3 ms·
I think you're right. I don't really have a problem with AI generated art being used in articles like this. After all, what kind of alternative visual can you p
by spuz 3y ago
I think you're right. I don't really have a problem with AI generated art being used in articles like this. After all, what kind of alternative visual can you put alongside an article about fundamental theories of nature? If AI art helps to reduce the cost of scientific journalism (without decreasing the quality) then I'm ok with it.
Having said that, to produce art that actually works is clearly not easy. If you've ever used Midjourney or DALL-E, you'll know it's a challenge to get the tool to output exactly what you have in mind. It's also clearly hard to produce images that physically realistic. If mismatched tiles and unrealistic perspectives are noticeable then they'll be a distraction and detract from the reader's experience.
- hoseja 3y agoBut these add nothing to the article but confusion. That's not how doing interference works. That's not any sort of weighting device. Could have been a generic galaxy-brain stock art and I'd be less annoyed.
- CaptainFever 3y agoOof yeah, I just saw the article pics. I don't have an issue with AI assistance, but the final output here was just kind of incoherent and confusing. Like an unrelated stock photo. I understand that it is hard to control but that just means that the artist needed to do a better job to make something more coherent, more informative and less generic. Unless yeah as you said, it's just too abstract to put anything coherent, in which case I guess it works (though the mass weighing image surely could have been better than some generic sci fi thing)?