As Shimauma mentioned, you described it as “an example of AI content which is permitted”. If it’s not a permitted image, then it perhaps was not the best choice to make the point you intended to make :-)
Anyway, I think it does raise an important point, in demonstrating there is a need for more clarity in what will constitute “permitted AI content”. Granted, that is not as easy a question to answer as Kalenz’s issue was.
One example which came to mind last night is a series of images a guy did a while back called “training your pony” (or something like that). They consisted of a “do” and “don’t” illustrating various points in an amusingly absurd way. Now the images were clearly AI (and weren’t claimed not to be), but equally obviously a lot of human creativity went into the various scenarios shown, and into imagining the illustration that the AI would be used to create. Would that be allowed? If I create a comic with a consistant storyline and use AI to illustrate it, is the story enough of a justification to allow the non-human art? (FWIW, I wouldn’t myself do that because I’m not a creative enough writer; and if someone did do so I would send it to tantabus since I think of this as an art site, and thus the human created story does not outweigh the AI created art).
