Ex7BD: ?
You may misread me, or maybe i was not clear in making my view: the "kneejerk" part was about making acusations against an artist that arent true based on "gut" feelings.
This behaviour seems to inhibit artists getting due credit as the first response is generally becoming attacking the artist.
The kneejerk part was
not about asking for artists getting credited for their work (and not about you/your post) was just sharing my perception on this topic.
You are aware of the running joke/bet on how long (how many pages in the forum) it takes for, at least one person, to be absolute certain that the art was made by AI? = thats how prevalent the issue has become, hence my observation above that i understand why some images have no credits.
ByYiro: If I'm not wrong, the gogger you argued with has clearly stated that he won't chase any artist that claimed their art to be human, he just said that he don't trust the claim at all in this particular case, but that it was his particular, personal opinion. You just cared too much about his particular, personal opinion. I defend the credit to be in every place the art is visible.
Oh, OK I think I understand your point a bit better. I, too, advocate for crediting everywhere and in my eyes, not crediting was a double issue:
1 Because you have to credit the piece of work you are using
2 If you don't it may be because it is generated slop (which is even worse)
Avoiding 2 by doing 1 is the only logical way, at least to me.
An artisqt having a "sloplike" style is not necessarily bad, after all this awful tech does depend on the gluttonnous absorption of people's work, a style is destined to be most represented because of the aggregation of different styles.