Disney’s Loki faces backlash over reported use of generative AI
www.theverge.com
A human designer isn’t likely to have made these mistakes.

Disney’s Loki faces backlash over reported use of generative AI / A Loki season 2 poster has been linked to a stock image on Shutterstock that seemingly breaks the platform’s licensing rules regard…::A promotional poster for the second season of Loki on Disney Plus has sparked controversy amongst professional designers following claims that it was created using generative AI.

  • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    13·
    1 year ago

    You’re ignoring and misrepresenting what I said again so you can just repeat yourself. I’ve already covered all of this. If I explain it for a third time you’ll just do this again.

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      Even though I said I was only interested on your take about a single particular point, you completely disregarded it. Even though I said I had no interest in any other aspect, I responded to multiple of your arguments.

      At this point you are saying “you’re ignoring and misrepresenting what I said” as a way to disregard what I said and pretend there are no unadressed aspects. It’s just not true. Ironically, you’re saying that to ignore and misrepresent my words.

      To be fair, you made it more than clear that trying to discuss the matter with you is wasted effort.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          Oh sorry, I thought you wanted me to take what you said into consideration. Is it still remotely unclear?

          Pretty sure you are just playing coy now, but I am this stubborn.

          Ahem.

          How do you suggest that traditional artists ought to be supported in light of the likely possibility that AI trained on their works might make their careers financially unviable?

            • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.worldEnglish
              21·
              1 year ago

              No, absolutely not. As expected, you are just bulshitting me.

              Just to be thorough, this is how:

              • “Just evolve with the tech and use AI too” is a clueless response considering that artistic industries are already highly saturated. There won’t even be enough positions for all the AI artists, which they will inevitably find out. It’s also weirdly elitist, thinking of AI art as superior to any other form, the only one worthy still dedicating yourself too, an attitude that is already conceited when it happens between traditional and digital artists.

              • “It’s just like the industrial revolution” not only is not a solution, rather it is a reference to time in history that, though romanticized, was very troubled. As it was, going from working artisanal crafts to getting their arms chewed by machinery didn’t turn out great for the early industrial workers, and it might not ever have if not for people fighting for their rights. Worse than that, back then industries eventually freed people from working on fields to working on offices. Now AI can take them out of the offices, but to where? No, they won’t all be AI engineers. How does that benefit the artist that is “freed” into having to work in a sweatshop?

              • Another common response that is present in neither your comments nor the article is “Universal Basic Income will solve this” and even if I try to be fully open to the possibility, I have to point out that AI is here today, but UBI is only tested every couple years, people tell how great it is and then we don’t hear anything about widespread implementation. This likely won’t happen without fierce popular pressure.

              So, the question of the artists’ material conditions is not even remotely addressed.