>>87622972There's probably no anti AI stuff that works on an AI for pictures that won't also screw up people. It's not doing anything especially different besides looking at pixels like you are.
The only thing is to make it unprofitable for them to do the legwork for AI generation, likely in the current vein where there are already public models you can run on your own GPU that produce stuff good enough for the masses without having to pay them a single cent. That's the whole reason AI art got spammed out anyway; the vast majority settle for 'good enough', which also means these companies trying to eke out the last 10% will likely not find anyone willing to pay for perfect hands and windows even if they make it.
In the first place even openAI is struggling to monetize their stuff with 5 billion projected in losses this year, and chatGPT is really good for speeding up coding. But not good enough for people and enough companies to pay its way.
A lot of companies are trying to get in because everyone and his mother knows that in the future, people are definitely going to use AI in some form. But it doesn't have to be pay-to-play. It almost can't be, otherwise they wouldn't be able to scale it enough to make money.
