What email?
Just joking about the shirt image in the OP.
I already answered that question. Even before you asked it.
Otherwise, you should seriously consider editing the topic or the original post, because otherwise your message will sink faster than the Titanic.
I’m asking for opinions, because part of the problem with AI art is that it can be hard to prove it’s AI. I don’t count non generative digital tools in my question. If you mean generative AI photoshop plugins then that’s just another form of generative AI. Do you think that’s how they made it?
I was referring to the email that I got yesterday. Not sure if the same email went to everyone on the same day.
I mean plugins that can cartoonify any image have existed for at least 20 years. Because I used them in high school to troll a friend of mine more than once.
Ok then I simply don’t agree, but I have no proof so not worth discussing further.
Oh the AI-generated marketing email slop? 
(j/k… sorta!)
Yea I don’t get/read those… but I may have noticed the whole watch thing anyway… just joking how the shirt graphic leaves that bit out (need a frame in there with a cart checkout page…). 
-M
… You don’t agree that there are plugins which can make an image look like a cartoon without AI?
You can disagree with a fact all you want.
I don’t agree that’s all they used.
This actually looks OK to me.
Maybe it was drawn, maybe it was AI, but it’s actually good quality with reasonably correct details.
Even if it is AI generated, it’s not slop.
The above is not how things are done. The one who is making an accusation has the burden of proof, in this case, to prove that it is AI generated. Not the other way around.
Looks like all you have is an opinion, which is not proof.
Based on the tried and true method of “my preconceived notions suggest such”.
Doesn’t that actually point to the fact that the watch (the physical item) was AI generated?
I’m not suing them, just stating my opinion, so where’s the need for a burden of proof? And with the rampant use of AI on their websites, would you really be surprised?
Edit: their use of AI specifically, not just users
This thread wins the MakerWorld Unintentional Error Prize for this week. All relevant contestants will be notified via emails on file in order to claim their prizes. Don’t forget to enter for next weeks’ competition - MakerWorld Reasons The H3C Won’t Work. Enter early and often.
My friend, I think what we are all saying is that you are burning up entirely too much energy worrying about this.
Same thing the analog purists did when photoshop was first created. Precisely the same argument that it’s cheapening and undermining the value of the human component. 35 years ago people said photoshop would destroy the art industry and it did not do so then. In fact, millions of people have careers using it while those who refused to adopt it fell behind because they couldn’t create consumable marketing slop fast enough.
Likewise 35 years from now people who learned to leverage AI will end up vastly more productive at putting out consumable marketing slop.
If your issue is against low quality floods by AI, I am with you.
If your issue is against the use of AI to assist a human, that fight is already lost. It’s out there, it won’t go away, and it’s hard to even tell if it was used or not.
This topic is painful to read.
I see little to no reason to think the images used are AI generated. Even if they are, I dont care because we can see the result turn out well.
But darn, those designs are tacky.
Yeah. Intern results lolol
