zlacker

> How do you know it's a person on the other end? Would you even see a difference if you had a computer generate that art?

Unless AI companies already developed and launched plugins/extensions for people to do something that looks like hand drawn sketches inside of Clip Studio, and suddenly got a lot better at understanding prompts (including having inspiration of their own), then I'm pretty sure it's a human.

I don't think I'd get to see in-progress sketches and it wouldn't be as good at understanding what I wanted to have had changes then. I've used various generative AI image generators (latest one Qwen Image 2511 and a whole bunch of others) and none of them, including with "prompt enhancements" can take very vague descriptions of "I want it to feel like X" or "I'm not sure about Y but something like Z" and turn it into something that looks acceptable. At least not yet.

And because I've spent a lot of time with various generative image making processes and models, I'm fairly confident I'd recognize if that was what was happening.

>>embedd+(OP)
Sure, it's true today. Entertain the hypothetical though because this is what the trillion dollar rush is aspiring to do in the near future. We should be thinking about our answers now.

>>willis+Ng
Answers to what? Do I care what tools the artist use as long I get the results I want? I don't understand what you see as the issue, that I somehow think I'd be working with a human but it was a machine?

>>embedd+Ch
A deceit isn't the issue. The issue is that person you're paying is going to be undercut this year by machines, along with probably 100M other people selling their labor.