I'm more bothered by the fact that this reference image is clearly a well-made piece of digital art by some artist.

We all know the questionable nature of AI/LLM models, but people in the field usually at least try to avoid directly using other people's copyrighted material in documentation.

I'm not even talking about legality here. It just feels morally wrong to so blatantly use someone else's artwork like this.

▲

coldfoundry 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I agree that proper permission should be used for these examples, but I’m quite sure the image in question is AI generated. The quality is incredible these days as to what can be generated, and even to a trained eye it’s getting more difficult by the day to tell if its AI or not.

Source of artist: https://x.com/curry3_aiart/status/1947416300822638839

▲

raincole 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The reference is AI-generated too. This comment shows how people are susceptible to our existing bias.

▲

kouteiheika 4 days ago | parent [-]

My favorite (or should I say, anti-favorite?) is calling real artists' art AI, which I'm starting to see more and more of, and I've already seen a couple of artists rage-quit social media because of the anti-AI crowd's abuse.

▲

raincole 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah that's bad too, but what the parent comment did was the opposite: calling an AI-generated image "clearly a well-made piece of digital art by some artist."

	▲	kouteiheika 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It boils down to the same thing - it's getting harder to distinguish AI generated art from non-AI art, and since the models are constantly getting better it's only going to get worse.