Yeah, it sounds like a problem with a contributor to Shutterstock not following the terms of use. The person who put together the marketing materials for Loki was just using stock images. I don’t think it should be on them to enforce shutterstock’s TOU.
I don't get why this would be a problem. It's just a poster image.
Hell, even if they used AI for the in-show VFX, I still don't see why it would be an issue. Almost all VFX for the last several years have been using some level of AI tools.
You are forgetting a cardinal rule: When something is likely to affect the press, the press affords it more attention.
So the writers, editors, graphic designers etc of the press are likely to be very affected by generative AI. So they worry about it. So they write about it.
I’m also in a line of work that will see substantial changes … so I understand their plight. But I think a large part of the reason the press write about the use of genAI to make “art output” is that they worry about genAI will make their “art output” soon.
“So they write about it” with AI assistance. It can easily be argued that modern word processor software has some level of AI in it.
She: What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.
Same story, it’s just a question to what extent the software moves from being an unacceptable amount of assistance as a tool. Sports equipment follows the same story, at some point it’s regarded as cheating, we just haven’t established what that line is. Clearly there are people who don’t care what that line is and so long as it represents a competitive advantage to ignore that line then people will freely cross it.
Indeed, those slight distortions are a surefire clue that this art is a witch!
The AI image checkers are of course great evidence and never return false positives, but just to be sure I'd like to see whether the image sinks or floats when thrown in a pond.
Add comment