If you are accused of using AI, is proving you different really a defense? It changes the trespass from making something using AI to making something that looks like AI was used, but with the extent that some subcultures are against the use of AI, just appearing to have used it even with proof you didn't isn't going to be accepted.
So much of the discussion focuses on the creators of works, but what about the changes in consumers, who seem to be splitting between those who don't mind AI and those who want to oppose anything involving AI (including merely looking like AI). Is there enough consumers in the group that opposes AI but is okay with AI looking content as long as it is proven not to be AI?
"AI looking content" would be decided on an individual by individual basis, with some percentage using AI detection software in their decision making process, with that software being varying degrees of snake oil.
So much of the discussion focuses on the creators of works, but what about the changes in consumers, who seem to be splitting between those who don't mind AI and those who want to oppose anything involving AI (including merely looking like AI). Is there enough consumers in the group that opposes AI but is okay with AI looking content as long as it is proven not to be AI?
"AI looking content" would be decided on an individual by individual basis, with some percentage using AI detection software in their decision making process, with that software being varying degrees of snake oil.