I don't agree that it's a fake vs fake issue here.

Even if the "real" photos were touched up in Lightroom or Photoshop, those are tools that actual photographers use.

It goes to show that there are cases where photos of real people look more AI generated than not.

The problem here is that we start second guessing whether a photo was AI generated or not and we run into cases where real artists are being told that they need to find a "different style" to avoid it looking too much like AI generated photos.

If that wasn't a perfect example for you then maybe this one is better: https://www.pcgamer.com/artist-banned-from-art-subreddit-because-their-work-looked-ai-generated/

Now think of what can happen to an artist if they publish something in California that has a style that makes it look somewhat AI generated.

The problem with this law is that it will be weaponized against certain individuals or smaller companies.

It doesn't matter if they can eventually prove that the photo wasn't AI generated or not. The damage will be done after they are put through the court system. Having a law where you can put someone through that system just because something "looks" AI generated is a bad idea.

Edit: And the intent of that law is also to include AI text generation. Just think of all the students being accused of using AI for their homework and how reliable other tools have been for determining whether their work is AI generated or not.

We're going to unleash that on authors as well?