There's nothing illegal unless someone seriously thinks Obama signed it. The easiest example would be his signature on his wikipedia page. Clearly he didn't sign that page, nor (probably) did he authorize it.
I don't understand your argument. Wikipedia and a satirical cartoon are both things clearly not made by Obama, nobody in their right mind would be "fooled" by the presence of his signature.
These cartoons are intentionally drawn in the style of a cartoonist and feature their signature. The goal is forgery. The whole point of these AI-generated images is to look like the real thing.
>These cartoons are intentionally drawn in the style of a cartoonist and feature their signature. The goal is forgery. The whole point of these AI-generated images is to look like the real thing.
You can't seriously claim that the very person who prompted the AI image generator thinks the image it spit out was created by Brendan Loper?
I see the point (though I'd also say they're arguing it poorly, and that it's a departure from the point in their initial comments; note my comment is also not an endorsement of it). OP said that the LLM vendors should face legal problems for making the image, but the person they supplied it to was not tricked by its fraudulent nature, therefore the LLM vendor did not commit the fraud. Ostensibly, that is the dishonor of the person who prompted the model to create the fraudulent work.
What the LLM vendors are doing seems functionally identical to a paid forger. The forger and the buyer know that it's fake, but anyone else would think it's real.
There's nothing illegal unless someone seriously thinks Obama signed it. The easiest example would be his signature on his wikipedia page. Clearly he didn't sign that page, nor (probably) did he authorize it.