Good to know that you didn't read any of what I wrote, except possibly the very first sentence.

Keep a up the good work, champ!

It has been confirmed by the artist that it's indeed AI-generated. Just check the blue post.

Thanks so much for posting here and letting us know to the extent you're allowed, what's what! Your work is appreciated at this end, at least. If GOG is going to use AI, I'd prefer it to be a tool in your (and your team's) hands instead of producing garbage. I love what AI is capable of and hate how it is generally used.

I second what this man said!

One of the only rational people ITT. This is like the 3rd or 4th cycle that this is happening, as you showed in your post. Everytime this happens, you get bombarded with the same types of arguments (appealing to emotion - artists are literally going to starve!!; fabricating scenarios where all art just ceases to exist etc.), but every new cycle, the arguments used get tailored to the current social and technological conditions to maximize effectiveness.

The artist Henrietta Clopath wrote the following in a 1901 released issue of the illustrated magazine "Brush and Pencil" that captures the essence of the anti-photography views held at that time:
The fear has sometimes been expressed that photography would in time entirely supersede the art of painting. Some people seem to think that when the process of taking photographs in colors has been perfected and made common enough, the painter will have nothing more to do.
Wait a second... I think I've heard this before...

Also lol at this quote.
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my *imaginary artist that lost a nonexistent commission of a small banner on GOG*. Prepare to die.

You should read complete article, not just quote out of context.

"The fear has sometimes been expressed that photography would
in time entirely supersede the art of painting. Some people seem to
think that when the process of taking photographs in colors has been
perfected and made common enough, the painter will have nothing
more to do. We need not fear anything of the kind. Perfection in
photography may rid us in time of all the poor work done in color.
The work of the artist, however, in which is seen his own individuality,
his own perception of the beautiful, his own creation in fact, can no
more perish than the soul which inspired it."

That is exactly the point, though! While some people were loudly panicking about photography being the death of art, reasonable voices, such as the one in the quote, were telling them to calm down and that the artists arent going anywhere.

Yes, that is one of the points of the article, I am just saying that with quote taken by anamasikkerim she was portrayed as some silly, panic mongering artist.

As for "AI versus Art" debate - it is in many ways different from previous technological advancements because we are not talking only about new tool, but at the moment I am not in the mood for nuanced discussions.

The quote has enough context to bring my point across, provided you understand my point, which you obviously didn't based on your second post.
Did you read anything that I wrote? I said the artist captures the essence of the anti-photography views held at that time, not that this artist was part of the anti-photography movement or necessarily held these opinions. I really don't understand how anything I wrote could be interpreted as "Henrietta Clopath is a silly, panic mongering artist". You should read the post you're responding to first, not create a strawman that entirely misrepresents my point.

It was because of what you wrote under the (uncomplete) quote:
"Wait a second... I think I've heard this before...
Also lol at this quote."

If I misunderstood your point, I apologize.

With that I meant that the arguments of the anti-photography crowd that Henrietta Clopath described sound very similar to the arguments that the anti-AI crowd makes today.
This was the quote in question: And here I thought GOG was worth giving a second chance after the recent change of owners.
I just found the idea of leaving the whole platform behind, just because someone on the GOG team decided to use AI for a miniscule banner, a tiny bit overdramatic.

Anyway, thanks for completing the quote because I wholeheartedly agree with her sentiment.

Socrates warned that writing would destroy memory. Calculators were gonna make us unable to think mathematically. Google search was making us stupid.

None of those inventions uses copyrighted works to generate output. If they were licensing the training data, no one would be complaining. I would still think that the banner on the front page looks like tacky crap, though.

So your problem is not with AI then. It's with taking other peoples stuff without permission. I also think that's a serious issue. Stealing is bad regardless of whether it's done by a human or by a tool that a human is using.

That said ...

If I hear you tell a story, then write it down (hello, Socrates) and publish it, is it stealing?
If I hire an artist to draw my portrait in another artist's style, is that stealing?

Could be stealing, I suppose. Or maybe not. I'm actually uncertain.

In any event, yes, AI training data should be obtained legally, not stolen. That's a realistic problem to solve.

If you pay for cooking classes, and then pass on what you've learned to your partner, is that stealing?

In some ways, I am very glad to see AI companies pirate content left and right. The whole copyright system needs to be updated for the 21st century. And only mega corps can fight other mega corps.

I'd especially like to see "Ownership of a copy / software client" and "ownership of an IP / distribution rights" split apart, because mega corps and their lawyers have conveniently merged them together, to try and excuse taking rights from the consumer in the digital era, by gaslighting us into believing that we never owned anything, not even our damn paper books.