Tomorrow comes tomorrow

Because the surest way to avoid platforming, reblogging, or encouraging AI art posting is to know where every image you share originated and that's 1) boring, tedious research and 2) extremely limiting in what you feel you can reblog. But if unattributed images never gets traction, people will start attributing their images.

I've been guilty of this in the past, but for a while now it's been my policy that if I can't verify the origin, I don't share the image. That goes for stuff like screen grabs of headlines too -- more than once I've avoided spreading misinformation by saving a post to research before I reblog, then seeing the post refuted before I've been able to verify it.

And I usually try to attribute photos I take -- case in point, the "woman with shrimp" post gets a lot of attention but not one comment about it being AI, despite it being pretty similar to something you'd get from an AI. That's because I clearly state it's in a museum and link to its catalogue page.

Being able to identify AI purely by sight -- "count the fingers, look at shadows, find irregularity in patterns" -- is only going to get more difficult. Currently, just "seeing" that something is AI sometimes results in artists being harassed when they post work which is mistaken for AI-generated.

So the idea is that if you want to avoid platforming AI imagery, don't look for uncredited AI; look for a source and if you don't see one, try and find one. If you can't find a source, simply consider not reblogging it. That both encourages people to source their posts and reduces the likelihood of spreading AI generated content.

For example, this image crossed my dash the other day. I can't find a source for it -- reverse image search just turns up Pinterest and other uncredited posts on other social media. No "this is my kitchen", no "this is a floor I installed."

It looks pretty realistic, but look at the asymmetric star shapes and the occasional non-square black stone on the sides. The lines on the smaller bat's wings are weird and so are some of the cabinet handles. The smaller bat is slightly asymmetrical, which could just be the installation; the weird arrow shape below the smaller bat is also asymmetrical. It's ambiguous -- but if it IS real and I can't link to the person who did the tilework or at least owns the home, I really shouldn't share it regardless. Which means I don't have to know if it's AI because either way I'm not reblogging it.

One of the biggest issues with generative ai is that it uses artists’ work without their permission.

So even if you see SOURCED artwork, even if the person CLAIMS they have the artist’s permissions (which, someone could easily just say that) you should still consider not reblogging it. This is VERY common in the animation, illustration, and game communities. There are tons of accounts dedicated to reposting art from popular industry instagram/twitter/bluesky artists, and they ARE often attributed…. but are you certain the artist consented to having their art shared on another platform?

Personally, I don’t want my art shared on accounts I don’t own and manage myself, ESPECIALLY in this era where art can get scraped at any moment. I can’t speak for other artists, but it’s always better to play it safe.

Some artists may have conditions (like requiring a link to their shop) that aren’t getting met by reposters. For example, artists that are unemployed bc of the recession could genuinely lose out on sales they needed to make rent because someone’s repost got more shares than the one that linked to their etsy store or patreon.

Dear, sweet, Littlefoot, do you remember the way to the Great Valley?  I guess so. But why do I have to know if you’re going to be with me? I’ll be with you. Even if you can’t see me. What do you mean I can’t see you? I can always see you.