I’m, not so sure about that? To me, that comic is critical of AI, not necessarily supportive of it. I feel like we’re not supposed to take the side of the bearded person, but the three others and their “Why the fuck should I care?” demeanour. Through that lens, I see the hand holding the painting as an intentional riff by the artist, hinting at why the technology might be dismissed by the majority.
I’m perfectly happy to be disproven, but I think one of the worst aspects of AI is the false accusations against legitimate artists. With the subject here being AI, I don’t want to be so quick to rule out that the “obvious sign of AI” isn’t itself satire.
Considering how much of jerk you’re being, I’m going to reply to this with the same tone.
I never said that person did make it, I infact don’t believe that they did.
Jesus fucking christ, if all art is now guilty (AI) until proven otherwise, all that’s going to do is harm artists even more than they already have been.
Are you daft? It could have easily been cropped out, something that’s been happening on the internet since forever.
Were you literally born yesterday? Artists have been overflowing the bounds of comic panels since the comic strip was bloody invented. A character holding an object, and that object extending past the panel so it’s not cropped, is a pretty classic trope. So much so, that it doesn’t tell you if this is AI or not, because an AI would have learnt the trope from its training data.
So? Having some variations in art is pretty normal.
Could you maybe train yourself to be less of a dick? Cool, thanks.