Edit history

Quality control, for one.

Artifacts like this would be unnaceptable if they were from CGI or whatever, but somehow generative models get a pass? That makes no sense to me, yet it happens all the time; heavily distorted output somehow meets the bar for publishing.

Honestly it has nothing to do with “AI.” It would be worth calling out however it was made. But for some reason generative diffusion models always seem to lower the standards of output for user.

If it was indistinguishable from CGI and fit the rest of the hand-painted style, the argument would be very different, IMO.

Quality control, for one.

Artifacts like this would be unnaceptable if they were from CGI or whatever, but somehow generative models get a pass? That makes no sense to me, yet it happens all the time; heavily distorted output somehow meets the bar for publishing.

Honestly it has nothing to do with “AI.” It would be worth calling out however it was made. But for some reason generative diffusion models always seem to lower the standards of output for user.

Quality control, for one.

Artifacts like this would be unnaceptable if they were from CGI or whatever, but somehow generative models get a pass? That makes no sense to me, yet it happens all the time; heavily distorted output somehow meets the bar for publishing.

Honestly it has nothing to do with AI. It would be worth calling out however it was made. But for some reason generative diffusion models alwaus seem to lower the standards of output for user.

Quality control, for one.

Artifacts like this would be unnaceptable if they were from CGI or whatever, but somehow generative models get a pass? That makes no sense to me, yet it happens all the time; heavily distorted output somehow meets the bar for publishing.

Honestly it has nothing to do with AI. It would be worth calling out however it was made.