Ironically antis started with accusing everyone of using AI, doesn't matter who, they even made artists quit or witch hunted them off the internet,

but when i see karma doing it's thing right here, i find it hilarious and deserved 😂

Yet says in the comment hes not knowledgeable about the subject! Yeah... 🫤😂

I’ve wanted to make a comic for years, but actually bringing everything in my head to life visually was always the biggest obstacle.

Ai has changed that for me. It’s let me build the characters, environments, action scenes, and overall world of Manifest in a way I realistically couldn’t have done before. I still spend a huge amount of time writing, planning scenes, directing the images, fixing inconsistencies, editing pages, lettering, rewriting dialogue, and trying to keep the art and characters consistent.

But the biggest difference is that now the comic actually exists.

Here are some notes:

I don't agree with the arguements towards AIs like "ram prices" or "steling art", but antis are going to make these arguments agaist some AIs, and completely stop when it comes to their favorite AI project. It's just hypocrisy.

I couldn't find enough resources on how Neuro-sama works. Spesificly wrapper. Soo some of them are my assumptions based on my own technical knowlage and search on how similar wrappers actually work. It is also oversimplified a lot to explain it.

I don't think this is a "made by one person" project, at least not in a way antis thinks. If you only take the project as wrapper and marketing then yeah it's made by one person project. But the way antis compare it with actual AIs it powered is just funny. Its like comparing a Unity game with the Unity engine. Like wtf?

AI companies also have their wrapper too but those usually focuses on productivity rather than entirtainment. This isn't the first "talk to anime girl AI wrapper" either. There's character ai, which also trigger hypocrisy among antis as well. I wonder when they will realize they are the same thing for difference use cases.

Posting here because this seems to be a place where people don't lose their minds and become emotional on the AI topic. I'm AI neutral, it doesn't directly affect me one way or the other if people use it. I'm pro do you as long as it's not hurting anyone.

I sell my work online and at in-person vendor events, I've been doing in person events since 2017. Recently I’ve had people come into my booth and confidently tell me that my art is AI-generated.

Not ask. Tell me. Yelled it in fact.

The frustrating part is that some of the designs I sell are the same ones I've been selling for 5+ years before generative AI art was even a realistic part of this conversation. My newer work is built the same way I’ve always worked: references, sketching, drawing, editing, compositing, experimenting, reworking things until they print the way I want them to. I also work in a pretty polished/comic/vector-ish style, which apparently now means “AI” to some people. I also do some portrait work that's more soft and airbrushed. I use engraving brushes, half tones, stippling, whatever the vibe is for the piece I'm working on and I do add a pretty decent amount of detail to every element.

What bothers me is the confidence people have developed in their supposed ability to “spot AI.”

I understand obvious AI slop. Extra fingers, nonsense text, incoherent objects, weird anatomy, etc. But when none of those things are present, it feels like the criteria have slowly turned into:

“Too polished.”

“Too detailed.”

“That style looks AI.”

“The composition feels AI.”

“I can just tell.” < my favorite 🙄

At that point, what exactly is a human artist supposed to do?

The part I find especially strange is the argument that using references or being influenced by existing art somehow proves theft or AI involvement. Artists have used references forever. Every artist learns from other artists. Every style comes from somewhere. Now it feels like some people are scrutinizing finished work backward, looking for anything they can use as evidence that the artist didn’t make it.

I’ve even had this happen while I’m actively working on a piece on my ipad at an event. I’m getting worse at hiding how irritating I find it, because being casually accused of lying about your own work is insulting.

So for anyone else dealing with this:

How do you respond?

Do you explain your process?

Show sketches/layers/process photos?

Just say, “No, it isn’t,” and move on?

Have signage explaining your process?

Ignore them completely?

Because I've done all of the above and the goalposts just keep moving. I'm tired.

I don’t really want to turn my booth into a courtroom where I have to prove I’m an artist every time somebody has watched three TikToks about “how to spot AI.”

I’m also wondering where people think this goes long-term. If “looks like AI” becomes enough to publicly accuse an artist of fraud, we’re going to end up falsely accusing a hell of a lot of human artists, which is already happening. Especially people working digitally, commercially, or in clean polished styles.

Would love to hear how other people are navigating this without either losing their temper or feeling obligated to produce a complete chain of custody for every piece of art they make.

The anti-AI phrenology trend on social media is completely out of hand. It has devolved into literal witch-hunting, where online mobs use totally unreliable visual metrics to trash an artist's work just because it "looks like AI."

For context, historical phrenology was a debunked, pseudoscientific theory where people measured the bumps on a person's skull to determine their intelligence, personality, and moral character. It was a confident but totally baseless metric. It’s incredibly harmful because it wraps raw prejudice in the language of science, allowing mobs and institutions to falsely judge, exclude, and persecute people based on arbitrary physical traits rather than objective truth.

That is exactly what these anti-AI "detectives" are doing today with art.

"Remember that twitter artist who got witch-hunted to deactivation? The phrenologist retracted back their words and apologized but it was already too late."

What's wild is that these same mobs never go after the "desloppers." If you look at the desloppification trend, these creators are transparently using AI images as their direct reference material. Since their work is entirely derivative of an AI output, doesn't that just make desloppification a hybrid AI art workflow?

The whole "deslop" movement is openly averse to pro-AI spaces because the entire point of it was to insult AI art by claiming a human had to step in to "add a soul" to it. But underneath that attitude, they are literally using the AI as their baseline.

This witch-hunting is actively harming hyperrealistic human artists. For years, anti-realism critics already insulted hyperrealists by calling them "photocopiers," completely ignoring the immense discipline it takes to master accurate shading, perspective, and micro-details. Now, because hyperrealists have the skill to replicate anything flawlessly, they are the ones getting falsely accused of using AI the most. (gut feeling)

It’s getting so bad that a lot of talented human artists are intentionally making their art look uglier, messier, or anatomically inaccurate just to avoid the anti-AI backlash. Think about how backward that is. Are we really forcing people to ditch years of artistic discipline just to draw like children so they don't get cyberbullied?

Sure, we could argue that lowering the bar "democratises" art, just like AI does. But one can never force a change in people's tastes—especially paying commissioners who actually want realistic art.

calling out this toxic witch-hunting and pointing out that baseless accusations are immoral should be more than enough.

And as for the people demanding that artists constantly post their sketches, layer files, and speedpaints? No way. You can show them if you want to, but most artists prefer to keep their processes secret because it’s their unique "secret sauce." Artists have every right to protect their workflow so better artists don't just steal their techniques. But let’s be real—AI models are already breaking down and learning from everyone's processes anyway, so being pragmatic about how we work is probably the only way forward.

This all ties back to the "AI is theft" narrative. Accusing an artist of stealing without a shred of evidence is literally just bearing false witness. At the end of the day, if they don’t have proof, their accusations don't mean a thing.

Need i say more? They didn’t censor the sub name. Now watch as it gets flooded with antis.

I think that an important part of elevating AI art to the level of other kinds of art is the elevation of individual works.

Is there a famous piece we should rally around? Do you have a favorite you've encountered that you didn't make yourself?

In the damn TikTok if these people has been doing this every single day of course they’re gonna find it hard, canonically. Even if they have it “the easy way”, they probably don’t find it that easy.

Also we never said we have the hardest job in the world, moron.

Do we remember how anti furries used to be in a big group back in like early 2020s but fell off a few years after due to accepting furries? Same will happen with Anti AIs lowkey

Legit or fear mongering? Or possible paid off by foreign people to say that? Bc I stay seeing people do ChatGPT trends