ESL works are subject to Sturgeon’s Law just like everything else. Add to this that people branding torches and pitchforks are rarely inclined to be objective, and doubly so on social media, and you are bound to see a share of disasters, don’t even think of deluding yourself about it.
If discerning AI garbage was indeed as easy as you claim, people wouldn’t need tools for it and you wouldn’t see people supplying the AI garbage (and getting away with it) as their own work, either.
I don’t do social media, hated it since the old Myspace days and pay absolutely no attention to what people say about or post on it. Just because I hate the shit, refuse to make an account on any of it and do not give a damn about what happens there doesn’t mean I’m deluded.
It IS that easy. No one NEEDS a supposed tool to detect it, you have to read the shit yourself, pay attention to how it phrases things AND recognize that in writing elsewhere.
HAHA HAHA YES, they would. People always have and always WILL try to find any cheap and unfair way in order to shriek “look what I did!” It’s self-entitlement, instant gratification and will never change.
So it’s AI because you said so, how is this proof and an argument? No one needs this type of witch hunting here.
You know what? I 100% agree on that.
If Lewis Carroll published now some of their most bizarre poems and short stories 100% everyone would frame him as an Ai.
Surrealism, dream state automatic tic writing techniques exists since 1920. I followed some.
Bizarre doesn’t mean bad writing or an Ai
"I’m of the general opinion that any AI-derived work should not be saleable at any value, should not be eligible for copyright or trademark, and should come with something that makes it clear that AI was used in the process of its creation, ideally noting how and to what extent. "
While I agree with this, I can’t see it ruining a nice scam business for a few people. AI has been cropping up in the crafts area for some time, and somehow managing to get a few decent reviews, considering that the info and pictures are definitely scraped and the patterns or instructions generated are incomplete at best and don’t make sense as a rule. The people using AI to scam want a quick buck and are obviously not interested in doing any actual work themselves, making these items fairly easy to detect when they appear on various international platforms, however the platforms themselves are often not policing the complaints that come in about the scams and removing them. When they are international platforms it becomes almost impossible to weed out the AI simply because the AI passes the platform’s own algorithms that are intended to prevent plagiarism and theft of IP. The lack of human contact is making this impossible for some creators of content to compete on such an uneven playing field.
It was bad enough when some countries did not respect the copyright of content creators because they had no copyright laws themselves, but this is going to be almost impossible to overcome unless the EU and the US pass laws which smaller countries can then use as a basis of their own laws and force the large media platforms to reconsider their attitude. However while Meta, Amazon, and Google etc might come to the party, X is going to be a stand out along with Tiktok and a few foreign platforms that will deliberately not respect any legislation produced from Western countries, until they find their own creatives harmed by AI.
Yeah, as much as I loathe the idea of people using AI to “cheat the system”, witch hunts really need not happen, as they’d do more harm than good. Newbie authors might struggle with building an audience as-is, publicly accusing one of using AI might just torpedoe any chances of them ever succeeding…
I believe such concerns can be brought up - politely - in pms with the author, or else directly with the staff in case of (about to be) published works. Politely, once again, no harassment.
Ah, but this assumes they care about their creatives, and not just about squeezing them dry as corporations are wont to do to their employees, and won’t want to replace them with AIs if at all possible 
Sorry, not a second I ever spent in corporate environment has filled me with optimism re: how much they care.
100% if someone politically or not accused me of something. I will need five seconds to denounce them for harassment and slander.
You can’t go whatever pointing fingers saying YOU ARE A THIEF YOU ARE A FRAUD
What are your proofs?
Hmm, you sound robotic to me.
Well you sound like an assh&le to me.
So people don’t go sending menacing pm to people because any lawyer would use it against you.
Go contact the company ONLY if you have a sounding hint or a proof
I’ve heard way too many anecdotes of human-written content being called AI-written (in schoolwork) to believe that.
This is the exact reason I am hoping that CoG/HG/HC will make an actual rule wrt to claiming that–or even questioning if–someone is using AI content. It needs to be addressed privately with the company, who can then discuss with the writer. There need to never be public accusations of this. The accusation itself is just too damaging. The court of public opinion has proven time and again to consider itself a vigilante above the law of the land and to very, very rarely consider new evidence that challenges whatever indignation is already blooming. The whole point of HG specifically is a publishing platform where people can do the damn work to shoot their shot and it would be horrible to have that premise turned on its head by accusations of AI use by any angry online rando causing a snowball mob of what would otherwise be potential audiences.
…you know, now I’m wondering how angry a mob I’m going to incite, if I actually use that library of AI-generated human portraits I generated for drawing reference because I’m terrible at drawing varied face shapes without a reference picture, and using real people’s photos for it is… extremely not good.
It is hard to pull interesting faces from the ether.
Is using a stranger’s face uncomfortable or off-putting? I’m sure there are free-to-use resources where people are providing photographs of themselves for reference/general use. I haven’t had to look in a long, long time, but you’ll find more… human faces that way, compared to the AI-generated faces I’ve seen. IMO they just look sort of same-y and generically pretty. But I’m also not super familiar with the different programs out there expressly for this purpose.
I just find it plain wrong, especially if I’m using it commercially.
That site I used actually makes pretty good faces, most of the time.
I get it; I wasn’t sure if you meant like studies in your own sketchbook or not.
For those I can use whatever, yeah. I mostly get by with history books and family albums there.
I don’t personally have any problem with the idea of using AI pictures as references.
But if you want some tips for making referencing real people feel better, then I find that it helps a bit to use pictures that have been uploaded specifically to use as references, with free for use licensing.
It also helps a whole lot to not copy from a single reference, but use multiple different ones, so the result doesn’t look like any specific person.
Exactly, yeah. This what I was getting at.
Plus, I wouldn’t take a whole person’s likeness from reference, because that would be super weird, but sometimes people have an interesting feature that I find fun to focus on and use in designs.
It’s really common to copy faces for practice, like for the 1000 heads challenge, but it’s icky to do for a finished piece, in most cases.
Unless you’re making an actual portrait.
Of course, a lot of such ethics are mostly an internet artist community thing.
Things like tracing, photobashing, and straight up using a face directly from a reference photo, isn’t unusual in the more corporate parts of the creative industries.
Mmmh. It’s just that I’m not at the stage where I would be able to not just… draw the same face every time, if I’m not using references.
Yeah, the passive benefit being that you end up with a better understanding of how the human head and face works. I took a sculpture class once that was half this and half full figures studies for the same reason. I tended not to work directly from reference on finished pieces since that’s what the studies are for, anyway.
@LiliArch - oh yeah, I think I used that one once! If you want ideas for character faces, that one seems to rely on real people’s features, so I get it.
Ive played around with AI in a few relay writing exercises (back and forth continuation)and to be honest its very ‘safe’ in its writing to the point where it will avoid topics and definitive choices so its ill suited for consistent narratives because its forgetful and has difficulty identifying individual character’s in a multi character scene. I consider it a funhouse mirror for your curiosity more than a replacement for narrative. It shows you an example of what something looks like but its distorted and confused… like Elden ring lore.
