How To Handle, Or Should I Even Bother?

What are the formal "rules" for your art group?
What are the accepted conventions?

Sorry , need to rush, will add more later.

It depends on the situation.

Right now i'm messing with AI - i'm calling it digital art, calling it AI messed me up on one site. If they are arguing with you, then point out how you know it is. But this is the same problem as i'm a painter, but its clearly a photo with a filter over it. In general i'm just ignoring it now. I know one person that clearly is doing AI, but calls it a painting, where he suddenly got good over night. But I recognize the lora he's using. I just have to roll my eyes and move on.


----Mike Savad

Do they just say “painting”, or say a medium like oil or watercolor? Asking what medium it is might be a question, if you were to ask.

Maybe some just don’t get the distinction or problem so much in a description and just put “painting?” It shouldn’t be misleading.

Asking might make them think, or nudge their thinking, or realize. Maybe.

But then saying it’s an oil painting or such when it’s not..

Cynthia,

I agree with your assessment of AI. The copyright office has been clear on that. It is not just someone's opinion.

The heart of it, what is the site's policy on AI?

Medium for writing and others elsewhere are putting AI in other categories or not allowing it.

There is a growing backlash to AI. Oddly there is a growing acceptance of AI. It is not just one or the other.

The backlash is not just stuck in the mud. The acceptance is lukewarm. There are also incredible pieces of AI art.

If the terms of the site allow you then you are in the right to say what you think on the topic. If not well we here really do not get a say on this.

There is a commercial problem with AI becoming present. It is early going and there are other factors but some clients are now avoiding AI image dumping. That might be cheap talk but site-to-site results with those who ban or restrict to category AI images have different sales results. Again that can not be proven by me and could be balderdash. Or could be balderdash next year. Things change. It is a revenue risk. I think that has been clear for now.

There is a growing redesign of our function and health as human beings with a limit on tech. That could be a fad but people want limits in their lives on how much technology. It is not just AI. It is all the options we have that can not be used but come our way for us to endlessly refuse. Refusing tech is a muscle most of us keep building and possibly for the better these days.

The reason it is not a fad people are looking out over the years to how much work is involved in accepting every technology they get offered. It is not just one phone call looking for messages. It is years of work.

Well the rules say "no AI" and that you should post process pics and descriptions if you want comments or critique. There have been discussions of AI there so the members know well what it is.

This person has said "painting" and also "digital painting" on their posts.

These days on any serious art site you have to have process pics or you'll get accused of claiming AI images as your own. I'm a member of a few illustration groups and professional digital painting groups and they're all very hard line about it and call it out all the time.

But not this particular group. It's mostly 40+ painters (oil and acrylic, a few digital) and I think they either don't know it's ai because they think everyone will follow the rules, or they know something I don't about this person and they're letting it slide.

I have learned the hard way to be polite. Sometimes it is not being rude and people quietly think I am glad she said something not me. Or he. etc......another it feels like it is never-ending.

Just me....really just me....the worst experience I totally avoided early on in 2014 was joining linkedin art groups. I thought who the H are the critics? Why would they have the nerve to speak? I was totally new but would not bow to them. I was not going to parade for them to inspect. I do not paint at all but had another worth. Not a better worth another worth. For the critics in a group to get their noses up was not on. I thought over the emotions involved. The emotions were not healing for the critics either. Besides I would have torn them one so bad.

I guess you could ask them to explain their process and see what they say.

What I have found is, its really easy to gaslight yourself into thinking you did actually make it. Part of it is your words that made it. But part of you thinks you could be a painter.


----Mike Savad

Is there a possibility this person starts with an AI generated base image, then does further processing work with a digital image editing / painting program like Photoshop, Painter or Studio Artist to add digital paint effects? If so, perhaps that why they consider the final product more of a 'painting' produced by themselves rather than just a straight AI generated output?

If you are the Group Admin it is your group to do as you see fit. If the member doesn't abide by your rules than simply delete the member.
If it's not your group and you only participate then just leave it alone and move onto something more constructive. It really isn't worth the self-inflicted heartache.

JMHO!

Dave, that's how I feel.

What if this person has limited physical ability or an illness, and this is how they create and connect? I have a hard time not seeing a lie as just a lie and therefore wrong, but I feel strongly about being compassionate. It may be an intentional lie, but even if it is... wouldn't it ultimately sort of be it's own punishment?

Mike, the psychology is interesting!

Richard, Agree completely.

Philip, I know people that do that, but this is straight AI, maybe with a enlargement filter. If someone was going to overpaint they'd probably address the glaring AI quirks.

Philip without see any of the work it is possible. It sounds like a dog's dinner. LOL

Cynthia, I have no clue about the person. It might be good to go as in ignore the rules. So what?

We all ignore a rule here and there. That is a problem with a purity test. That is a problem with restricting AI as well.

It might be hurting some sales sites. Crazy stuff. None of it belongs to anyone to top it off.

Dave, never heard my portfolio described as a dogs dinner before, but I don't mind, as I like it :-)

LOL if dogs have money you have it made. LMAO

I would worry about the abstraction process. But I'd have to see it to believe it. Nothing surprises me mind you.

Cynthia, it is painful to see how suddenly some people who are bad painters, bad photographers etc all of a sudden use AI and let a machine produce lots of stuff for them, then claim they are the painter, photographer, artist or whoever and they take the lazy route and claim it for themselves
They never spent time or effort to get good at something
I would send a note to the admin of the group with maybe a few links to examples and ask: it seems to me that they use AI a lot, how come that is allowed?
Then the admin will have to look carefully and hopefully they give you a response
At least that way you don't confront the AI person and you might get a good reason or not from the admin why it is ok to have these AI images in a no AI group

Okay, since you asked. I don't see how an AI image can be called a painting if its creator didn't draw or paint a line of it.

Judy,

Philip brings up a new layer to the discussion by over painting the AI image. I might start to pull my hair out.

Nina,

Quite honestly I am seeing excellent photographers and painters using AI. People have limited ideas. That individual limit can be huge or small. AI is a huge boost for them to produce a lot of (new)stuff.

Hi Cynthia,
I think fighting this one is a frustrating and losing battle for many group administrators.

I send out reminders to my First Friday Gallery Group (FFGG) (of 950 plus members) from time to time that say:
-----------------
"ARTISTS:
Please post your best work - All mediums are accepted.
MUST BE 100% YOUR OWN WORK! No stock images

***Use of AI to enhance YOUR OWN Photo, Drawing, or Painting is acceptable

100% AI image created solely from text description entry is UNACCEPTABLE for this group"
------------------

When I first posted this restriction, I had a few artists leave the group. Some have remained, and clearly use AI to generate their images, which to my eye, tend to have an artificial look to them, and are easy to spot.
I allow the AI images in to the group, but will very rarely give the 100%AI images a feature.

***AI applied to an artists own photo, drawing, or painting has produced some exceptional results, and have earned a group feature.

At the end of the day they are all images, regardless of how they are produced.
I use the eye test for my group. For the features, I am curating work for the FFGG. Is it something I would find on display in a gallery or museum? Is it right for this group?
Is it worthy of a feature?

I feel that artists should honestly note how they have created their work.

Sometimes I miss giving an image a feature, so I set up a discussion thread in the FFGG to allow group members to post their image and describe what they like about it.

My advice is to do what you feel is right for your group.

Cheers.

: )

I think what's best for me is to tell my inflated sense of justice to calm down and just let people be what they are. I don't know enough in this case and I don't think it's appropriate to insert myself into group politics. If it picks up or happens more, I'll just leave the group and find another with better moderation.

But, I still think in general that if AI is part of your toolset you should say so. Especially for commercial work.

My opinion is that if AI was involved in the creation of the artwork , it cannot be called painting in classical sense. It is called Digital Art, and specific with AI. By appearance can be similar to a 'painting', but then it is 'digital painting' involving AI. And by all means for technical aspects the human cannot take the merits. You should not bother yourself what others think or praise..they all know what is the truth.

I hate to face this but it is next to impossible.

I have heard people recoil at checkout times in brick-and-mortar stores with new payment options, "do not want a chip in my head".

At once not literal and yet very literal. People are sick of it. It is not healthy to have all this tech. De facto most of it is rejected because there is so much of it.

Live and let live everyone picks there own tech. It is again in our faces.

True Dave. Some of what's possible with AI across all media is flat out terrifying. But that's another thread, and maybe for another forum! :-D

I still struggle with folks calling digital art "paintings" and now we have AI. I know I'm not in the mainstream of thought on this, but I believe a painting requires some paint to be applied and because digital art does not include the application of paint it should not be called a painting. To my thinking that is a deception. AI applied to the creation of art is a whole other thing and an even larger deception when someone lays claim to being the creator of art that has been created by a machine in minutes. It is an insult to those who have spent untold hours learning and perfecting their painting technique(s) and style.

Yep....I was not even going there. The chip in the head is not AI. I do not for the life of me know how AI is a threat.

It is like a new version of the Blob. Really?

Jim, A lot of people are circling back to you even if you never circled forward. LOL

" I am not saying there has been an overreaction to the copyrighted images being used for training. That is just wrong and will never be acceptable, IMHO."

thank you Floyd for mentioning that. I know that is not the topic here but it is good to remember where a lot of the AI gets all of the data it uses to generate images.

Miike, I do love your cake analogy! Seriously, that is precisely what it is like.

Not so seriously, even when I make a cake that way, it turns out like I put the box in the oven after pouring out the cake.

Most of my AI attempts taste like what a baked cake box would taste like.

To me, that is where the artistic talent comes in. You have to be able to look at the results and see if it is good or not. Then you have to have some creative talent to make it real work from an artistic point of view. I see a lot of AI that doesn't do that. I have created a lot of AI that doesn't do that.

It i like the photographer who looks through the lens and know what he is seeing is a good shot and the one that just clicks the shutter and hopes it is good.

Sometimes it is just in the knowing what is good art and what is not regardless of how it was created.

RE:... " what they believe is ai created"

To me, "believe" may be the crux of the matter

Roger may be very correct about the "believe" catalyst... With technology now exist were a digital image can actually be transferred into an oil painting or a watercolor or some other actual physical media, the lines really are blurred and it becomes even more difficult. I can honestly see businesses like fine art America actually being able to take a digital print and producing a real oil painting from it as a part of their selling product. It has a definite appeal for those that want a physical tangible work they can put their hands on and feel the ridges and layers of paint. This is of course a good way of using the technology that benefits everybody in the long run.

Sadly, with the convoluted bastardization of what AI is or even represents in the context of digital art created with a tablet, brush, mouse, light pin, or even touch screens, it all seems to be lost in the toxic rhetoric that is now floating around. Digital art is really a masterpiece in and of its own just as any other median. Looking at the game industry is a good example of just how complicated digital arts can be at a larger scale and how many hundreds of millions of dollars per year go into paying very skilled individuals to create that work.

All modern technology uses some level of AI as a part of the creation process. My tablet and paint programs for example have a setting for watercolor or oil where I can literally create an image where the background mechanics blend and diffuse everything around my strokes as if I was really using those particular kinds of medians. As evidenced in my own gallery, I can create very realistic work but nonetheless it is still digital and the some degree it is still AI-based. There is simply no way you're going to use any form of modern technology That doesn't have some level, even if it is statistical correlations, that are AI derivatives of some caliber.

For the perspective of my own work being completely digital based, AI is a part of the process because it is built into the tools. Even if it wasn't built into the tools, I don't know that it would matter given today's modern technology and how well it has been used for two decades within computerization without all of the toxic rhetoric that has been created over the last 3 years. In time all of this nonsense will simply fade and the uselessness of language will be removed from the tool itself. With my current tools, I can create very realistic images and have a couple within my own gallery that represent that possibility. I just prefer the style of brighter colors and more extremes within the color palettes, partially because of being half blind, but also simply because of wanting the more vibrant textures that I have grown accustomed to for working with computers over 43 years of my life as a programmer.

I can only envision the kind of situation that occurred when electric saws came out when people were so used to manual saws. The very root of what AI is really isn't that different. You can make the same analogies with a microwave versus a stove or many of the other modern devices that have become mainstream within our own society and lives. I am old enough to have lived through the computer revolution taking over businesses and spending countless years teaching people how to use computers just for basic office maintenance and management. Countless times, I sat with people who were absolutely terrified of the computer because they are conditioned to believe that it was going to take over the world and it was the devil itself. One particular one I remember, the student was so terrified of the machine it took me 8 hours just to get her to touch it with a completely unplugged and dismantled. I wish I could say this is an exaggeration, but it really isn't. I really don't see the AI revolution to be any different than any previous technological revolution that has ultimately had a long-term positive impact on our society.

Every tool has its good and it's bad every tool can be a blessing or a curse. The tool should not be blamed for a person's actions or choices. The person themselves should be held accountable for what they do and that seems to be in short supply in this day and age.

Abby's observation shows us the Buying Public Knows the Difference!

Thank you, Robert Darlin. Kudos, for your clarity, sharing/insights,offering hope. You are the exemplar of 'the Man for our Times', and good enough
to clarify all we (me) are facing, due to the furtherance of use of A.l. Artists HAVE to get real about the future and listen to you, Robert.
(My only personal quandry, is, that I can't bring myself to sign a work that is not all ! my work only, without A.l.)

"I for one have not seen all that many AI creations that are what I would call realism. Certainly not photo realism." [Floyd]

I had a look at the new uploads on another p.o.d. I'm on and page after page at least half of them were AI and a lot of them were not only photorealistic but also categorized as photography. (For media selection the site allows Photography / Painting / Digital Art / Illustration / Collage and does not stop you from selecting all of them if you choose to be deceptive.)

It's gonna be a while before we work out all this and even longer before law and court cases catch up. We will all be gone before the legalisms are worked out. One of those philosophical questions that needs to be answered first would be a definition of intelligence. I spent some years in the testing business and realized that intelligence, as a number like IQ, means that you can answer a bunch common knowledge questions on a test, in a short time. If you can answer more than I can, you are smarter than I am, but, nobody in the IQ measuring community has any idea how to measure creativity, which seems to be a combination of a bunch of abilities, combined with a willingness to go off the deep end.

Both here and in the "real world" art universe, it's not easy to characterize what will sell. I know lots of people who do "real" art, in the sense of objects that get posted in galleries. I started on this in part as a self defense against some of that elitism. I go to fairly frequent openings and see stuff that other people like, that would be in the back of the basement for me. By comparison, most of what I see on FAA is much more conventional, and most of it would NOT be stored in my shed. Is that better art? I don't know.

I appreciate that in both art and music, much of what happens is NOT predictable and does not conform to established "standards". That's a good thing. In the music world, I recall that The Rite of Spring was once thought to be horrifying....Rock and Roll was sinful and primitive and abstract jazz was obviously only intended for consumption by people who smoke the "stinking weed" that used to land you in jail, but that I can buy in my local pharmacy now if I'm 21.

Stuff changes, thankfully.

Viva,

With respect, any image you put up on this site or any other site for that matter has already gone through some level of AI processing. Whether it is red-eye correction, color normalization, or even just a digital camera that took the picture to begin with. Even if you are using a 1950s camera with no computerization or electronic flash, the very act of scanning your photograph now involves some layer of AI.

In our modern and digital world, there is nothing in the computerization of our world that doesn't or hasn't been touched by AI or a derivative in some way. It has been that way for a long time. ChatGPT only brought that to the forefront, but it wasn't the inventor of the process, It wasn't even the herald of the process to be quite honest.

In the end of though, most consumers buy into an illusion of what is real and not real to begin with just in the very basis of their own daily lives through whatever is saturated to the various propagandized media services driven by commercialism and marketism, for better or worse. I don't believe that gives computerization a free rein though, as there still needs to be accountability and responsibility for the usage of the tool.

Robert,

RE: ... "people who were absolutely terrified of the computer because they are conditioned to believe that it was going to take over the world and it was the devil itself."


Well, I'm absolutely terrified of the smart phone, because I may be conditioned to believe that it has taken over most everyone in the world and it is the devil itself.

Robert Darin,
I think you are painting AI with too broad of a brush. There is a huge difference between computer input/output and what Artificial Intelligence purports to be and do. I create traditional work and scan it myself on a manual setting, then I tweak it myself in an older version of Light Room. There is no AI involved in what I do. I don't know what the sites do with my art once it's uploaded, but I can assure you that I do not use AI in my process. That is not to say that I would be averse to using AI based tools in photo editing and such. My main gripe with AI is in how the various generators are 'trained.' I do think it is disingenuous to claim to have done a work by hand in any media, including digital, if you only used text prompts to achieve the results.

Robert, thank you. I bow to your 'modern' concepts, and still will not willingly sign work I didn't create, and in 'creation' obviously I mean, without modern
arttifical intelligence. The camera, the crayons,etc, lol, are 'standard' in the Art world, not as 'prompts' but as tools, used with my own hands, mind.;...and
the A.l 'tool' ?, carry on without me..........it interferes with my hand/work, mental health, self-respect.

Now, AI is a controversial tool that requires knowledge and finesse to use. That's not the discussion here. The discussion is; in a group of artists where most everyone lists their medium when they share work I think if a person uses AI they should say so. This person says "paintings" "my painting", etc. There's never any process pictures and they produce detailed images at a pace that would be impossible with more traditional media.

Cynthia, with all this talk going on, and a lot of people going on other extraneous tangents, did you decide what you want/should do yet?

Ditto Abbie!

Wait Abbie! :-D I have one more thing to share that's not to my main point but to the broader discussion. Saw someone said this and sums up my feelings on the topic pretty well. But my main question was answered, so thanks to all who weighed in.

Rose, I'm going to let it slide. It's like an itchy tag at my shirt collar, but it's only going to happen more and more so I might as well get used to it. If it was my group, I'd enforce the rules.

______________________

This was a response by Ethan Mollick to a thread demonstrating and discussing that Google is now returning AI images when searched for people or places.


"Seriously, don't trust anything you see online anymore. Faking stuff is trivial. There may be ways to tell now, but those ways will disappear. There are no watermarks, and watermarks can be defeated easily.

The corpus of human knowledge from mid-2023 on will have to be treated fundamentally differently than prior to 2023. A huge amount of what you learned or think you know about how to evaluate images or text is no longer valid. Not an exaggeration. We are at the KT Boundary for information. Archivists should lock down the pre-2023 information world. What comes after is going to be… different.

Doing sentiment analysis on a large corpus like Reddit or Twitter to track social or political changes? Your data is forever corrupted

Assessing documents for a lawsuit assuming a human wrote them in some way? No longer true.

This genie is not going back in the bottle."

Thanks for that quote Cynthia, I agree with him.

I think of Pandora's box, too late to shut the lid now...

Great post Cynthia!

"Seriously, don't trust anything you see online anymore."

I came to that conclusion several years back, way before AI was a hot topic of discussion.

"This genie is not going back in the bottle."

Nope, that is why I am trying to learn to live with it, use it, and compete with it as the need arises.

To lump any and all algorithms into "AI" and conflating it with generative AI at the least is over rationalization and the worst fallacious.

The output of generative AI has be deemed not copyrightable therefore public domain. Claiming attribution to said product by a person is claiming attribution to work declare not copyrightable.

This reason IMHO is the reason why so many artists are put off by people claiming generative AI art as their own.

False attribution along with false medium implication is intentional deception.

If a contest, group or image thread administrator requires no generative AI and correct medium declaration then that is what is expected.

MM Anderson,

With respect, the brush I used to paint the topic is the one that I spent 20 years of my professional career doing in writing programs that are now considered artificially intelligent. When I first started writing these programs, they were properly labeled knowledge bases. The truth behind all of what has gone on just within the last year really has taken root at least 15 years ago.

People are up in arms about having their information used to train AI, but in reality Facebook, Twitter, and all the myriad of social networking platforms have been used for at least the last 15 years to train the software, all public data that people gave away for free. All of the images you posted on your public timelines, everything your family would post, everything your friends are post, all of it has been used to train the modern-day knowledge basis or what we now like to call AI. The technical term is an LLM or a language learning model.

The technology that is now being heralded as new and shiny is 30 years old. It takes a computer hundreds of thousands of samples to be able to recognize a shape, even something as simple as looking at a number on a piece of paper can require 100,000 samples of one single number. The technology has had 15 years at least to get where it is at and to be able to understand what a cat, dog, or even a tree would look like. The truth is though, more often than not it doesn't do all that well and still has major issues even after the hundreds of thousands of samples it has been given through public information.

Through truth is that this conversation should have happened at least 20 years ago when the very first premises of using public information to train computer learning models began and it didn't because in all reality the scientific community knew exactly what would happen, exactly what is happening today with the technology. But today, there is technically nothing you can do about it because it is already been done and any information put out publicly has already been used. As far as being offended or upset that public information was used in a way that you might not have abided by, the court systems have already ruled If you put it out there in the public it is just that, public and you have no legal right of deciding how that information gets used.

The legal discourses of this particular issue go way back far beyond just that of training AI models but with personal timelines and various social media posts. Any public information can be used for anything with absolutely no legal protections. That is not conjecture, but that is absolute law that has gone through multiple cases. The gravity and a difficulty of how AI generated work or AI derivative work should be cataloged is even more difficult when you look at "work for hire" situations.

The brands trademarks and logos that flood of the world right now are pretty much dominated by work for hire and yet the companies can say they made those brands because they paid somebody to do it for them. In the same kind of context, I can go to a painter or an artist and describe to him a scene I want and then pay him a certain amount of money to produce a work that I can then legally say I made.

The only difference here between me paying an artist or a painter and me using an AI of any kind is one is a machine and the other is a human. Outside that, strictly legally speaking It is still classified as "work for hire." The legalities of this are far-reaching and the implications equally as disturbing. Legally speaking, The work for hire paradigm has been established for a hundred years with multiple legal cases supporting it. Whether or not technology changes, doesn't change the current legal structure, or at least not that quickly. As has been mentioned earlier, complete generative AI work is not copyrightable. That does not hold true though for somebody that might use multiple layers of AI in the editing process or even start out with partial and then use editing techniques. More gray areas to be very honest that unfortunately are only going to get grayer and more blurrier the more technology continues to develop.

For the record, I am not advocating that anybody accept AI generated work or AI edited work or AI manipulated work. I am simply providing knowledge on the basis of what I spent my professional career doing and the various laws and regulations I had to follow in the practice of that career. Even though I actually spent the time building the systems and know how they work from inside out, to this day I still hate computers on a damn telephone and nothing irks me more than having to to talk to a damn machine that has no comprehension that I want to talk to a human being to fix some screw up in my bill...

Cynthia, your concerns are relevant regarding the times we live in.

Imagine what would happen if this forum was taken over by individuals who generate their contribution using Chat GPT and they did not disclose this fact. How genuine would this overall discourse be?

Methinks this is a real possiblity.

Your idea of scrutinizing everything that has appeared after a certain date is an excellent idea!

People are driven to do what they do; motivated by benevolent, malevolent or benign excuses. General AI not Generative AI very well may be our judges on how humans utilize AI and to what ends.

Generative AI is already producing legalese better than many lawyers. If that's the case, what's to stop this technology being used to justify the use of Generative AI at any level and at any capacity?

With all this said, it is within the realm of possiblity that individuals can go to any art online art forum, generate all the artwork uploaded to their profile with generative AI, every description of said artwork generated with Chat GPT, and participate in the community using Chat GPT to generate dialogue to defend and justify its usage in any capacity.

" Claiming attribution to said product by a person is claiming attribution to work declared not copyrightable."
"False attribution along with false medium implication is intentional deception"

I am not sure I fully understand what you are saying here but if the suggestion is that because it can not be copyrighted therefore you cannot claim attribution, I do not agree.

Someone made it happen. Someone called up the program. Someone typed the words into the computer. An image popped onto the screen. It was "created in the same way people create a disturbance or mess when they track mud into a room. Neither the disturbance nor the mddy mess can be copyrighted but the dang sure can be attributed to the person that created them.

Not everything attributed to someone is necessarily copyrightable.

It has been made clear by law that AI is not copyrightable but it certainly can be attributed and the artist that created it, and they did create it.

Go back and look at the monkey selfie. The courts said the monkey can not claim the copyright but they never tried to say he didn't create the photograph.

Sorry to have missed the conversation. So this afternoon I visited a gallery and pitched a show. I received agreement for a solo exhibit starting late January. Some of the work I brought is on my page. I proceeded to celebrate with a couple friends at a local public house.

While I was gone, did anything get solved?

I am reading Hamilton the biography was used in the musical. Those guys used Non-de plumes as opposed to their real names. All of them were the greatest men who lived or the biggest liar you ever saw depending on which biography you read.

The point is we all get a lot of opinions. Some will like and others won't. AI is just more stuff.

The nature of a good open society. Art is debate. Just don't waste time with the is this art question.

Thanks, Cynthia, I was wondering if you made up your mind as to what to do/not do because this thread seems to have taken on a life of it's own and I wasn't sure if you wanted to thus close it. Your call, obviously. Glad you came to a conclusion you can live with.

"A recent study by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) estimated that around 62% of all information on the internet is unreliable." [August 10, 2023] (https://www.businessdit.com/fake-news-statistics/). With a fast-growing use of AI (like or more powerful than ChatGPT), that percentage will grow, probably to 80% or more.

AI will not go back into the box - not on the Internet or art. Complaints would not help. We have to adjust.

As for owners of FAA groups - you are the bosses. YOU decide whether to allow or not to allow AI images to be in your group or not. You just need to be clear in your rules and state that you will not accept any images YOU THINK may be created with the use of AI. It does not matter if the image was actually using AI or not. Only your opinion and decision matter.

Floyd. Yuri and All

RE:...." LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT. (TO ADJUST) "


I've butted heads all my life.




At 88 I'm not going to stop now