[cbarrick]

It is genuine human artwork, designed to look like generative AI. The retweet by the Apple TV account clearly ties the artwork to the show Pluribus, whose themes are relevant to the current societal discussions around gen AI.

All of this has clearly gone over Gruber's head.

It is quite funny that Gruber has enough of an opinion about this artwork to make a blog post about it, while at the same time completely missing the point.

[latexr]

> It is genuine human artwork, designed to look like generative AI.

That would be stupid and disrespectful. Stupid because no one is asking for real art to have subtle mistakes to look like AI, that’s a market segment which does not exist. Disrespectful because Vince Gilligan (creator of Pluribus) is outspoken on his disdain for the current crop of AI, and each episode of the show ends with “this show was made by humans”.

[cbarrick]

It's funny hearing someone talk about "market segment" in art.

Blurring the line between gen AI and human painting definitely seems in line with the show. Especially since only a human can actually produce art with intent.

It doesn't look like AI because the artist wants to promote gen AI. It looks like gen AI because that's a way for the artist to comment on these issues. Being explicitly made by a human is an important part of that.

I don't see how that's at odds with Gilligan's disdain for gen AI. If anything, I see the piece as being well aligned with that.

[suspended_state]

It's difficult to really know what was the intent without seeing the actual prompt of the painter.

Comment [intentionally] designed to look like generative AI.