- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Indeed, those slight distortions are a surefire clue that this art is a witch!
The AI image checkers are of course great evidence and never return false positives, but just to be sure I’d like to see whether the image sinks or floats when thrown in a pond.
Imagine if it’s not AI lol
Imagine being a graphic artist and waking up to find the internet is dragging you for being ‘fake’. “A HUMAN WOULDN’T MAKE THESE MISTAKES”
Rough
I’ve been working on my patented AI dowsing rod…
I don’t get why this would be a problem. It’s just a poster image.
Hell, even if they used AI for the in-show VFX, I still don’t see why it would be an issue. Almost all VFX for the last several years have been using some level of AI tools.
You are forgetting a cardinal rule: When something is likely to affect the press, the press affords it more attention.
So the writers, editors, graphic designers etc of the press are likely to be very affected by generative AI. So they worry about it. So they write about it.
I’m also in a line of work that will see substantial changes … so I understand their plight. But I think a large part of the reason the press write about the use of genAI to make “art output” is that they worry about genAI will make their “art output” soon.
“So they write about it” with AI assistance. It can easily be argued that modern word processor software has some level of AI in it.
She: What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.
Same story, it’s just a question to what extent the software moves from being an unacceptable amount of assistance as a tool. Sports equipment follows the same story, at some point it’s regarded as cheating, we just haven’t established what that line is. Clearly there are people who don’t care what that line is and so long as it represents a competitive advantage to ignore that line then people will freely cross it.
Seems like more of a human mistake – like one of the designers used a stock image of a clock spiral that was AI-generated…
Yeah, it sounds like a problem with a contributor to Shutterstock not following the terms of use. The person who put together the marketing materials for Loki was just using stock images. I don’t think it should be on them to enforce shutterstock’s TOU.
Good. Embrace me technology.
And?
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
A promotional poster for the second season of Loki on Disney Plus has sparked controversy amongst professional designers following claims that it was at least partially created using generative AI.
Companies like Adobe and Getty are also promoting ways for AI-generated content to be commercially viable, but it’s unclear if these platforms are any better than Shutterstock at moderating submissions that don’t abide by their contributor rules.
Some X users have speculated that it may have been used on sections of the image like the miniaturized characters surrounding Tom Hiddleston’s Loki, noting their awkward positioning.
Disney has ignored our request to clarify if AI was used in the Loki promotional art, and to confirm if the company had licensed the aforementioned Shutterstock image.
These tools aim to make things easier for folks with limited design experience, and are typically promoted to organizations who want to produce cheap art at scale.
Stock images are often used by companies because they’re fast, affordable, and accessible, reducing the need to hire experienced designers to make content from scratch.
Saved 73% of original text.
Have any of the offenders on any of the recent shows that did the same actually responded to the backlash?
I don’t see the problem here.
