4 ms·

> 4. I do not click or read any articles with AI-generated images or text. How can you possibly know the articles you read have no AI-generated images or text?

vouaobrasil 2y ago
> How can you possibly know the articles you read have no AI-generated images or text? I use a web of trust. I have a network of known writers who don't use AI. I avoid others...I mean, most articles on the internet are relatively useless anyway and just for entertainment so I don't really "need" those in my day to day life. The ones in my web of trust are enough for me,
debugnik 2y ago
So what if his criteria has false negatives? AI or not, ignoring noticeable slop will be a net positive.
- chrisjj 2y ago
  > So what if his criteria has false negatives? Then he unjustly undermines the livelyhood of human authors. The AIs will applaud him.
  - debugnik 2y ago
    If I'm reading your post correctly, I meant the opposite, he's still better off dismissing AI content even if some of it gets through. But even the case I think you suggest, dismissing some human works because they feel AI generated, won't undermine anyone's livelihood: All audiences dismiss works based simply on their tastes, and "feels like AI" is just a new distaste to account for, independently of AI being involved or not.
rpgwaiter 2y ago
Not OP, but it’s extremely easy to tell if an article uses AI images. Are there vague images padding the article for SEO purposes? If so, is there attribution to an artist? If they contain images and don’t attribute, I avoid the website. Either they use AI to make SEO bait, or they steal artwork. I’ll avoid in either case. AI text is much harder to detect, not sure of a good way to avoid it at the moment.
- chrisjj 2y ago
  > If they contain images and don’t attribute, I avoid the website. And if the images have AI-generated attributions?
- rafram 2y ago
  Lack of attribution doesn’t tell you anything. If they’re licensing their images from a stock photo site, attribution likely isn’t required.
  - rpgwaiter 2y ago
    Hadn’t thought about that, you make a good point. However in that case the author didn’t feel it necessary to explicitly say the image is not AI generated, which means they likely share very different views about AI artwork and I’ll probably avoid. Even without that caveat, if they feel it beneficial to pay for stock photos for an article I’m probably good giving it a pass. Most major stock media companies are buying fully into AI generation anyways, and I can’t think of too many cases where stock images really add anything to an article aside from adding to the page size by an order of magnitude.
    - rafram 2y ago
      Generally speaking, the human brain likes pretty pictures, and we're more likely to be engaged by an article if it has a pretty picture. Text-only sites don't draw as many eyeballs. Sad but true!
- gruez 2y ago
  >If so, is there attribution to an artist? If they contain images and don’t attribute, I avoid the website. Either they use AI to make SEO bait, or they steal artwork. I’ll avoid in either case. I'm not sure why you think every use of AI generated images is "SEO bait". I'm sure some (most?) are, but it's perfectly plausible a well written article uses AI art in place of a generic image off unsplash or whatever.
  - 2y ago

vouaobrasil 2y ago

> How can you possibly know the articles you read have no AI-generated images or text? I use a web of trust. I have a network of known writers who don't use AI. I avoid others...I mean, most articles on the internet are relatively useless anyway and just for entertainment so I don't really "need" those in my day to day life. The ones in my web of trust are enough for me,

debugnik 2y ago

So what if his criteria has false negatives? AI or not, ignoring noticeable slop will be a net positive.

chrisjj 2y ago
> So what if his criteria has false negatives? Then he unjustly undermines the livelyhood of human authors. The AIs will applaud him.
- debugnik 2y ago
  If I'm reading your post correctly, I meant the opposite, he's still better off dismissing AI content even if some of it gets through. But even the case I think you suggest, dismissing some human works because they feel AI generated, won't undermine anyone's livelihood: All audiences dismiss works based simply on their tastes, and "feels like AI" is just a new distaste to account for, independently of AI being involved or not.

rpgwaiter 2y ago

Not OP, but it’s extremely easy to tell if an article uses AI images. Are there vague images padding the article for SEO purposes? If so, is there attribution to an artist? If they contain images and don’t attribute, I avoid the website. Either they use AI to make SEO bait, or they steal artwork. I’ll avoid in either case. AI text is much harder to detect, not sure of a good way to avoid it at the moment.

chrisjj 2y ago
> If they contain images and don’t attribute, I avoid the website. And if the images have AI-generated attributions?
rafram 2y ago
Lack of attribution doesn’t tell you anything. If they’re licensing their images from a stock photo site, attribution likely isn’t required.
- rpgwaiter 2y ago
  Hadn’t thought about that, you make a good point. However in that case the author didn’t feel it necessary to explicitly say the image is not AI generated, which means they likely share very different views about AI artwork and I’ll probably avoid. Even without that caveat, if they feel it beneficial to pay for stock photos for an article I’m probably good giving it a pass. Most major stock media companies are buying fully into AI generation anyways, and I can’t think of too many cases where stock images really add anything to an article aside from adding to the page size by an order of magnitude.
  - rafram 2y ago
    Generally speaking, the human brain likes pretty pictures, and we're more likely to be engaged by an article if it has a pretty picture. Text-only sites don't draw as many eyeballs. Sad but true!
gruez 2y ago
>If so, is there attribution to an artist? If they contain images and don’t attribute, I avoid the website. Either they use AI to make SEO bait, or they steal artwork. I’ll avoid in either case. I'm not sure why you think every use of AI generated images is "SEO bait". I'm sure some (most?) are, but it's perfectly plausible a well written article uses AI art in place of a generic image off unsplash or whatever.
- 2y ago