#don't get me wrong i like the studio version but this goes so much harder live

[sanremengoni]

love that lonely spring sound that much better live

[vivalgi]

This post is primarily meant for all the doubters, naysayers and people in denial who ganged up against me when I first declared my suspicions that wannabe Malfoy revealed on @candlelightgames' Instagram post might be AI generated.

I will point out some of the most obvious signs of AI usage after the break but first I want to quote Owen Wilson: "Wow!" Usually half the AI image detectors fail to do their job, but never before have I seen such a unanimous decision - all 7 out of 7 online tools that I managed to find are saying that the Project Spellstruck's first character art is most likely AI:

Now, onto the analysis. People are still expecting clearly visible errors from generated images, such as irregular amount of fingers or something going through another object, but AI has come a long way and it's becoming harder to point out obvious signs without focusing hard. It's even able to create a vague resemblance of symmetry and repeating elements. AI generated art isn't often published "straight out of the oven" either. Artists-prompters make the AI do a lot of inpainting and add their own little touch-ups until the images are more or less presentable. A character has 16 fingers? Just mark the problematic area you want to be regenerated, maybe even make a rough sketch over it and then have the program do its job again. Even Bardick's design evolution, CL has demonstrated, looks very similar to the typical AI-assisted workflow I just described:

It's hard to put into words what makes art feel and look AI, but don't worry, doubters, I can also point out some strange elements that strongly hint at this character art being largely made by AI.

Below is the highest quality image I could get, so you can come back to it and zoom in if you want to see the clean version without my scribbles:

The coat's lapels

In the corner of the left lapel there's this triangular piece:

Whatever it's meant to be, it's a single solid object and not nearly as incoherent as what's happening on the opposite side:

The triangular shape seems to be made up of 3 disconnected sticks and the ends of the golden protruding lines that flow into that corner, become intrusions, although they don't line up very well either. Try to explain what the artist was attempting to do here. It's a very clear example of AI making up some fuzzy incoherent details. No need to find any further evidence really, but let's move on.

Occasional double vision effect around the edge of the golden hem, creating parallel running lines (a typical thing I've noticed image generators tend to do):

The pants and belt

That wobbly dotted line is the edge of his pants:

I've also traced the lines of the belt buckle, so you can see exactly how much it makes sense upon closer look. Not a lot, right? Also, the prong melts into the buckle, doesn't even go through the belt's hole and there's more fuzzy scribble around it.

Shadows

The shirt's collar creates shadows to both sides of it:

The lighting source seems to be behind the guy as the corner of the collar is further from the viewer than the shadow it casts:

Some other shadows are suspicious as well but not so obviously bad to confidently demonstrate them.

This is not an attempt to turn anyone against AI, but merely an analysis to show the most obvious signs that this dude was probably more or less generated by AI. If you like this kind of artificial art and are fine with Candlelight or any other studio/artist using it, then I won't stop you from enjoying it. If you have a hard time recognizing AI art then I truly envy you, ignorance is bliss as the saying goes. However, please don't come to proudly demonstrate your ignorance and argue with me or even worse, try to make fun of me because you think I'm wrong in saying that this character art was generated with AI. As I've now proven, it most likely is. It's too early to turn into an overprotective fangirl over a project we still know barely anything about.

[sentientdessert]

It is funny how many were driven to piracy due to the companies making it harder to consume their products... Spore will be the shining example, came out with horrible DRM that made it unplayable, and so many people who bought the game sought out a cracked version to play it. Right to repair is something that's been gaining traction, especially with companies having such specific rules for WHO can service devices. Their attempts to meet halfway have been bad faith at best. If this kinda bullshit isn't nipped relatively soon, you're going to have people needing to jailbreak their cars just to get to work. Companies want too much control at every step of the products usage... Things which shouldn't need to have software have software... Like, you can't even buy a TV that isn't loaded with adware/spyware... It's not being a luddite in this respect, it's wanting control over what I own. If my toaster can be bricked because the company that made it goes bankrupt or decides I made too many slices of toast... that's too much power in the wrong hands. Smart devices are anything but... subscription software is a scam... And if there's a recall on any DVD in my possession ain't no way in hell I'm giving it back unless the studio refunds me my money. Cause you don't own any DVD or BluRay, you're just "extended renting" them because someone reverse engineered the encryption on them and the courts found he broke no law because it was on something he owned. Reverse engineering should not be a crime... and the fact it is is a reason we've stagnated a lot in many industries. There are advances, yes... but there would be more if we actually had the rights to things we own.

“If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing”

20 years ago, I got in a (friendly) public spat with Chris Anderson, who was then the editor in chief of Wired. I'd publicly noted my disappointment with glowing Wired reviews of DRM-encumbered digital devices, prompting Anderson to call me unrealistic for expecting the magazine to condemn gadgets for their DRM:

https://longtail.typepad.com/the_long_tail/2004/12/is_drm_evil.html

I replied in public, telling him that he'd misunderstood. This wasn't an issue of ideological purity – it was about good reviewing practice. Wired was telling readers to buy a product because it had features x, y and z, but at any time in the future, without warning, without recourse, the vendor could switch off any of those features:

https://memex.craphound.com/2004/12/29/cory-responds-to-wired-editor-on-drm/

I proposed that all Wired endorsements for DRM-encumbered products should come with this disclaimer:

WARNING: THIS DEVICE’S FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO REVOCATION WITHOUT NOTICE, ACCORDING TO TERMS SET OUT IN SECRET NEGOTIATIONS. YOUR INVESTMENT IS CONTINGENT ON THE GOODWILL OF THE WORLD’S MOST PARANOID, TECHNOPHOBIC ENTERTAINMENT EXECS. THIS DEVICE AND DEVICES LIKE IT ARE TYPICALLY USED TO CHARGE YOU FOR THINGS YOU USED TO GET FOR FREE — BE SURE TO FACTOR IN THE PRICE OF BUYING ALL YOUR MEDIA OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AT NO TIME IN HISTORY HAS ANY ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY GOTTEN A SWEET DEAL LIKE THIS FROM THE ELECTRONICS PEOPLE, BUT THIS TIME THEY’RE GETTING A TOTAL WALK. HERE, PUT THIS IN YOUR MOUTH, IT’LL MUFFLE YOUR WHIMPERS.

Wired didn't take me up on this suggestion.

But I was right. The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you've already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations. Inkjet printers were always a sleazy business, but once these printers got directly connected to the internet, companies like HP started pushing out "security updates" that modified your printer to make it reject the third-party ink you'd paid for:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer

Now, this scam wouldn't work if you could just put things back the way they were before the "update," which is where the DRM comes in. A thicket of IP laws make reverse-engineering DRM-encumbered products into a felony. Combine always-on network access with indiscriminate criminalization of user modification, and the enshittification will follow, as surely as night follows day.

This is the root of all the right to repair shenanigans. Sure, companies withhold access to diagnostic codes and parts, but codes can be extracted and parts can be cloned. The real teeth in blocking repair comes from the law, not the tech. The company that makes McDonald's wildly unreliable McFlurry machines makes a fortune charging franchisees to fix these eternally broken appliances. When a third party threatened this racket by reverse-engineering the DRM that blocked independent repair, they got buried in legal threats:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/20/euthanize-rentier-enablers/#cold-war

Everybody loves this racket. In Poland, a team of security researchers at the OhMyHack conference just presented their teardown of the anti-repair features in NEWAG Impuls locomotives. NEWAG boobytrapped their trains to try and detect if they've been independently serviced, and to respond to any unauthorized repairs by bricking themselves:

https://mamot.fr/@q3k@hackerspace.pl/111528162905209453

Poland is part of the EU, meaning that they are required to uphold the provisions of the 2001 EU Copyright Directive, including Article 6, which bans this kind of reverse-engineering. The researchers are planning to present their work again at the Chaos Communications Congress in Hamburg this month – Germany is also a party to the EUCD. The threat to researchers from presenting this work is real – but so is the threat to conferences that host them:

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/researchers-face-legal-threats-over-sdmi-hack/

20 years ago, Chris Anderson told me that it was unrealistic to expect tech companies to refuse demands for DRM from the entertainment companies whose media they hoped to play. My argument – then and now – was that any tech company that sells you a gadget that can have its features revoked is defrauding you. You're paying for x, y and z – and if they are contractually required to remove x and y on demand, they are selling you something that you can't rely on, without making that clear to you.

But it's worse than that. When a tech company designs a device for remote, irreversible, nonconsensual downgrades, they invite both external and internal parties to demand those downgrades. Like Pavel Chekov says, a phaser on the bridge in Act I is going to go off by Act III. Selling a product that can be remote, irreversibly, nonconsensually downgraded inevitably results in the worst person at the product-planning meeting proposing to do so. The fact that there are no penalties for doing so makes it impossible for the better people in that meeting to win the ensuing argument, leading to the moral injury of seeing a product you care about reduced to a pile of shit:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/25/moral-injury/#enshittification

But even if everyone at that table is a swell egg who wouldn't dream of enshittifying the product, the existence of a remote, irreversible, nonconsensual downgrade feature makes the product vulnerable to external actors who will demand that it be used. Back in 2022, Adobe informed its customers that it had lost its deal to include Pantone colors in Photoshop, Illustrator and other "software as a service" packages. As a result, users would now have to start paying a monthly fee to see their own, completed images. Fail to pay the fee and all the Pantone-coded pixels in your artwork would just show up as black:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/28/fade-to-black/#trust-the-process

Adobe blamed this on Pantone, and there was lots of speculation about what had happened. Had Pantone jacked up its price to Adobe, so Adobe passed the price on to its users in the hopes of embarrassing Pantone? Who knows? Who can know? That's the point: you invested in Photoshop, you spent money and time creating images with it, but you have no way to know whether or how you'll be able to access those images in the future. Those terms can change at any time, and if you don't like it, you can go fuck yourself.

These companies are all run by CEOs who got their MBAs at Darth Vader University, where the first lesson is "I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further." Adobe chose to design its software so it would be vulnerable to this kind of demand, and then its customers paid for that choice. Sure, Pantone are dicks, but this is Adobe's fault. They stuck a KICK ME sign to your back, and Pantone obliged.

This keeps happening and it's gonna keep happening. Last week, Playstation owners who'd bought (or "bought") Warner TV shows got messages telling them that Warner had walked away from its deal to sell videos through the Playstation store, and so all the videos they'd paid for were going to be deleted forever. They wouldn't even get refunds (to be clear, refunds would also be bullshit – when I was a bookseller, I didn't get to break into your house and steal the books I'd sold you, not even if I left some cash on your kitchen table).

Sure, Warner is an unbelievably shitty company run by the single most guillotineable executive in all of Southern California, the loathsome David Zaslav, who oversaw the merger of Warner with Discovery. Zaslav is the creep who figured out that he could make more money cancelling completed movies and TV shows and taking a tax writeoff than he stood to make by releasing them:

https://aftermath.site/there-is-no-piracy-without-ownership

Imagine putting years of your life into making a program – showing up on set at 5AM and leaving your kids to get their own breakfast, performing stunts that could maim or kill you, working 16-hour days during the acute phase of the covid pandemic and driving home in the night, only to have this absolute turd of a man delete the program before anyone could see it, forever, to get a minor tax advantage. Talk about moral injury!

But without Sony's complicity in designing a remote, irreversible, nonconsensual downgrade feature into the Playstation, Zaslav's war on art and creative workers would be limited to material that hadn't been released yet. Thanks to Sony's awful choices, David Zaslav can break into your house, steal your movies – and he doesn't even have to leave a twenty on your kitchen table.

The point here – the point I made 20 years ago to Chris Anderson – is that this is the foreseeable, inevitable result of designing devices for remote, irreversible, nonconsensual downgrades. Anyone who was paying attention should have figured that out in the GW Bush administration. Anyone who does this today? Absolute flaming garbage.

Sure, Zaslav deserves to be staked out over and anthill and slathered in high-fructose corn syrup. But save the next anthill for the Sony exec who shipped a product that would let Zaslav come into your home and rob you. That piece of shit knew what they were doing and they did it anyway. Fuck them. Sideways. With a brick.

Meanwhile, the studios keep making the case for stealing movies rather than paying for them. As Tyler James Hill wrote: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing":

https://bsky.app/profile/tylerjameshill.bsky.social/post/3kflw2lvam42n

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/08/playstationed/#tyler-james-hill

Image: Alan Levine (modified) https://pxhere.com/en/photo/218986

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/