• Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If it’s any consolation, we are nearing the point where it’s legit impossible to tell and people will slowly go back to caring about the content instead.

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It means that once the comic output from AI is indistinguishable from the output of an artist, then people will stop concentrating on the tools used and go back to judging a comic on if it was funny or entertaining.

        This guy draws really well but none of his comics are good. It’s all trite boring pandering.

        To be clear, I’m not saying hand made art has no value, just that a shit joke isn’t somehow better than a good one just because of the tools used.

        Good content + real art > Good content + AI > boring content + real art

        • Iconoclast@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Agreed. That’s why I keep referencing the toupee fallacy: it’s easy to detect AI slop because it’s slop but anything well-made flies under the radar. This leads many people to assume that everything made using AI is by default not good and conversely when something is good they falsely assume a human made it. I’d argue that virtually every devout AI hater has at some point enjoyed AI content because they failed to detect it as such.

          So no, not all toupees look bad - you only notice the bad ones.