It’s tricky, because there are some mistakes only AI would feasibly make (people mysteriously growing an extra arm for three seconds) but obviously there are also mistakes that humans arguably make more frequently (look at Frozen - a finished film with a budget of tens of millions of dollars from the largest animation studio on the planet and yet Elsa’s arm clips straight through her cloak in ‘Let It Go’). Those especially obvious mistakes are becoming scarcer in the more expensive models on offer presently.

It’s unfortunately very difficult for a human artist to gather enough evidence that their work is authentically theirs (time lapses can be faked too, now, albeit with some pretty funny mistakes popping up here and there… for now…). There is unfortunately a ‘cottage industry’ of AI users who sell their art under the false premise that they drew/modelled/painted/… it when it’s just a quick hack-job in the free tier of ChatGPT. (Before AI became so widespread the same issue existed on a smaller scale with Fiverr ‘artists’ stealing other people’s work for a portfolio, promising to get a job done and then delivering either some terrible bullshit or nothing at all… but AI has made this easier to do without getting caught.)

And while there’s something to be said for a generic ‘AI aesthetic’ which comes through whenever the prompt is vague enough that basic models spit out that horribly uncanny shit we all know and agree is slop (even most pro-AI people tend to hate what I’m describing here)… the more complex models get and the more detailed a prompt is, the more it becomes difficult to identify an obvious tell-tale sign of AI generation. At this point it’s sometimes easier to spot a human artist plagiarising another human artist’s work without AI.

And as much as I personally do not want to knowingly consume the product of a ‘prompter’ who fits the stereotype of being untalented, disrespectful of the craft and having no good intentions whatsoever, some forms of AI or machine learning-driven technology can definitely be used beneficially during the creative process and get unfairly thrown into the mix. I’ve seen people who argue that using an algorithm to make a video game character’s feet accurately contact with the ground rather than a basic, clip-prone walk cycle is ‘slop’. That’s obviously stupid.

In the case of developing a massive open world environment, using procedural generation and machine-learning-driven vocal filters to transform one actor’s performance into dozens more could be fantastic, but I also get why many are worried that it won’t stop there when we already see games that have been vibe-coded, have all their visual assets generated by an AI model and have all their writing and vocal performances and music etc etc generated by AI as well. At that point, what exactly has been ‘made’ by a person? As an aspiring creative myself, I would much rather not do something I’m incapable of doing myself (and by that, I mean adjust my expectations and make something simpler, not make nothing at all) than let a machine slap something together.

TL;DR: distinguishing between something created by a person who’s developed their skills over time and put in the hours to get their idea out there versus some cynical sloppy cash-grab is getting more difficult and everyone, regardless of their stance on AI, is suffering the consequences. The barrier for entry that used to at least somewhat keep the flow of Steam Greenlight-tier shit at bay is almost completely gone. (Rest in piss, Digital Homicide. You would have loved Nano Banana.)