First it was punctuation and grammar, then linguistic coherence, and now it's tiny bits of whimsy that are falling victim to AI accusations. Good fucking grief
But AI is causing such visceral reactions that it's bleeding into other areas. People are so averse to AI they don't mind a few false positives.
If I had lost my local movie theater because of digital film, I would have a really good reason to hate the technology, even though the blame is on the studios forcing that technology on everyone.
I think principles are important. Especially when it comes to art, principle might be all we have. Going back to the crypto example, NFTs were art that real people had made. In some cases, very good art. People railed against NFTs despite the quality of the art. That is being against something on-principle. Comparatively, if my local grocery chains were owned by neonazis, I'd have a much harder time of standing on principle, giving that doing so may have a negative impact on my ability to survive and prosper.
AI Gen works, on the other hand, most often do not come with readily available marking that it is AI Gen. What people are complaining about is the lack of quality in the work. If they accuse a poorly human-written article of being AI Gen, that's just a mistake. But the general case is a legitimate evaluation of the quality of the material and the conditions under which it was made and presented.
In my own case, while I certainly have plenty of "principled" reasons to dislike AI Gen works, I also dislike it because it's just garbage. Oh yeah, sure, it's impressive that a computer can spit out reasonable content at all. It would equally be impressive for a chimpanzee to start talking in full sentences. That doesn't mean I'm going to start going to the chimpanzee for dissertations on the human condition.
> I think less of someone as a person if they send me AI slop.
n=1 but working on side projects for others, i could easily generate ai images (instead of using stock photos) for a client, but i resist because i also feel this but as the sender...there is the fact that such images 'look ai' but even if it were perfect, idk somehow i feel cheap doing that.
I myself would disagree that CGI itself is a bad thing.
I was watching some behind the scenes footage from something recently, and the thing that struck me most was just how they wouldn't bother with the location shoot now and just green-screen it all for the convenience.
Even good CGI is changing not just how films are made, but what kinds of films get shot and what kind of stories get told.
Regardless of the quality of the output, there's a creativeness in film-making that is lost as CGI gets better and cheaper to do.
Same thing is true of AI output.
IMO it's a combination of long-running paranoia about cost-cutting and quality, and a sort of performative allegiance to artists working in the industry.
People don't care about AI. They only care whether the product is good.
I reckon it's just drama paraded by gaming "journalists" and not much else. You will find people expressing concern on Reddit or Bluesky, but ultimately it doesn't matter.
Which of course won't be done because corporations don't want that (except Valve I guess), so blame them.
The honor system is never a sustainable solution. It's not even down to corporate greed, it's just not something that works at scale, especially when there's money to be made, and even more especially when there isn't.
Which of course won't happen because we live in reality and not fantasy where we can dream that "people should just do X"