How many games on BGA use AI "Art"?

[tbhp]

Still not proof of AI, though.

Welcome to the thread.

It has already been established in this thread that this is not AI art. The artist is known, her name is Anna [Something. I'll fill in the blank in a moment].

According to page 1 of this thread, the artwork is done by enormously talented Anna Meshchanova.

I googled her and found some of her work. She has talent.

She does, which makes it all the more puzzling that she would spend time working on something like this and 1) not realize that this is poor shading and 2) not realize that it actually looks like a finger.

I find it almost disrespectful that people would unquestionably believe something as wonky is her work when we can see the quality of what she does in her own free time. Did you even check out her page?

Now, I think the characters cards look good otherwise, and they have the same style as how she usually draws her characters, so I'm pretty confident she either worked on it herself or an AI used her art as a prompt (it's possible to feed AI with specific images and the AI will copy that style). Or, she did the work but also used some AI assistance because she didn't care or the company pushed her or they had deadline issues or something. Unfortunately those things happen, and it's concerning that people in this thread seem okay with companies pretending something is fully human created when it's not.

[FrankJones]

Regarding the 6th finger, remember, people perceive things differently.

100 times out of 100, I see the dress as blue and black. I cannot fathom how people see it as white and gold, btu some people do.

And, 100 times out of 100 I hear "Laurel." I do no understand how anyone ever hears "Yanni". But I accept that some people do.

[tbhp]

Regarding the 6th finger, remember, people perceive things differently.

100 times out of 100, I see the dress as blue and black. I cannot fathom how people see it as white and gold, btu some people do.

And, 100 times out of 100 I hear "Laurel." I do no understand how anyone ever hears "Yanni". But I accept that some people do.

I don't believe this is comparable to those examples. Those have to do with a displaced reference point, causing people to see or hear something different.

Here, it's more of a case of the shading just being totally inaccurate if that's what was intended. Some people for whatever reason may not see that it is inaccurate. But we are talking about a talented artist here. If she had a strange perception of things, it would show up in her work. We would see similar flaws or quirks, but we don't, it all looks very perfect. It's very unique and personal but it never looks off in the sense of "this person doesn't understand perspective or human anatomy".

[Meeplelowda]

Regarding the 6th finger, remember, people perceive things differently.

100 times out of 100, I see the dress as blue and black. I cannot fathom how people see it as white and gold, btu some people do.

And, 100 times out of 100 I hear "Laurel." I do no understand how anyone ever hears "Yanni". But I accept that some people do.

And some people can only see the old lady or the young woman, and some can switch back and forth.

I also saw a 6th digit at first, until I inspected it closer. Once I realized what was really going on, I don't see it as a digit even though I can identify the region that gives the illusion of a digit.

[tbhp]

And some people can only see the old lady or the young woman, and some can switch back and forth.

This is an example of what I was talking about. An optical illusion in common speech is an image that can be seen in two ways and both ways are equally valid from a technical perspective.

Calling it an "illusion" is a bit of a misnomer, because in reality there is no illusion, the two imageries that one can see are real, it's just that the picture contains both at the same time.

If a person can't see one or another, it's not that they have their "own way" of seeing, it's that they just haven't looked long enough and haven't yet noticed the other image.

I also saw a 6th digit at first, until I inspected it closer. Once I realized what was really going on, I don't see it as a digit even though I can identify the region that gives the illusion of a digit.

So, you try to relate it to the above illusion, but I don't see the similarity. What exactly do you think is "really going on" in that picture? If it's really supposed to be shading and light reflecting on the hand, all I can see is a poor job that doesn't amount to any coherent image (unlike the above illustration, where once you notice the other woman, it is a striking, vivid and detailed imagery).

On the hand picture, there's "nothing to see here", except wondering why the artist decided to make shapes that resemble a finger. The illusion here is not the finger, since that's the only way to see the picture that is somewhat coherent (putting aside the fact that hands are not supposed to have six fingers). The illusion would be whatever people are seeing when they try to convince themselves it's not a finger.

[FrankJones]

Even in that famous double image (The old woman and young woman),

If we look at the Young Woman, there's a weird gash into her neck.

If we look at the old Woman, there is a small bump near the top of the already very-weirdly-shaped nose. (This is easer to explain than the apparent gash on the young woman's neck.)

[tbhp]

The gash is a collar, the bump is a wart.

If I had to list flaws, I'd say the shoulder positioning looks off on the old woman, while the ear of the young woman is drawn in a strange way.

Those are easily explained by the role they simultaneously had to have for the other image.

[Meeplelowda]

Even in that famous double image (The old woman and young woman),

If we look at the Young Woman, there's a weird gash into her neck.

If we look at the old Woman, there is a small bump near the top of the already very-weirdly-shaped nose. (This is easer to explain than the apparent gash on the young woman's neck.)

The point is that some people can only see one, even when the features of each are explicitly shown to them. That a different issue from each version having something that's slightly off.

[tbhp]

I don't believe they can only see one. Since like you say the images objectively exist, if someone can't see one it just means they haven't noticed what they are supposed to see yet. Not that they "can't" do it.

Now, in the case of the hand drawing, the information to see a regular hand just doesn't exist. There is no coherent representation of a palm that can be seen here, because the way it's drawn is just all wrong. That's why it's different from those intentional illusion pictures.