Even if there were tools that can dictate what is AI-generated and what not, they’d have to rely on a pattern, or on an artifact from AI-generated imagery (which, as far as I know, does not exist), and that is what can be used as proof, not the result of the tool itself being used.
They’re not really DLCs, just cosmetic packs that you can get if you play for long enough. The actual DLCs are the seasonal updates.
Blue’s News, IGN and a local news reporter.
I believe our best american hacker “4Chan” is our best bet against this Torovolts guy.
Tacoma. Incredible game, barely has any gameplay, though, and is very short if you don’t actively look for side-content, which is the main focus of the game. It’s mostly storytelling through holographic logs of an abandoned station. Your goal is to salvage previous data in there and an abandoned AI, that your company needs to reclaim.
But then, it begs the question, how would you prove it’s an AI work? For all anyone knows, it’s my art, I made it, it’s undistinguishable from what I could make. What the court will see is, I submitted that art in the Internet, you take that, I sue you for copyright, you argue it’s an AI work, and the Court will request you to prove it really is an AI work, and perhaps launching an investigation on me to see whether I really made the AI artwork.