Disney’s Loki faces backlash over reported use of generative AI
www.theverge.com
A human designer isn’t likely to have made these mistakes.

Disney’s Loki faces backlash over reported use of generative AI / A Loki season 2 poster has been linked to a stock image on Shutterstock that seemingly breaks the platform’s licensing rules regard…::A promotional poster for the second season of Loki on Disney Plus has sparked controversy amongst professional designers following claims that it was created using generative AI.

  • cereal_killer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    184·
    1 year ago

    This article is so dumb that their entire basis for the artwork to be an AI artwork rests on the fact that there are squiggly lines. Like humans have never edited any photo with squiggly lines.

    According to @thepokeflutist who purchased the stock image, it was published to Shutterstock this year — ruling out the possibility of it being too old to be AI-generated — and contains no embedded metadata to confirm how the image was created.

    The image uploaded to Shutterstock was 2500 x 2500. Does any AI image generator even produce those resolutions? Sure, you can use super resolution, but that seems like too much work for AI generated artwork.

    Also there were Twitter users pointing out how “4” on the clock is represented as “IIII” and not “IV”. Have they ever not seen clocks with Roman numerals?

    • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      74·
      1 year ago

      IV is the Roman numeral. IIII is like hatch marks or something, you don’t usually see that on a clock.

        • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          Wow I’d never seen that before. Also just curious on the reasoning, why would they use IIII for symmetry but not do anything about VI, VII and so on? Is it more to do with the width of the number when written down maybe?

          • code@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            1 year ago

            I was taught that dividing the numbers naturally into thirds:

            I  II III IIII (all I) 
V  VI VII VIII (all start with V) 
IX X  XI  XII  (all contain X)

            Visually looks more “balanced” than having an extra V

          • rooster_butt@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            When Roman numerals were in use by the Roman Empire, the name of the Romans’ supreme deity, Jupiter, was spelled as IVPPITER in Latin. There was a feeling that using the start of Jupiter’s name on a clock dial, and it being upside down where it fell, would be disrespectful to the deity, so IIII was introduced instead.

            https://newgateworld.com/blogs/style/should-it-be-iiii-or-iv-on-a-clock-dial#:~:text=When Roman numerals were in,so IIII was introduced instead

            I would have thought it had to do with aesthetics. I would have never guess it had to do with roman religion.

          • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            VI would be IIIIII which is severely over-wide. The balance is really against VIII and XII, you don’t want one leg of that triangle to have a limp and IIII makes IV just a bid wider and chunkier to provide that balance. “Symmetry” was probably a poor choice of word this isn’t a mathematical thing but perceptual, those three points being equal visual weight evoke an equilateral triangle standing on its side which says “yep this won’t tip over, ever”, because, well, things shaped such don’t and the back of our head instinctively knows.

            The IVPPITER explanation definitely also makes sense but it doesn’t explain why people continued to do it after standardisation on IV in arithmetic and the fall of Roman paganism.

      • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.worldEnglish
        73·
        1 year ago

        YOU don’t see that on a clock. Your experience isn’t universal. IIII was often used for 4. There were no reduction rules when Roman numerals were in use. The idea of IV being THE way to write 4 is a reflection of modern education.

        Also, the idea the human clocks have IV whereas a computer trained on human images might write it as IIII when no training images are like that is weird.

      • topinambour_rex@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        IV is used exclusively as 4 (except for clocks as someone else already commented) since the 15th century. Ancient Romans used both writing, IIII and IV.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          I have even seen, although incredibly rarely, IIV to mean 3. It’s the same number of characters as III so there’s no reason not really to do it.

          I think it might have been done because it was more consistent with IV equalling 4.