this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
134 points (95.3% liked)

MTG

2236 readers
13 users here now

Magic: the Gathering discussion

General discussion, questions, and media related to Magic: the Gathering that doesn't fit within a more specific community. Our equivalent of /r/magicTCG!

Type [[Card name]] in your posts and comments and CardBot will reply with a link to the card! More info here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Dave Rapoza responds to Wizards' denial of their claimed use of AI for marketing materials: https://twitter.com/wizards_magic/status/1743014711820476536

Edit: context: https://mtgzone.com/post/376725

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (19 children)

Context? That twitter link isn’t loading for me

[–] andrew@mtgzone.com 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (17 children)

Wow looks like they deleted that tweet. The post here from yesterday has some screenshots (thanks @MysticKetchup): https://mtgzone.com/post/376725

[–] ech@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (12 children)

That link's not working for me, but from what I could find the drama is about this image, right?

I'm not going to claim to be an expert in generated images, but I don't see any particular signs pointing toward it being faked. It's a bit "dreamy" looking, but that's not exclusive to generated images by any means.

Also, I'm inclined to believe their denial here. I don't see any particular reason for wotc to so strongly pledge to not use these methods and then immediately use it for advertising. And even it being somehow unintentional seems like a stretch. The inner (and outer) communication at wotc has never been great, but this would be excessive even for them.

[–] 50gp@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

it would be easy for them to show proof its not generated by providing work files for the scene, so somethings not adding up

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)