Be Wary of Scammy, Misleading or Unethical AI

Artificial Intelligence or Actual Ignorance?

Do you spend much time on YouTube? (Or other more nefarious social media platforms.)

I have to admit that in 2025, I turned to YouTube for many things other than sewing ideas. (As a matter of fact, about half of what I'm subscribed to these days has nothing to do with sewing/crafting; they are channels run by rational thinking, ordinary human beings disseminating current events that should be important to all of us.)

For the fact that I've been spending more time on YouTube videos, I can't help noticing that more things are catching my eye from the sidebar recommendations.

---

---

Most notably, I recently became aware that crafting channels are employing AI to create the thumbnail images that appear on their title screens. My first encounter with this phenomena was fairly innocuous: I clicked on a video by a crafter who had showed off a group of small owls made out of old denim. When I got to the end, I thought the finished item was cute, but couldn't understand why I felt less enthused about it than at the beginning. Scrolling through the comments, the reason why became obvious. Someone called her out for encouraging click-throughs by using an AI generated image of the project, which did not resemble the actual finished item. Once I compared them myself, that was unquestionably true.

Is it a matter of ethics?

Now, this is probably one of the least egregious bad outcomes that can happen with AI. This was a free tutorial for a craft that ultimately looked similar. One could say that the most controversial part of it is the idea of trying to get clicks by featuring an image that doesn't accurately represent the finished item. But then this has been happening since before AI; one channel that I've known about for years has consistently used photos – without attribution – of other designers' bags to promote her DIY versions of them.

Being called out won't stop these people from continuing the practice; about that much, I'm sure.

If you're not familiar with what I'm talking about, here's an entirely different example of yet another "denim owl" project that uses AI to attract views on YouTube. (Obviously, the crafter didn't make eighteen of these fabulous, perfectly identical, denim owls.)

Another "denim owl" themed project on YouTube that uses AI-generated images...

When one comes across something like this, it would be natural to be curious to see how they're made, right?

Not wanting to be "gamed" this time, however, I clicked directly to the end of the video. This is what the finished owl(s) that was made during the tutorial actually looks like.

Finished owl keychain project by Ziba Trix on YouTube...

Gotta say, it lacks the "ooh, I gotta make that" feeling that the first image evoked. (Not to pass any judgement on the project itself, but I personally wouldn't have clicked on the video had this image been shown up front. By the way, I think a YouTube video has to engage the viewer for at least thirty seconds in order for it to count as a "view;" therefore my peek at this one most likely didn't count.)

I must admit that the level of adoption of AI by YouTube content creators came as a bit of a surprise to me. (It's probably because I had yet to use any AI tool myself.) Also, it's almost like I hold those "around me" to a higher standard and it's a bit of a letdown to see them succumb to a ubiquitous practice just because everyone else is doing it. (Or perhaps the actual problem is that I'm being a luddite!) In any case, when I saw evidence of it on one of my subscribed channels, I was oddly disappointed.

Ulyana of Estadistica Datos del Mundo has built herself up a following of over one and a quarter million followers since her early 2020 debut on YouTube. It would appear that she has already mastered the "secret" to success on that platform, without the need for AI. But it's clearly being used on her channel, with more recent thumbnails featuring many of whatever the project is. (Now, maybe she did make seven, eight, or fourteen identical whatevers, but I suspect not.)

Obvious AI-generated image of project...

The little heart-shaped pouch that's shown above shows how creators like her are plumbing the depths of AI to come up with project ideas that they then attempt to reproduce. As might be expected, I do believe that the AI created image shows a nicer looking pouch than the actual finished item (see below).

The AI pouch has a larger, curved "flap" that mirrors the rounded outline of the top part of the heart, as well as an additional opposing (non-functional) decorative snap. The real pouch features a simple tab situated along the straight side of the heart. Sewing-wise, the AI version would be difficult to pull off. None of the fourteen pouches in the AI generated image shows the top right side of the pouch from an angle that would reveal how the flap is attached to the base.

Picture of actual project...

There is a common take on the whole "AI thing" that since we can't do anything to stop it, we may as well get on board and take advantage of it ourselves. I'm not sure what my opinion is on the whole matter, but it does muddy the water for everyone. (Spoonflower design competitions, for example, specifically state that AI designs are ineligible.) In cases where no real scam – more on actual scams later – is taking place, raging and stomping one's feet against it can be seen as a bit of an over-reaction.

Over the course of writing up this blog post, I had to – obviously – "create" my first AI image. My prompt was, "I want an image of an owl made out of old denim that is small enough to be used as a decorative keychain."

Denim owl as keychain generated by Artlist...

Not bad, huh? At least this one looks like it was sewn. The sewing might be challenging, but it wouldn't be an insurmountable task. I think that could be a piece of leather being used for the beak, and the claws could certainly be made out of brass coloured beads. Doable. But you know what my next thought was?

As the YouTube commenter above pointed out, this form of AI becomes AI by learning from everything that's out there on the internet. (Which is why my graphic at the top of this post is titled "Artificial Intelligence or Actual Ignorance?") I was at a party last November where a themed version of Jeopardy was being played. When one of my tablemates – a young woman in her early thirties, I suspect – said that she found the (ultimately wrong) answer on ChatGTP, she looked at me like I was from another planet when I told her, "Well, that just goes to prove that ChatGTP is as ignorant as the rest of the internet." It didn't seem to occur to her that online AI wasn't the be-all and end-all of all knowledge.

But back to my AI image... isn't it entirely possible that this might be strongly representative of someone else's intellectual property? (I know; "strongly representative" does not translate into copyright infringement.) Could it be a complete duplicate? Does that ever happen? (I did run it by Google Lens and in this case, did not find any similar matches, never mind exact matches. So perhaps Artlist did a good job here.) All I'm saying is that we just never know if someone's chosen AI tool will decide that an exact copy of something that already exists is the best match for the prompt that it was given.

Dare I say that anyone relying on AI for things and not checking its results is showing real "opposite of intelligence?" 

---

Check out crafty classes at Creativebug! [affiliate link]

---

Of course, YouTube isn't the only place where AI is tripping out. Literally every social media platform is rife with AI content these days. Manufactured videos have long been popular on Facebook, for example, with many of them spreading misinformation like virtual wildfire.

But I do take issue with the rapidly increasing use of deep fakes to gain clicks. A few days after the death of Rob Reiner, a video showed up in my YouTube feed featuring Billy Crystal talking about how it "should have been him" instead of his friend. Now, I don't know much about Billy Crystal, but what I do know is that he is not a publicity hound and that he and Reiner have a history going back over fifty years. It seemed unlikely that he would come out and speak about this horrific event in such a manner. A quick glance at the comments confirmed that people were chastising this YouTuber for using AI to produce a money grubbing fake video.

My husband likes to say that he can tell when a person is AI generated/deep faked. I think, however, that until/unless one suspects that something is fake, one may not be so astute or discerning. The problem is that we are being forced to look closely at everything to see if it's real or not. I mean, yes to employing good habits to reduce the potential of being scammed (i.e., I didn't think that my prime minister would endorse investments of any kind, but apparently some trusting seniors did) but having to take a magnifying glass to a screen every time you see someone saying something? Anything? That's too much and I don't believe that the vast majority of internet users are up to the task. Unfortunately, our world is quickly descending into a "fake until proven true" reality... and sadly, that just might be the least dangerous part of AI.

In the meantime, what do you think about YouTube videos that entice you to click, based on AI manufactured images? Is it dishonest when the final outcome is not what the image promised? Is it fair play for creators on YouTube to gain views – which boosts their income – because of their "crafty" ability to use AI?

Will this discussion now prompt you to jump to the end of a video as soon as you open it up, just to see if you're being led around by the nose?

Practice smart viewing, I say! (And seriously — keep an eye peeled for real scams. It's better to be skeptical these days.)

'Til next... 🇨🇦🍁