I’m glad AI is being used to put artists out of work instead of actually bettering the world in meaningful ways. Nice job, tech industry!
I am glad for AI. It’s helping me in my work a lot.
We can’t be luddites attacking a technology for removing the need for labour in a field. Attack the system that says you’re not worth anything unless you generate revenue.
I think you need to look up what luddites were actually against…
They protested against manufacturers who used machines in “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to replace the skilled labour of workers and drive down wages by producing inferior goods.
[…]
Over time, the term has been used to refer to those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation, or new technologies in general
What exactly don’t you think means what I think it does?
How is it helping you?
Speeds up my programming a lot by being able to review my code for me, as well as suggest ways for me to approach issues.
I also use image generation stuff for design inspiration and place holder art.
So are you yourself an artist?
Not professionally.
Why wouldn’t you take the weekend and look into this before publishing a tweet telling your fans that they’re wrong? You could even post “Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We’ll investigate…”
Right? People call them out and their response is “nu-uh, you just don’t understand art”.
At this point it’s not just companies firing artists and using AI, it’s companies firing artists and using AI while trying to act like it’s all ethical and human-made. Kind of disgusting.
It’s a horseshit statement, they’re still passive-aggressively deflecting blame (emphasis mine):
As you, our diligent community pointed out, it looks like some AI components that are now popping up in industry standard tools like Photoshop crept into our marketing creative, even if a human did the work to create the overall image.
While the art came from a vendor, it’s on us to make sure that we are living up to our promise to support the amazing human ingenuity that makes Magic great.
It makes perfect sense, really. This sort of thing happens due to diffusion of responsibility in large enterprises.
The person making assurances to the public (“We don’t use AI art”) does not have control over whether those assurances are actually true. They themselves only have received assurances from someone else. They’re passing a message along, and repeating it. Only when the public is skeptical does anyone within the organization actually go back and check carefully whether those assurances are really true.
What probably happened: Wizards contracted it out to a vendor who probably agreed not to use “AI art” in a boilerplate contract. That vendor hired a freelancer, and handed them the assignment. The freelancer used Photoshop inpainting features. The vendor returned the work to Wizards, who used it directly, trusting that the contract had been correctly fulfilled.
The comms person didn’t do their job properly.
“Company policy is to not use AI art and the contractors that we hire sign a contract that stipulates so. We would like to thank our community for pointing out the AI art provided by a contractor and that went undetected by us. The situation will be handled and we will make sure to improve our internal procedures to prevent a situation like this from happening again.”
They aren’t concerned about the artists, they’re concerned because AI work isn’t copyrightable.
We do not use AI, except when we use AI.
“WE” didn’t use AI, one of our team used it, but “WE” never used AI in our marketing.
“quickliy noticed” Was this article written by AI? ;)
no shit
No shit.
