I think there needs to be proof given when you accuse people of ai slop, this is not to say it’s not a slop mime of course it is: it’s I think people tend to forget why AI slop is not so great: the average person it trained on is not that great.
Now sure if you find a Loading artist with the frames the same we know what it was lifted from vs it just being a mimic of style, sure AI or not we could say it’s a bit too close in style to be a independent derivative.
But let’s be real you were not going to ever be paid for some off the top random meme the question is should op have bothered posting… Honestly likely not.
Maybe your intention with this comment was more noble, but it’s full of typos/autocorrect and odd tense (I wasnt going to be paid?) that make it very difficult to follow?
But from what I can read, your position is that the burden of proof for fraud is on the audience and not the person creating the deceptive work? I don’t agree. And if I start a business, I need to hold trademark for my logo and patents for my novel designs and utilities - SO THAT I DEFEND MYSELF WHEN CHALLENGED.
Why isn’t your assertion that OP should need to provide proof that their work is original OR openly label it as AI (theft). Again, in this case OP is working to pass this off as original work (as you can see by them literally taking extra time to watermark their counterfeit work).
I think there needs to be proof given when you accuse people of ai slop, this is not to say it’s not a slop mime of course it is: it’s I think people tend to forget why AI slop is not so great: the average person it trained on is not that great.
Now sure if you find a Loading artist with the frames the same we know what it was lifted from vs it just being a mimic of style, sure AI or not we could say it’s a bit too close in style to be a independent derivative.
But let’s be real you were not going to ever be paid for some off the top random meme the question is should op have bothered posting… Honestly likely not.
Their profile banner has LLM and a heart spray painted on a wall. Its ai slop
Maybe your intention with this comment was more noble, but it’s full of typos/autocorrect and odd tense (I wasnt going to be paid?) that make it very difficult to follow?
But from what I can read, your position is that the burden of proof for fraud is on the audience and not the person creating the deceptive work? I don’t agree. And if I start a business, I need to hold trademark for my logo and patents for my novel designs and utilities - SO THAT I DEFEND MYSELF WHEN CHALLENGED.
Why isn’t your assertion that OP should need to provide proof that their work is original OR openly label it as AI (theft). Again, in this case OP is working to pass this off as original work (as you can see by them literally taking extra time to watermark their counterfeit work).