C
@CyberMonday
commissioned an actual person to make the unhinged meme, respect
355
0
17.2K
@Varietyposted on X
“The Devil Wears Prada 2” hired a human artist, Alexis Franklin, to make an AI-generated meme featured in the film: "Absolutely no disrespect to Queen Meryl, but this is something I would’ve painted in my free time, so when they asked me to do this, it was nothing but fun.” https://t.co/gsjQSGZ7Dk
View original tweet on X →
Community Sentiment Analysis
Real-time analysis of public opinion and engagement
Sentiment Distribution
88% Engaged
69% Positive
19% Negative
Positive
69%
Negative
19%
Neutral
12%
Key Takeaways
What the community is saying — both sides
Supporting
1
Headline is misleading/clickbait
readers call out the wording as intentionally deceptive, accusing the outlet of farming clicks by implying AI did the work.
2
Humans always drive “AI” art
many remind that prompts, curation and final decisions come from people: AI tools don’t “make themselves.”
3
Respect for hiring a real artist
commenters applaud commissioning a human to create an AI-styled meme, framing it as the right or classy move.
4
Human work has soul; AI doesn’t
some argue the handcrafted image betrays a vitality missing from pure AI output.
5
It’s a deliberate creative choice
several replies explain the artist intentionally mimicked AI aesthetics rather than using a model, clarifying the situation.
6
Hybrid aesthetics add value
others see the blend of AI look and human craft as a fresh creative layer, not a cheat.
7
Humorous/ironic takes
users mock the label (“AI-generated” when it’s handcrafted) with analogies and jokes, highlighting the absurdity.
Opposing
1
Industry trick
Some say studios are leaning on an “AI base + human paint‑over” workflow and then crediting a single human artist — a repeatable playbook that disguises automation as craftsmanship.
2
Moral outrage
Others express blunt disgust, arguing this trend reflects a collapse of dignity and self‑respect in modern creative industries.
3
Mischaracterization of the artist
A large thread insists the work wasn’t AI‑generated at all but intentionally mocked AI, and that the outlet’s framing made the artist look dishonest.
4
Call for responsible journalism
Many demand better captions and fact‑checking, warning that sloppy copy harms artists’ reputations and trust in cultural reporting.
5
Public pushback with evidence
Users shared links and sourced material to correct the record; the high engagement on those replies shows a crowd‑driven effort to rebut the original claim.
Top Reactions
Most popular replies, ranked by engagement
P
@Plopop0
caption is misleading. there was no AI image generation involved https://t.co/q4XJmXgtqk
207
2
25.3K
T
@Tamaramonkey
Why did you word this as though the artist used AI when they didn't? They painted something that mocks AI. Your post is shady AF
179
3
15.8K
E
@ellisday228
it’s so crazy that u can still tell it’s made by a human. great example of how AI art really does just lack soul.
90
0
7.6K
L
@LakshmanOnX
@Variety https://t.co/yzBFlubLUD
25
0
9.0K
J
@jessicannlynn
This is irresponsible journalism. Your captions matter as much as your copy, and not one bit of this painting was AI-generated. Please, for the reputation of the artists you claim to care about, do better.
14
1
3.7K
Report an Issue
Found something wrong with this article? Let us know and we'll look into it.