4 ms·

until it gets virtually indistinguishable to the human eye

by Dban1 2y ago

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Even if it were indistinguishable from the human eye, I'd still find it annoying. Not every blog post needs a generic, caricature-esque stock photo.
- owlninja 2y ago
  She's staring at the back of her monitor on the main page.
- MBCook 2y ago
  That’s all I could see on mobile. The screen is to narrow to see more than the lady typing and the edge of her monitor. So that’s all I thought it was. A generic stock image. So I didn’t pay any real attention to it because it was “just” a stock image. I agree with you. It was totally unnecessary.
swatcoder 2y ago
Common usage never will. There will always be a bias towards some default settings in whatever popular tool, because people who aren't very discerning or dedicated will just punch in a few common ideas into the tool and take the first thing that looks good enough to them. But people on the outside will continue to have an instinctive sense for these default style biases and be able to tell pretty well that an image was produced that way. The escape hatch will be what amounts to AI stock photo industry, where practiced "AI Art" designers prepare images that are more subtle and unique and sell them pretty cheaply. The technology surely can be pushed to the point where a well-crafted image is virtually indistinguishable, but most people are going to just drop "anxious woman at keyboard" or "happy dog with a ball" and there's only so much unique information contained in those prompts so defaults will always reign.
- chfalck 2y ago
  Never? Really?
- MBCook 2y ago
  On my phone this was good enough to fool me. I couldn’t see the back of the monitor. So as presented on the site it looked like a stock image. I didn’t heavily scrutinize it. But without the additional context seen on a desktop it’s not that remarkable.
- eru 2y ago
  > There will always be a bias towards some default settings in whatever popular tool, because people who aren't very discerning or dedicated will just punch in a few common ideas into the tool and take the first thing that looks good enough to them. How is that different from the established practice of using stock photos?
  - noirbot 2y ago
    And most people see stock photos on a blog and see that a bit negatively too. If the ceiling here is stock photos, that's not great, but the issue is that the state of the art is "stock photo but with glaring weirdness"

until it gets virtually indistinguishable to the human eye

by Dban1 2y ago

until it gets virtually indistinguishable to the human eye

Even if it were indistinguishable from the human eye, I'd still find it annoying. Not every blog post needs a generic, caricature-esque stock photo.

owlninja 2y ago
She's staring at the back of her monitor on the main page.
MBCook 2y ago
That’s all I could see on mobile. The screen is to narrow to see more than the lady typing and the edge of her monitor. So that’s all I thought it was. A generic stock image. So I didn’t pay any real attention to it because it was “just” a stock image. I agree with you. It was totally unnecessary.

swatcoder 2y ago

Common usage never will. There will always be a bias towards some default settings in whatever popular tool, because people who aren't very discerning or dedicated will just punch in a few common ideas into the tool and take the first thing that looks good enough to them. But people on the outside will continue to have an instinctive sense for these default style biases and be able to tell pretty well that an image was produced that way. The escape hatch will be what amounts to AI stock photo industry, where practiced "AI Art" designers prepare images that are more subtle and unique and sell them pretty cheaply. The technology surely can be pushed to the point where a well-crafted image is virtually indistinguishable, but most people are going to just drop "anxious woman at keyboard" or "happy dog with a ball" and there's only so much unique information contained in those prompts so defaults will always reign.

chfalck 2y ago
Never? Really?
MBCook 2y ago
On my phone this was good enough to fool me. I couldn’t see the back of the monitor. So as presented on the site it looked like a stock image. I didn’t heavily scrutinize it. But without the additional context seen on a desktop it’s not that remarkable.
eru 2y ago
> There will always be a bias towards some default settings in whatever popular tool, because people who aren't very discerning or dedicated will just punch in a few common ideas into the tool and take the first thing that looks good enough to them. How is that different from the established practice of using stock photos?
- noirbot 2y ago
  And most people see stock photos on a blog and see that a bit negatively too. If the ceiling here is stock photos, that's not great, but the issue is that the state of the art is "stock photo but with glaring weirdness"