Well, i think i'm just confused now. Was your complaint about people who use AI generators specifically deceiving their buyers with claims that the art is done by them manually? Or were you complaining about the use of AI generators at all, because it supposedly means the person didn't do any work to get those images done?
Scammers use the path of least resistance. If Gen-AI gives them a way to cheaply and easily churn out slop that looks good enough to fool horney dipshits on the internet, they'll do it. Before they would have just directly stolen artwork. Now, they can do so be degrees of separation; the Gen-AI developers already did all of the theft for them. Now they can just prompt a program to spit out 'Garfield with tits holding a gun', and with zero effort on their part, get pretty much exactly what they want.
Again, when you see Gen-AI, your response should be 'what else did they not do, yet are trying to take credit for?' They've crossed that line, demonstrated that they're perfectly alright with plagiarism (even by degrees) for their own benefit. It's bad taste enough if they did so for free. But when they're then also trying to sell it to you and profit off of that? Again, every neuron in your brain should be firing off and warning you that it's busllhit and you are being scammed. That they're not just belies your own susceptibility to bullshit. You will get scammed, and more than likely,
you will thank them for the privilege.
The way you've formed your initial message seemed to imply the latter, and the former seems pretty silly when at the same time supposedly the AI slop is so easy to spot, not unlike the other usual source of images in porn games for that matter. I mean, how is it deceiving anyone when people are jumping up and down and screaming, "That's AI, i know it's AI, from the pixels and from having seen enough slop in my time!"
It can be both, but I'm not surprised that you're incapable of understanding nuance or grappling with more than one point at a time. It's almost like one of us actually appreciates genuine effort and artistic integrity, and the other is fine with zero-effort slop built off the backs of such effort, which exists only to benefit silicon valley tech-bros and venture capitalist ghouls in their never-ending search for limitless growth and profits.
Machines and automation are supposed to make our lives better, by streamlining the drudge work, allowing for more time and effort to be put into art and leisure. Now they're automating the art and leisure, leaving more time for you to do their drudge work. Buckle up buttercup,
that what you're asking for.
With statements like this, what i notice is that you seem to have no real idea about this subject. AI generators are also toolboxes; what you get out of them can be just as much of a skill issue, as is the end result that ends up in the game. Effort and competence (or lack thereof) can be quite noticeable with them, too.
I'm sorry, wot mate? When you hire an artist to do work for you, are they just a toolbox? Is an art director in charge of a team of artist who directs them and at most gives minor feedback about the work they each individually do, the actual creative force responsible for their output? Do art commissioners get to take credit for the art they hire people to do for them? No? Then fuck off.
When you prompt a Gen-AI program,
at best you an commissioner giving pointers to the artist you hired to do the work for you. Gen-AI is not a 'tool' in the way a brush, a camera, or image manipulation software is. That you cannot, or will not, see the difference there is telling of your own ignorance of art as a whole and this subject in particular. Project much?
And i hope you one day grow up past this sort of vicious stupidity. But i'm not holding my breath.
Ah, so Gen-AI is kosher for faking artistic integrity, but you're too much of a coward to back it up and take the plunge of real consequences for the future you wanted where Gen-AI has fully integrated and become normalized.
Color me not surprised...
