191

Businesses that rely on creatives should probably avoid angering them.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] De_Narm@lemmy.world 110 points 10 months ago

Wacom of all companies promoting their drawing tablets with AI got to be one of the most tone deaf marketing campaigns done with AI yet.

[-] pupbiru@aussie.zone 3 points 10 months ago

whilst i kinda agree, i don’t think it was intentional on their part (as with most of these controversies)… i think they paid a 3rd party for an artwork, and then that 3rd party took shortcuts - whether whole cloth, or with things like content aware fill - and wacom didn’t ask questions (which they probably should have, because this image in particular is really obviously AI generated)

they should all probably update their contracts to ensure artwork is 100% done by a human with big penalties for infringement though - they just haven’t caught up because it’s a relatively new problem

[-] ekZepp@lemmy.world 40 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

This just show how ready and willing are many companies to replace human creativity with cheap AI. If anyone really thought that this wasn't the direction they were pointing to, he was just deluding himself. New creativity tools "my ass".

[-] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 10 months ago

You're jumping to conclusions. The image was a mislabeled stock image they bought. This is just a case of poor quality control.

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Wow. Such a blatantly AI generated image as well. The nerve.

Maybe the go-to way of avoiding this would be for companies to actually divulge who the artist is; credit them!

Edit: Feels like "count the AI giveaways on this image" could become a good drinking game.

  • Bizarre teeth arrangement
  • Some teeth are gum coloured
  • There are spontaneous toes in arbitrary places
  • The spine tuft migrates to the shoulder
  • There's some odd scaly and hairy shrimp-looking appendage next to the dragon
    • Suppose it's the tail, but it's not attached
    • Tail tuft is a different colour from the rest of the fur
  • Random third horn sprouting from the back of the neck
[-] pragmakist@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago

You know, that's a good idea anyway.

I wonder though what that would mean for the copyright?

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Right? There's so much talk about paying artists in exposure but how often do artists actually get exposed?

Don't think copyright should be an issue. We know for example that the soundtrack to the Disney film Encanto was composed by Lin Manuel Miranda, but Walt Disney still owns the copyright. Same could go for the rest of the entire film, they do give credits to people who contributed but Disney still owns the copyright.

Having a signature somewhere on an advert shouldn't be a big deal.

[-] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

how'd you miss the tail? i don't think it's attached...

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

You mean the hairy shrimp? I didn't.

[-] underwire212@lemm.ee 16 points 10 months ago

We’re soooooorry rubs nipples

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 12 points 10 months ago

Easier to ask for forgiveness than beg for permission...

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Several days later, and after this article was published, the company issued a contrite statement saying that the images in question had been purchased from a third-party vendor and had evaded being flagged by the online AI detection tools it used for vetting.

Despite this, the company shared a new marketing campaign for its Magic: The Gathering card game on January 4th that was quickly scrutinized for containing strangely deformed elements commonly associated with AI-generated imagery.

The company initially denied AI was involved, insisting that the image was made by a human artist, only to back down three days later and acknowledge that it did in fact contain AI-generated components.

AI detectors are notoriously unreliable and regularly flag false positives, and other methods like the Content Credentials metadata backed by Adobe can only provide information for images created using specific software or platforms.

Some creative professionals argue these are simply tools that artists can benefit from, but others believe any generative AI features are exploitive because they’re often trained on masses of content collected without creators’ knowledge or consent.

Wacom and WotC eventually provided similar responses to their respective situations: that the offending images had come from a third-party vendor, that the companies were unaware that AI had been used to make them, and that they promised to do better in the future.


The original article contains 1,181 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] variants@possumpat.io 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm surprised Wacom hasn't added ai to their tablet software like that google drawing program that guessed what you were trying to draw long ago and would make it for you

https://blog.google/technology/ai/fast-drawing-everyone/

this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
191 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

59648 readers
1464 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS