> I think the trend to intentionally make stuff look “non-AI” is doomed to fail as AI gets better and better.

What’s the mechanism that makes an AI ‘better’ at looking non-AI? Training on non-ai trend images? It’s not following prompts more closely. Even if that image had no gradients or pointier shapes, it still doesn’t look like it was made by an individual.

To your counterpoints, notice that you are apologizing for the AI by finding humans that may have done something, sometime, that the AI just did. Of course! It’s trained on their art. To be non-AI, art needs to counter all averages and trends that the models are trained on.

> What’s the mechanism that makes an AI ‘better’ at looking non-AI?

I don’t know. Better training data? More training data? The difference over the past year or two is stark so something is improving it.

> Even if that image had no gradients or pointier shapes, it still doesn’t look like it was made by an individual.

The fact that humans are actively trying to make art that does not look like AI makes it clear that AI is not so obvious as many would like to pretend. If it were obvious, no one would need to try to avoid their art looking like AI.

> To your counterpoints, notice that you are apologizing for the AI by finding humans that may have done something, sometime, that the AI just did. Of course! It’s trained on their art.

Obviously.

> To be non-AI, art needs to counter all averages and trends that the models are trained on.

So in order to not look like AI, art just has to be so unique that it’s unlike any training data. That’s a high bar. Tough time to be an artist.