This is also entirely intentional.
I bet this is because LLMs stole her art for training, so now that the LLM users have pumped out thousands of slop-art aping hers down to the colour palate and brushstrokes, her originals also get identified as also AI.
This is exactly it. Also the reason that inputting an excerpt of a classical text (cfr. Dracula, Frankenstein, …) returns “likely AI” results - it’s literally what it was trained on.
For anyone doubting Kyrgizion’s claim:
But the fact that they say their system is “advanced” and “refined”, while they don’t even add some guardrails as, i.e., date checks, that are the minimum one would expect to be added to reduce the likeliness of both false positives and false negatives. It’s just stunning.
And that’s still not really how that works. Those checkers just aren’t very good.
While I don’t think you’re entirely wrong, I feel like this sentiment will lead people to believing AI content checkers more. The content checkers are wrong even for newer stuff. I always default to believing something is human made because I never want to accuse a real artist for using AI.
I don’t follow, if content checkers are wrong for not being able to tell original art from AI slop because they have been trained on datasets that include the original art, why wouldn’t they also be wrong for the same reason on newer art? They would still likely absorb that newer art into their datasets.
Okay after writing it out I get what you mean, but I am thinking that the turnaround time of absorbing new art, using it to produce AI slop requests a few dozen/hundred/million times, and then calling the original works AI because the AI sloptificator can no longer tell the difference will be a constant, unless there is some way to track OC across multiple AI agents in the panslopticon.
AI content checkers will always be wrong. They’ll always sometimes flag non-AI images as AI and AI images as human made some percentage of the time. I don’t want artists to have to prove that their art is real, I want them to be able to make and share the content they want.
People are using AI to determine what is or is not AI so that they can avoid AI
This is funny
The stated goal is that we won’t be able to tell the difference.
This is likely on purpose. The goal is to normalize AI and make people feel like “everyone uses ai”.
The back edge of generated content that I don’t see a lot of discussion about is mislabeling real content, accidentally or not. It’s gonna have a monumental affect on how we consume media, even for those that want to avoid it.
Even caught myself mislabelling real art a few times, ai has destroyed our trust in genuine human stuff
Yep, this is the most important threat of Gen AI in my opinion. The erosion of trust, and the following devaluation of truth, is already hurting society so much. And it will only get worse.
Remember, it’s not just «did someone actually paint this?». It is also «did this actually happen?» and «did they actually say that?».
A promotional image I created for a local queer rally was deemed “AI” by the community (the image was actually the result of me sacrificing 8 hours of sleep.) The vitriol I was hit with, including one of my fellow committee members passive aggressively implying I was lying about it not being AI, was enough to make me no longer want to volunteer my time or skills for my own community.
Which is really fucking shitty. The increased lateral attacks happening because of Gen-AI pitting us against one another benefits those fucks at the top, and they didn’t even have to work for it.
I hate this part the most, it just helps alienate artists even further
We’re gonna have to record video of ourselves doing work at this rate.
Then they’ll claim that video of you doing the work is also generated via AI. There’s no way of convincing your regular joe once they made their mind up.
You’re right that it is the only proof that might appease the masses at this point. That’s what the committee has proposed going forward, too. And I’m feeling a little sour grapes about how the labour I am donating is growing exponentially just to try and outrun GenAI BS.
+1. I was releasing free fucking music for indie devs who didn’t have budget or limited budget for this kinda stuff, some mf on reddit who was selling his music saw this, contacted admins to claim it was made via AI, then they took the post down without doing any investigation or even contacting me. Labeled as made with AI. I’ve worked in the industry for over 10 years, there’s literally 0 reason for me to use AI to make music lol From that point onward I just pulled out all of my free libraries from public, if it’s that easy to mislabel somebody’s hard work, and only give the download codes for free for people who did contact me personally and that I was sure they were actually building something.
