> Given the image styling and story I suspect LLM use to generate. A credit would be nice for the little machines.

This is rather passive-aggressive. It would be nice if you're right, but you haven't given any basis other than vague suspicion. You're implying that it's "not nice" because they didn't credit the AI, but you haven't come anywhere close to establishing that AI was actually used. I could just as easily suspect your comment of being AI and claim that it would be nicer if you just admitted it.

AI was used, see the comments above.

I don't see any comment at all that AI was used for the image generation in the way you alleged

I'm sure you took the time to study the works of the artist over the course of their 23 year tenure and their body of work. Right?

Since it’s a ripoff of another artist alongside partially AI written text it’s hard to tell really. But sure, your righteous indignation on their behalf is noted.

Parodies are not rip-offs. There's a reason why we explicitly allow them under copyright law as fair use.

It's not a parody, unless you take parody to mean 'copy of an artist's style'. Parodies are not a tribute but an insult to the person concerned, usually an exaggeration - this is just a copy.

Parody doesn't have to insult the original; the key thing you need is commenting on the original. This piece is on the border between using the setting and style of F&T to make an unrelated point (not parody) and commenting on how the F&T cookies story, despite being written for children, makes a broader point about incentives and control that adults would do well to internalize (parody).

Thank you; it's nice to be appreciated.