so here's the thing about AI art

[inferiorwit]

The thing is that there is, at present, no foolproof yes-or-no test to determine whether an image or piece of text was made by an AI, unless the publisher of that piece openly admits that it was. We can only guess that a piece was made by AI, based on a few fairly common indicators and our own preconceptions of what AI art looks like.

Beyond the debate about lost jobs and intellectual property and the Death of Art, this means the phrase "it looks like it was made by AI" is an accusation that cannot be proven right--or wrong. An ideological bludgeon to the head of anything that doesn't fit your definition of "real art."

The practical reality of ideological bludgeons is that they're only occasionally wielded against the guilty and most viciously wielded against the vulnerable and the strange.

Comments

[rex]

Yes! Did you see where this happened to an artist on reddit? Despite being able to show his prelim sketches and all, he got slammed for having a style "too close" to AI.

In the author forums I'm in, there's been preparation for when the inevitable happens, and someone attacks an author they have beef with by declaring that their books are *obviously* AI. By the time that anyone figures out how to actually refute that, readers will have already gleefully torn them into bloody confetti and moved on.

[inferiorwit]

i saw that! the fact that the accusers doubled down even after being proved wrong was particularly insane, albeit predictable.

and now we have output detectors that rate text entirely written by humans as "99% fake." this is probably fine. this won't start any witch hunts or anything.