me doing game level & set design:

supplemting my last point. i dont think hating on gen_ai users does anything. tech industry does not care about users but stocks. as things get worse we can only really spread information and get people to understand the issue, but hating on them is only energy expended by us for almost no fruit. corporations dont need us to survive, if users mattered they wouldnt be making pointless bullshit for the past decade that i realy dont think had potential. we are jumping pointless tech thing to another pointless tech thing and corporations survive fine. so i dont see a reason to be angry at the end user, especially in cases we dont even know for sure if gen_ai was involved and how much. anger is understandable in the state that we are in, but again it may hurt the humans far more than it can ever reach the corporations.

as much as i wouldnt want to see just ai art with no further human work/edit/something. i dont think its actually possible to police ai art without banning human work that might look similar. as much i understand the sentiment of others on ai art, its a slippery slope to have 'tells' of an ai art vs human. wont go too in-depth but i sometimes make art that's intentionally smudgy and weird, idk if people would mistake those for ai art but i can see it being possible.

ai art without further human work i think should be removed. but i dont think it should be removed if its not clear it was ai. maybe a rule that if u do post ai u must at least say its that in the description. ofcourse this isnt gonna make everyone who posts ai to do that, but faith in people first should be the best start. if it isnt clarified on ai but many are saying, moderators could ask and have a policy if the creator doesnt clarify after being asked then it could be removed or locked at least.

i would also like to give opinion on comments. that post did have ai defenders and those should be removed, especially if they are being intentionally hateful. but i am also not really cool with tolerance on those who were being hateful on ai users as well, especially when the post was unproven. i do want to say there should be a discussion on whether such comments should be kept as is as well. im not here to defend ai, but i dont think being actively hostile towards a suspected ai thing is a good thing. it goes back to the slipperly slope, if i make some art that i have been doing before gen_ai was a thing, making intentionally weird smudged up things, and im being harassed for suspected ai, i wouldnt post again (to be clear i have not had this experience and i havent posted my weird art, i might someday; im giving an example that has happened in the art community over and over for people i know, i dont want this place to be unsafe similar to that. we have to keep in mind that tells and stuff is very much gonna hurt human creators more than it can hurt the corporate empire of gen_ai).

this is all not to mention that i think gen_ai users are significantly smaller scapegoats of a problem then are corporations making, funding, implementing, and buying gen_ai stuff. and i feel harassment of gen_ai users is pointless, maybe more fruitful to spread awareness of its harm as many non tech people i know dont know the issues until told. u can call them ignorant at most sure, but harassment just gonna lead them to continue ignoring. though thats a much more different issue, im highlighting as an opinion here to explain my thinking of why i dont want harassment or hateful things in the comments. especially generalized one that might hurt human creators far more

bad lighting and careless post processing work. i dont get why he oked this but here we are. sloppiness in imaging work just has this look of bad brilliance and shadow. which is also common spot of AI images afaik

thats fair, i do understand the problem. but i think in a public-esq forum, having generalizations could be bad. that is a personal belief that i dont want to impose on others, im fine with giving that take (hopefully without hostility) under others in good faith

using youtube video generalizations can be bad as it is a leading video hub. and implying its bad may lead to bad vids taking youtube more as their home while those that do put effort and work to be more reliable feeling unwelcomed

youtube can very much be a credible source. its certainly not all youtube, but that can be said about anything including teachers an# any book. it is true youtube may have numerally more uncredible stuff but that maybe due to its sheer size as a platform and ease of spam