12 ms·
Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated
- robsh 2y agoDDG/Bing had only one Ai image for my search of baby peafowl. Unfortunately the one AI image was from stock.adobe.com
- Doxin 2y agoSame here. Seems like DDG does better (but not perfect) at avoiding nonsense results than google in this case.
- gs17 2y agoMost egregious is the one copying the title from Snopes' "Video Genuinely Shows White 'Baby Peacock'?" (with the question mark cut off). A page all about how the picture isn't a real baby peacock. But also, if you search the more accurate term, "peachick", you seem to get 100% real images, although half the pages call them "baby peacocks".
- jsheard 2y agoAnd the first result is from Adobe Stock, who you might assume would have higher standards than Pinterest and TikTok, but here we are.
- h2odragon 2y agoactual baby peacocks are almost indistinguishable from guinea hatchlings and there's a strong resemblance to baby chickens or turkeys.
- morkalork 2y agoYou know that, but what about some kid looking on google images?
- MeetingsBrowser 2y agoI’m an adult and I didn’t know that
- viewtransform 2y agosearch "baby peacock before:2023" => doesn't have AI generated images
- readyplayernull 2y agoUntil Google breaks search syntax/tags again...
- candiddevmike 2y agoThe Internet equivalent of pre-war steel: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
- ravetcofx 2y agoAnd it's hard to fully trust any post 2021 text as well. It's pushing me to seek information from pre 2021 books for information.
- mostlysimilar 2y agoUntil the AI generated book is published and the AI generated websites all tell you it was published in 2014.
- waymon 2y agoWonder who will coin said term. Before AI. Pure clean internet 1991-2022
- pndy 2y agoYou sure about that "pure clean" part?
- xboxnolifes 2y agoPre-AI internet.
- BuyMyBitcoins 2y ago
- notamy 2y agoIf, like me, you don't have a Twitter account and want to see more than just the single post: https://xcancel.com/notengoprisa/status/1842550658102079556 https://xcancel.com/notengoprisa/status/1842550658102079556
- stebalien 2y agoAnd if you want to automatically get redirected to xcancel: https://einaregilsson.com/redirector/ https://einaregilsson.com/redirector/
- josefritzishere 2y agoAI is the ultimate enshittification.
- RodgerTheGreat 2y agoeverything terrible about SEO, but now exponentially cheaper and faster to excrete.
- CatWChainsaw 2y agoYou got downvoted because the people here can't handle the truth.
- giarc 2y agoI'm a part time maker and purchase a lot of designs off of Etsy to make into physical goods. I have to weed through so many AI images when purchasing designs off of Etsy now. I wish they required users to indicate if AI was used to produce the image so I could then filter them out.
- dawnerd 2y agoSame now when trying to find 3d models to print. It's just a whole bunch of hueforge ai spam.
- andrewmunsell 2y agoSellers are actually supposed to mark items as AI generated/assisted, where applicable: https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/09/etsy-new-seller-policy-2024-generative-ai/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/09/etsy-new-seller-policy-202... Whether they actually do this (and whether there's any incentive to do so), is obviously not a given
- wingworks 2y agoIt's currently optional for sellers, Etsy says "This info won’t change what buyers see for now, but will be used to improve the shopping experience in the future."
- ErikAugust 2y agoSomeone needs to invent a “for humans, by humans” web. Possibly a future luxury.
- rwmj 2y agoThe good news is that some AI company will invent this, to provide a source for their LLM.
- randomcatuser 2y agothis reminds me of the matrix
- Retr0id 2y agoIt's so hard to do this because the better you make it, the more valuable it is for someone to a) scrape it all b) try to insert fake content
- readyplayernull 2y agoA new sales point for Web3.
- t_mann 2y agoHow so?
- readyplayernull 2y agoThey would add whatever feature to Web3 in order to sell the idea, at this point it's the Alchemy of IT.
- timeon 2y agoActual Web3 at this point should be going offline.
- claudiulodro 2y agoHear me out: is that Wikipedia? I am sure people are submitting all sorts of AI-generated information, but it's probably getting rejected? (If someone better informed than me has any data one way or the other, I'm super curious)
- AStonesThrow 2y agoOr, consider using Wikimedia Commons, where images are painstakingly categorized, documented, and freely licensed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pavo_cristatus_(captive,_juvenile) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pavo_cristatus_(...
- BuyMyBitcoins 2y agoI’ve had a mild amount of success asking some nature photographers if they would be willing to make a few of their photos freely licensed so that they can be used on Wikipedia articles. Wikimedia is a fantastic resource.
- AStonesThrow 2y agoCreative Commons offers a portal if you wish to cast a wider net (music, video, 3D models) It also includes Google Images and Flickr. https://search.creativecommons.org/ https://search.creativecommons.org/ I found the peachicks on Commons by searching "peacock" and then following categories up the tree. If people use the wrong search engine with naïve search terms, I don't know what to tell ya. This is a parallel example of why reference librarians are still worth consulting, because they will guide you to the library's resources and databases, and demonstrate how to use search queries.
- dukeofdoom 2y agoI stopped using Google search...why even bother now. Results are just some crappy page with ads. Aastroturfed wikpedia page is also suspect. Chatgpt can answer questions in seconds. Just not sure if correct, but most of the time more than good enough. I feel like Google is destroying their credibility by day. Just go to zoo to see peacocks and take pictures. At least it will be an real experience not some virtual manipulation
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fwip 2y agoThe described problem is AI-slop in Google, and your solution is to drink directly from the spigot of ChatGPT?
- t_mann 2y agoI suppose the logic could be: if you're going to consume AI generated content anyway, why not use a setup where you have control over the system prompt and other parameters? Not sure if ChatGPT qualifies there, though.
- dukeofdoom 2y agoMy solution is to use the computer as little as possible. Go see the world to know what a peacock looks lie. Last time I've seen Peacocks was in Lisbon in St. George's castle, 4 years ago. The kind of questions I ask ChatGPT, are mostly code questions. Or for it to help me with planning something. I ask it questions, and it can provide some sort of logic behind the answer which I can then reason about. Sure it can mislead me, but it's more like an ongoing conversation I'm having with it. So its more like an opinion I'm getting, and I discount it. I'm generally a skeptical person. So I'm well aware of the manipulations that are happening online. Google is just a weaponized player in misinformation warefare at this point. It purposely will go out of its way to build consensus, for conflicts. Bunch of technocratic Billionaire overlords would get you to support genocide if it would benefit them. So I just don't trust google at this point for anything news related. And the rest of their content seems to be just a giant trap of spam pages.
- claudiulodro 2y agoGoogle is going to have to solve for this somehow if they want to remain relevant, right? If searching for an image and generating the image yield the same result, what's the point of image search any more?
- cflewis 2y agoWatermarking I think is supposed to be the goal, but I don’t think anyone can think that the web is in anything but managed decline. The AI feeding itself AI will just end it all. I think Platformer describes it best: https://www.platformer.news/google-io-ai-search-sundar-pichai/ https://www.platformer.news/google-io-ai-search-sundar-picha... The question is what comes next, and I don’t think anyone has an answer to that.
- RhodesianHunter 2y agoWell, and once this kills the web then Google's AI no longer has a data source its AI can tap to answer questions about anything that happens afterward, so it kind of needs the web to at least limp along.
- mrkramer 2y agoGoogle was for the Open Web since day 1 but their aggressive ad based business model kind of doomed the Open Web because a lot of people were also incentivized cause of Google to aggressively peruse ad revenue. I think the first degree of separation between websites should be which ones are commercial and which ones are non-commercial. Of course that doesn't mean that commercial websites are bad because essentially what you want is quality information and content but at least you know what you are getting into. E.g. if you are consuming content and information from non-commercial website you know that the owner of the website is not trying to sell you something via promoted content or via affiliate link or via something else. The main question is how do you support the Open Web? Is it ads, subscription, donations etc. Hobbyists are the champions of the Open Web because they produce quality information and content free of charge for the sake of helping people and because they love creating it.
- nelup20 2y agoOne of the replies mentions this uBlock Origin AI blocklist (haven't tried it myself): https://github.com/laylavish/uBlockOrigin-HUGE-AI-Blocklist https://github.com/laylavish/uBlockOrigin-HUGE-AI-Blocklist
- speedgoose 2y agoI think we should have an allow list approach at this point. Maybe a web directory of trustful websites.
- itsafarqueue 2y agoYeeha!
- latentsea 2y agoWe're about to go back to the directory style websites of the 90s!
- zamadatix 2y agoWell, on the "bright" side, all but 2 of the striked ones are either explicitly AI generated art (the 3 Adobe Stock ones, 2 from freepik, and the 1 from Instagram) or about noting the images aren't real (the 2 Snopes and the 1 in the bottom left calling out the feet). On the sad side the TikTok and YouTube ones that likely led to all of this aren't labeled and are present, not to mention the complete lack of "I want the AI things automatically filtered, I'm not interested in trends I'm searching for actual things right now" button. Without something like that it will become harder to use Google to find new content. I mean people obviously like the content, it's cute enough to get shared around so much to make itself popular in these images and to trigger the post on X about it. Nothing wrong with that... but if it's not easily filterable for what the user is actually trying to find then Google has somewhat failed at its goal.
- wenbin 2y agoIn the near future, a significant portion of YouTube videos and podcasts will likely be AI-generated (e.g., through tools like Notebook LM). However, I'm uncertain whether audiences will truly enjoy this AI-generated content. Personally, I prefer content created by humans—it feels more authentic and engaging to me. It’s crucial for AI tools to include robust detection mechanisms, such as reliable watermarks, to help other platforms identify AI-generated content. Unfortunately, current detection tools for AI-generated audio are still lacking - https://www.npr.org/2024/04/05/1241446778/deepfake-audio-detection https://www.npr.org/2024/04/05/1241446778/deepfake-audio-det... [Edit] We just put together a list of notebooklm generated "podcasts": https://github.com/ListenNotes/notebooklm-generated-fake-podcasts/blob/main/fake_podcasts.csv https://github.com/ListenNotes/notebooklm-generated-fake-pod... Consider whether you'd enjoy listening to AI-generated podcasts. I believe people might be okay with shows they create themselves, but are less likely to appreciate 'podcasts' ai-generated by others.
- Havoc 2y agoQuestion is how long till you can’t tell the difference
- sekh60 2y agoMy FAANG working spouse thinks that AIs and Robocallers should be mandated to identify themselves. She thinks a audible "Beep-boop" at the end of a sentence for calls and video would be appropriate.
- rootusrootus 2y agoI support that idea. Along with properly implemented authentication so you can't just spoof your way to someone's phone, and painfully stiff fines for violators.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoBarring that, every human could end sentences with a couple racial slurs to verify that they are not on AI
- Rugu16 2y agoFacebook is flooded with this! Fake photo of poor people asking for help and you see thousands of like and people commenting how they can help
- djhworld 2y agoA good chunk of those replying will be bots
- zero-g 2y agoWhat’s the idea? Why do they use bots to reply?
- oaththrowaway 2y agoTo make it look like it is has actual engagement
- sixothree 2y agoIf this is the beginning, where are we going to be in 2035? I just can't imagine it without being so wildly speculative.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y agoIt's not even the right terminology. I think you should probably use "peafowl". The search "peafowl chicks" seems to return all real images.
- theginger 2y agoI think this is kind of key to the issue, the good content is there if you know how to find it. But if you don't know the right terminology then you are going to search for baby peacock and get bad results.
- throwway120385 2y agoKind of like how the Internet worked pre-Google.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y agoWell, that makes me wonder if the search isn't flawed primarily because it is an image search. I try to stress to my children how important it is to prefer reading material over "watching material". And while these are stills (photographs seems inappropriate), the fact that because they are images the search can't possible help you to self-correct. Google has no opportunity to show you the correct terminology within the results, and you do not learn enough to then go out and find the images you were hoping for. I know there are exceptions. There are answers I've wanted that can be found within the first few minutes of the first video on Youtube, which I've gone days without discovering because I'm video-averse. But I suspect that the habit is, on average, more benefit than detriment.
- dakiol 2y agoWouldn't surprise me if in a few years Google, for certain keywords: - autogenerates URLs (tha look legit) - autogenerates content for such URLs (that look kinda legit) All of this would be possible if one is using Chrome (otherwise the fake URLs wouldn't lead to anywhere). Of course, full of ads. Think about it, some people are not really looking for some web site that talks about "baby peacocks". They are looking for baby peacocks: content, images, video. If Google can autogenerate good-enough content, then these kind of users would be satisfied (may not even notice the difference). Maybe Google ditches the URL and all: type keywords, and get content (with ads)!
- onemoresoop 2y agoYou're giving them ideas.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y agoLike a search engine?
- dakiol 2y agoLike a "generate engine".
- Crosseye_Jack 2y ago> would be possible if one is using Chrome (otherwise the fake URLs wouldn't lead to anywhere). Didn't they do something like that with AMP. I recall that if you were using chrome and visited an AMP site from Google the address bar would say site.com even though the content was being served from google.com.
- timetraveller26 2y agoat least an ai://baby-peacocks/images would be honest
- anal_reactor 2y agoThis sounds plausible actually
- 2y ago
- mg 2y agoWell, nearly all of the Google Images results for "Woman" show a woman with makeup and additionally the photos were altered via Photoshop. We have been creating our own reality even before AI.
- the_gorilla 2y agoIs this a joke? Right, women wear makeup, might as well AI generate every image we look for.
- jachee 2y agoCreating a version of reality is significantly different from conjuring abject falsehoods. There is an objective reality for what (e.g.) a baby peacock should look like, and this AI slop is inherently misleading about that.
- Nathanba 2y agoHis comparison isn't totally off. At some point our global perception of a certain subject might be totally different from what it is in reality just because all images about X are the optimal, AI improved, photoshopped version. This is in fact what women mean when they say that beauty standards are becoming unrealistic: Quite literally the standard image of women is being altered. Kind of similar to how the standard image of a baby peacock is being altered.
- noemit 2y agothe incel to HN pipeline is now complete
- John_Cena 2y agothat's not appropriate here
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2y ago
- duxup 2y agoI was searching google images for "cat professor" recently. Same, as far as I could tell all AI garbage with weird saturation and colors and uncanny valley .... they look weird / didn't work for me.
- bongodongobob 2y ago... Did you want a picture of a real cat professor?
- duxup 2y agoI was hoping for a picture of a real cat. There's a different look that real photos have. The AI photos all look like computer polished weirdness.
- bongodongobob 2y agoSo generate your own.
- duxup 2y agoI do not have the required animal.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y agoAlmost all of the "product X vs Y" results are AI ramblings now. This growth of the dead Internet is making me want to sign up for Kagi. We're going to need a certification for human generated content at some point.
- rightbyte 2y ago> This growth of the dead internet It is quite surreal to witness. It is certainly fueled by the commercialization of internet due to ads and centralization to user hostile platforms. The old internet seems to be doing much better. But it lost most of its users in the last 15 years...
- chongli 2y agoThe old internet seems to be doing much better. But it lost most of its users in the last 15 years.. What do you mean by this? How do you find the old internet?
- dumbmrblah 2y agoSomething Awful is a good example. Other forums behind paywalls or ones that are invite only.
- AlexandrB 2y agoEven non-paywalled forums are pretty good compared to the "open" internet.
- rightbyte 2y agoYou don't find them easely. That is the point I guess. But I am not reffering to some obscure darkweb here. Many of e.g. the old niche forums still exist. Like, FOSS sites. GNU project sites seemed not to have aged a day in 20 years, i.e. still party like its 2004. Also, I think non English sites are better off since Reddit mainly ate English communities and sites. Facebook is probably what killed most of the living internet. Small community sites. Like the local Kennel club or Boat marina. A good example of the old internet would be Matthew's Volvo site: https://www.matthewsvolvosite.com/forums/search.php?search_id=active_topics https://www.matthewsvolvosite.com/forums/search.php?search_i...
- oniony 2y agoI noticed recently when searching for images of cities that they're nearly all over-the-top unrealistic HDR images, beyond what you used to find in an travel agent's catalogue.
- alkonaut 2y agoMake a search engine that doesn’t have AI result except when I specifically ask for it, or you soon won’t have a search engine business. A really quick fix is to search with “-ai” and that Google doesn’t do this implicitly for images is really strange.
- headsupernova 2y agoHow do you expect them to implement that?
- alkonaut 2y agoWell so far it works to just add ”-ai” so it feels like a pretty easy addition
- zendaven 2y agoThe hard part is identifying what's AI generated and what's not.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dudus 2y agoAI is not a "species" in any sense of the word.
- whalesalad 2y agoDrives me nuts. The internet is dead. I just bought a home and I have been googling the best way to tackle certain home improvement projects - like how to prepare trim for painting. Virtually every result is some kind of content farm of AI-generated bullshit with advertising between every paragraph, an autoplay video (completely unrelated) that scrolls with the page, a modal popup asking me to accept cookies, a second rapid-fire modal popup asking me to join the newsletter to "become a friend" For better or worse, Reddit is really the only place to go find legitimate information anymore.
- throwway120385 2y agoYeah, I've had this experience as well. I'll have to go 4 or 5 pages deep in the results to get to a forum thread someone wrote in 2005 referencing a product that doesn't exist anymore plus a bunch of advice that's mostly still applicable.
- throwgfgfd25 2y ago> For better or worse, Reddit is really the only place to go find legitimate information anymore. This is frightening and, I fear, true. But I'd also add one odd little counterpoint: some of the most useful discussions and learning experiences I've had in the last four years have happened in private Facebook groups. As soon as the incentive to build a following using growth-hacking and AI -- which private groups mitigate to a greater extent -- is taken away, you get back to the helpful stuff. The FreeCAD group on Facebook is great, for example. And there are private photography groups, 3D printing groups, music groups etc., where people have an incentive to be authentic. Public Facebook feeds are drowning in AI slop. But people who manage their own groups are keeping the spirit alive. It's almost at the point where I think Facebook will ultimately morph into a paid groups platform.
- thiht 2y agoFor this kind of search, YouTube and TikTok (yes, TikTok) are your best bet. Videos are not (completely) flooded by AI (yet) and you can find pretty much anything about manual work. I prefer text content to videos by a long shot, but genuine, human text content is almost dead. Reddit might be one of the rare exceptions for now. There are also random, still active, old school forums for lots of things but they tend to become extremely hard to find.
- plinnie 2y agoIt sounds a bit unfair to use content from a site without crediting the source in an obvious way. I'm sure this shameless content hijacking can't continue as in the end there will not be any source to query. Robots.txt should allow meta-tags like block 'all AI' bots (or these AI companies should pay their sources).
- lexicality 2y agoI've started thinking more and more about a short throwaway conversation in Anathem about how the internet in their world is absolutely ruined by AI and the only solution they have left is a user driven reputation system for entities and how one of the characters just earned a lot of "reputons" for recording an event. Mostly I think about how something like that is going to be signed into law by some state and it'll require everything you do to be linked to your government issued ID card so they can "prove" you're not spreading AI misinformation and all the horrendous unintended side effects that will spread from there.
- isoprophlex 2y ago"Anyone can post information on any topic. The vast majority of what's on the Reticulum is, therefore, crap. It has to be filtered. The filtering systems are ancient. My people have been improving them, and their interfaces, since the time of the Reconstitution." ... "Asynchronous, symmetrically anonymized, moderated open-cry repute auction. Don't even bother trying to parse that. The acronym is pre-Reconstitution. There hasn't been a true asamocra for 3600 years. Instead we do other things that serve the same purpose and we call them by the old name. In most cases, it takes a few days for a provably irreversible phase transition to occur in the reputon glass - never mind - and another day after that to make sure you aren't just being spoofed by ephemeral stochastic nucleation." Fantastic book. I read it twice so far, highly recommended. So many little off-handed conceptual gems everywhere.
- CatWChainsaw 2y agoLuckily, Altman already has Worldcoin revved up and ready to go! Isn't that convenient?!
- throwgfgfd25 2y agoI wonder: do all the HNers who are excited about their GenAI product or wrapper or startup understand, at a fundamental level, that they are an intrinsic part of this deterioration? Or is this one of those fundamental attribution error things: - MY product is a powerful tool for creators who wish to save time - THEIR product is just a poorly-though-out slop generator Does it occur to people to instead be part of something real and visceral, and not just blame social media's ad-driven impression model, not pretend they are only part of a trend for which they can't be totally blamed?
- elliotec 2y agoThey want money, they’re riding the hype wave, not advancing anything and I’m sure most or all know it.
- doctorpangloss 2y agoSure but doesn't every technological development have these tradeoffs? You could say what you say about anyone at any time. Where do you draw the line? I guarantee you'll be guilty of the exact same thing. I don't want to generalize, but IMO this sentiment of yours, I hear most loudly from software engineers far removed from ordinary non-technical end users: is making beautiful new LISPs and CNIs and Python package auditing tools the only valid work with seemingly no tradeoffs?
- 2y ago
- jeffbee 2y agoIf you use the applicable phrase "peacock chick" or "peacock hatchling" then the results are better. Garbage in and all that.
- macinjosh 2y ago"peacock chick" has many more real images than AI
- bparsons 2y agoI am reminded of the decline of MySpace. It was just thousands of bots posing as users, posting ads on people's pages for e-books, pharmaceuticals etc. The bots remained talking to each other long after the last humans left.
- booleandilemma 2y agoIt seems like the image results for "baby peacock" are returning articles talking about AI-generated photos of baby peacocks due to some recent trend involving an AI-generated baby peacock image. Have people tried searching for other animals? Maybe this isn't a case of Google being inundated with AI-generated photos, but just something to do with the results for this particular phrase.
- belval 2y agoI have a hard time explaining why, perhaps because I did not know what a baby peacock looks like, but this somehow really drove home the "dark side of AI" for me. I have gotten used to trusting search results somewhat. Sure there would be oddball results and nearly non-sensical ones, but they would be scarce through a sea of relevant images. Now with this, I would be blind to the things I don't know and as someone who grew up it with Google "just being there", it truly scares me.
- steelframe 2y agoI'm at a juncture in my career where I'm asking what could really motivate me to do anything that I really feel is worth doing in tech. In my earlier years I remember using both CompuServe and Prodigy. I'm not sure if it just hindsight colored by nostalgia, but I yern for the feeling I had as a young teenager when I could explore a quirky and curated world of information. I'm starting to think that all this AI stuff has finally pushed the ads-based Internet past its tipping point. I feel I could be motivated to work on a walled garden with moderation paid for by subscription fees. What would it be worth to you to have an entirely new online experience free of all the enshittification of the past 15 years? Personally, I pay for Kagi just to have a small taste of what that could be like. But what if not just the search engine, but also all the sites be funded entirely by a subscription fee paid to the service profider? What if privacy could be a foremost feature of that world? What if advertising and astroturfing were strictly forbidden, and human authors would have to be vetted by other humans to be allowed a place in this world? "This content is Certified ads- and AI-Free(tm)." I really don't know how well something like that would turn out in 2024, but I feel I wouldn't be alone in wanting to give it a try.
- throwway120385 2y agoWe could also have a public library but for the Internet. A list of sites and articles curated and maintained by librarians and experts and paid for by local taxes.
- Metricon 2y agoThere are a number of ways this might get solved, but I would speculate that it will generally be solved by adding image metadata that is signed by a certificate authority similar to the way SSL certificates are assigned to domains. I think eventually all digital cameras and image scanners will securely hash and sign images just as forensic cameras do to certify that an image was "captured" instead of generated. Of course this leaves a grey area for image editing applications such as Photoshop, so there may also need to be some other level of certificate base signing introduced there as well.
- worik 2y agoIs this showing the world your search bubble?
- limaoscarjuliet 2y agoA lot of comments amount to: "Internet is dead". AI is crap for sure but far from making Internet dead or useless. Consider: - emails, - bills and payments, - banking, - searching for and buying stuff (assuming you already know what you want that is), - calls/chats - whatsapp, messenger, etc. - youtube (for learning), - social stuff - however bad. AI? This shall pass too. Internet will find its way.
- idunnoman1222 2y agoIf you Google meat Cove it’s presented as a “human settlement” in Nova Scotia I predict the word meat fucked with the AI
- t0bia_s 2y ago[flagged]
- vunderba 2y agoAfter Google continued to make it progressively more difficult to use their Image search to navigate/download to the actual image I wrote an image search tool that could be hot keyed from your OS to search the google image repository and copy to clipboard in a fast manner using a custom Google Search Engine id. About a year back I found that 90% of the results I was getting were AI generated, so I added a flag "No AI" which basically acts as a quick and dirty filter by limiting results to pre-2022. It's not perfect but it works as a stopgap measure. https://github.com/scpedicini/truman-show https://github.com/scpedicini/truman-show
- carabiner 2y agoOpenAI must be destroyed!
- inerte 2y agoEver since Sora I've been thinking about the overall death of the internet "content". It all came back stronger with Meta Movie Gen. I know there are no girls on the internet, but this AI crap is on another level. Even if find a trustworthy creator, I might be seeing a fake video of them. Say I like MKBHD reviews, I will need to pay attention if I am really watching his video on his official channel. My guard will have to be up so much, all the time, I actually don't think it will even be healthy to "consume content" anymore. Why live a life where almost everything I see can be a lie? Makes me not want to use any of this anymore.
- einsteinx2 2y ago> My guard will have to be up so much, all the time, I actually don't think it will even be healthy to "consume content" anymore. Why live a life where almost everything I see can be a lie? Makes me not want to use any of this anymore. While I generally agree with your whole comment, I feel like this part has been true for years on social media well before AI generated content hit the scene.
- inerte 2y agoTrue, and we can go back to any type of media who always have a bias, but overall it just feels different. On one hand, humans writing and humans communicating, even if they have an agenda, is one thing. On the other hand, machines writing and machines communicating is a different level. Maybe I am overall in a bad mood regarding all this, but this recent article https://time.com/7026050/chatgpt-quit-teaching-ai-essay/ https://time.com/7026050/chatgpt-quit-teaching-ai-essay/ also struck a chord. Do I really wanna spend my time reading/watching machines talking to each other? How long until browsing Reddit or HN will be worthless? Do I wanna get old with lower cognitive abilities and become this? https://slate.com/advice/2024/10/grandparents-misinformation-ai-youtube-election-jd-vance.html https://slate.com/advice/2024/10/grandparents-misinformation...
- einsteinx2 2y agoYeah that's a good point. It's not so much that it was already happening before, but it's the shear quantity of it. People have been doctoring images for political gain for forever, but that at least took some photoshop skills. Now anyone can just pop out thousands of misinformation photos, articles, and even now videos in a few hours.
- k__ 2y agoThe internet needs strong provenance to ensure content is created by trusted parties. It has to be done in a decentralised way to ensure no enterprise controls who is trusted and who isn't.
- starluz 2y ago[dead]
- pvaldes 2y agoUh?, this seems totally normal, a few clear AI images here and there but all those seem legi... And then I remembered that I was on duckduckgo.
- latentsea 2y agoThis phenomenon is also heavily starting to affect NSFW images too. It is awful.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoThe return of Britannica hard copies?
- renegat0x0 2y agoThis might not be insightful, but I think we need to adapt. Search and Internet is dead. It will be. There is no going back with AI. We must to learn how to deal with. You too should rethink how to approach the Internet, how to surf it. If search is dead, are there any solutions to it? I use more RSS source now, because this is human created content. I navigate more to "word of mouth".
- steve_adams_86 2y agoThis phenomenon has been such a spur of motivation to start writing again. I love it. The only way we can make sure the internet retains any goodness is by contributing good things to it. Passive consumption will rapidly turn into sub-mediocre drudgery. I suppose it already has. Be the change you want to see, I guess. I’m a shitty writer, but at least I can beat the dissonant, bland, formulaic rambling of ChatGPT (here’s hoping, anyway). I’m optimistic that a lot of us can keep something good going. We'll find ways to keep pockets of internet worth visiting, just like we did before search engines worked well.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- woolion 2y agoSo, I was drawing an eagle for a new imprint, and I needed a reference for good looking claws. So I used my Google Images search shortcut to get pictures of eagles, and it was almost all AI. If you ask yourself the question, eagle claws suffer from the same problem that human hands go through with AI, so it's completely useless. Yandex images search is flawless though.
- euw3101 2y agoStam Eteg3329gu
- poopiokaka 2y agoThis is from 2023
- walterbell 2y agoSpam (created by humans) evolves. So do humans. If Google prioritizes AI slop, Google will be deprioritized.
- mrinfinitiesx 2y agoAlready is. I suggest everybody else de-google as well.
- lostlogin 2y agoJust tested on Kagi, and it’s catching a similar set of images. I massively rate Kagi, but this is way less than ideal.
- throwup238 2y agoI just did it on Kagi and except for the obvious stock.adobe.com ones, all of the AI generated images were from snopes and media sites repeating this story, but I have quite a few sites blocked (pinterest is definitely nuked)
- jackyinger 2y agoWould you care to share what you do instead? For search in particular, the g-suite, etc. are not such a big deal. I'm really hoping for something other than use duck duck go / bing / etc. because AFAIK they all serve advertisement funded trash and I've yet to hear a really compelling alternative, tho I've been too lazy/busy to try Kagi.
- echelon 2y agoWe need a slim p2p social network swarm protocol. If we could subscribe and suggest content along our interest graphs, we would control the algorithm and could prune slop with ease. It'd be incredibly awesome if news, forums, and social media worked like BitTorrent.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
- happytoexplain 2y agoIt's not just images. I frequently get genAI word salad in the top three to five results when I google anything that could be considered a common question. You don't even realize at first when you start reading. Then it makes you start to question the things that aren't obviously genAI. You can sort of tell the kinds of things that a human might be wrong about, the ways in which they're wrong, how they sound when they're wrong, how likely they are to be wrong, the formats and platforms wrongness exists within, how often they are wrong and how other humans respond to that. AI is a different beast. No intuition or experience can tell you when reasonable-sounding AI is wrong. Our entire framework of unconscious heuristics for ranking the quality of communicated information being rendered useless overnight may be a recipe for insanity and misery. Virtually nothing has made me this genuinely sad about technology in all my life.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y agoNot to steal your thunder but loss of privacy still makes me much sadder
- Gigachad 2y agoTbh I think this is just it for the public internet. It's not Google that's failing, it's the substance of the public internet that has failed. Whenever I need help or questions answered on something, I don't google it, I don't post on public forums, I ask on private group chats where I know everyone is a real person, no one is making money, no one is copy pasting chatgpt to collect internet points to sell their account later. There is only one way I can see things changing and people aren't going to like it. All content on the internet gets linked to a legal ID. Every post on facebook, every comment can be attributed to a real person.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago> All content on the internet gets linked to a legal ID Identity theft would go through the roof.
- loveparade 2y agoI don't think the heuristics are that different. SEO-spam and BS content existed before, and both Google and YT were full of them, all made by human "content creators" who optimized for clicks and focused on gaming the YT recommendation system. AI content isn't that different. But unfortunately it's now 100x easier to generate such content, so we see a lot more of it. The problem is fundamentally a problem of incentives and the ad-based business model, not a problem of AI. AI has made the enshittification problem a lot more visible, but it existed before. I don't know what the solution here is. My guess is that the "public internet" will become less and less relevant over time as it becomes overrun by low-quality content, and a lot of communication will move to smaller communities that rely heavily verifying human identity and credentials.
- ivanjermakov 2y agoIt's is more about Google search than it is about the internet. There was a period in the past when human spam was a problem that was not trivial to solve. As always, modern problems require modern solutions.
- Analemma_ 2y agoI don’t think “better spam detection technology” can help out of this even in theory. The whole point of LLMs is that, by construction, they produce content which is statistically indistinguishable from human text. Almost by definition, any statistical test to distinguish LLM text from human text could be turned around to make better LLMs.
- kirubakaran 2y agoSo statistical test won't work, and we need something else
- fpoling 2y agoThe most effective spam filtering is done not by content but by various white and black lists of providers. Essentially it is a trust score which is a very old solution to a lot of problems.
- silisili 2y agoFitting that this is a copy paste submission taken from another source (linked in dupe comments), likely by a bot based on post history. The computers are turning on each other.
- davesmylie 2y agoWe can only hope they consume each other in some kind of survival-of-the-fittest type scenario, and when all is said and done, we can turn the last one off and set the clock back to 2015 and try again.
- juunpp 2y ago2015 is peak humanity for you or something? We had good EDM back then, but that's pretty much it.
- 23B1 2y agoHumans: "Hey this is bad" Tech: "Gosh we better tune our algos so these images are even MORE indistinguishable from the real thing" Evidently the road to hell is paved with novelty image generators.
- stonethrowaway 2y agoIn the near future, certain talking points we wish to discuss won’t be allowed by the downvote/flagging mafia, so we’ll link to Reddit instead while proclaiming how HN is so much better than those plebs over there.
- paul7986 2y agoAll AI image and video generators must be forced to add metadata and watermarks and all uploading technology (browsers, iphone & Android SDKs, etc and websites, apps, etc) need to publish/label AI Generated or not. Then search engines worth their salt can filter out the AI crap and boom we are back to how the Internet was or if you want to see the fake crap change the filter.
- smt88 2y ago> All AI image and video generators must be forced to add metadata and watermarks and all uploading technology This is already impossible because it's impossible to enforce. You can't stop something running on a random laptop, and you can't stop models running on server farms in, say, North Korea.
- paul7986 2y agoThose for profit can be forced to add watermarks/metadata and uploading tech (Google Chrome, Apple, Google Android, Firefox all what the public uses now) can be forced too. If it cant verify the source it could label it suspect :-). Just thinking here ... you got any other ideas or we are just going to let the Internet die by the hands of AI as Neil DeGrasse Tyson predicts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAuDmBYwLq4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAuDmBYwLq4 or you just gonna downvote someone who tries to come up with solutions.
- anigbrowl 2y agoMight be simpler to have uploads/indexing requires metadata to not be categorized as trash.
- paul7986 2y agoyeah that's a good idea :)
- jeffbee 2y agoA "baby peacock" is not a thing, so I honestly don't see the search quality issue here. The text "baby peacock" is associated with these fabricated images.
- happytoexplain 2y agoThere's no practicality to being so pedantic.
- jeffbee 2y agoHave you ever encountered the extremely large contingent of HN commenters who claim to prefer that Google interpret their search literally, exactly, and at face value? Wouldn't they be howling mad if Google silently adjusted the core concept of your search from "baby peacock" to "peafowl chick"? In any case the web and Google's index of it is crowdsourced. If the web associates this image and that phrase, what are they supposed to do about it?
- emmelaich 2y agoThere is though; if unusual word combinations are correlated with AI imagery.
- readthenotes1 2y agoBaby male peafowls don't exist?
- 0x1ceb00da 2y agoThey're called peachicks.
- nozzlegear 2y agoBut if I told someone that I had baby peacocks on my farm, they wouldn't look at me bewildered and wonder what kind of animal I'm talking about. If they know what a peacock is, then they know what a baby peacock is, whether I'm using the correct word or not. The same is true if I say "baby cow" instead of calf, or "baby horse" instead of foal. You and I can picture exactly what those animals look like in our heads, and it seems AI can too.
- lsy 2y agoThis was probably always the likely outcome of an internet economy that revolves around the production and monetization of "content". We started by putting advertisements on existing content, then moved to social networking and social media, which was essentially an engine for crowdsourcing the production of greater amounts of content against which to show advertisements. Because money is up for grabs, producing content is now a significant business, and as such, technology is meeting the demand with a way to produce content that is cheaper than the money it can make. The problem of moderating undesirable human-generated content was already starting to intrude into this business model, but now generative tools are also producing undesirable content faster than moderation can keep up. And at some point of saturation, people will become disinterested, and tools which could previously use algorithmic heuristics to determine which content is good vs bad will begin to become useless. The only way out I can see is something along the lines of human curation of human-generated content. But I'm not sure there is a business model there at the scale the industry demands.
- spaceribs 2y agoThere isn't, because human trust can barely scale past 100 people, much less the entire internet. I think humans will recede into the tribes we were always built to understand and be a part of. Private group chats are far more popular and ubiquitous than we give them credit for, and I only see that accelerating in this climate.
- notyourwork 2y agoPrivate chats which effectively become echo chambers further dividing an already divided society is what I foresee.
- grugagag 2y agoAt some level there is always a private mode. Think family and friends. Do you not have any issue with everything being public? I think the parent suggests we’re not made for very large groups and I kind of agree. I can’t name 100 people I know or known in my life. Maybe I can (barely) but with great effort.
- snovymgodym 2y agoIt's over. Time to turn of the computer and touch grass.
- ratedgene 2y agoThis is why Google took down its cached results. It's going to horde pre-LLM internet data. Perhaps sell it but I doubt it. Our best bet is to have scraped all that data, and give you a temporal parameter to search, like: +"Sponge bob" year:2012
- joshdavham 2y agoI'm actually a bit excited by this problem, believe it or not. Like what solutions are we gonna come up with to solve it? Is the human side of the internet (however we create it) going to become more pure? Perhaps in discovering ways to avoid low quality AI content, we'll also find ways to escape from destructive recommender systems and monetized advertisements as well. Strange as it sounds, solving this problem could lead us to a much brighter future!
- grugagag 2y agoA handful will take this path. The big herd will not.
- dclowd9901 2y agoWould you be as excited if there were no viable solutions?
- anigbrowl 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis (also noteworthy for the 'Publication' section near the bottom)
- Arubis 2y agoI’m mostly deGoogled, and this trend has been pretty minor for me.
- m3kw9 2y agoImages were already pretty devalued because of how good phone cameras are and how every person has one. Now it will just give it a little more kick
- zanethomas 2y agoThe web became trashed over a decade ago.
- kazinator 2y agoSurely a big ingredient of this problem is: Google Results == Internet.
- potatoicecoffee 2y agowhy are image results mostly coming from recent uploads? if i search for cool frogs its super likely the best photo came from 1982 and thats what i want to see
- tokioyoyo 2y agoA bit tangential, but it's interesting to see comments like "we should start hosting our own websites". We were discussing it with my friends, and it seems like there was a significant changes to what is considered as "cool" in terms of social validation. I understand that I'm dumbing it down right now, but it's not just AI that contributes to it. It's definitely accelerating this feeling though. In early 2010s when Instagram, Twitter, Facebook started getting big, all the websites and apps had this process of discovery that you had to go through to make it fun for yourself. It obviously turned some people off of it, and made the onboarding a bit harder, but you needed to follow some people, send some friend requests, and in the end you would mostly see things you've actively wanted to see. Even when the algorithms started sorting the timelines, it would still be (mostly) within the things you've chosen to see. Even Youtube's recommendation algorithm was pretty simple, and it would suggest extremely similar videos. I think it changed around 2016, when the algorithms started trying to determine what you like, based on your interaction with other things, rather than your explicit action of saying "i want stuff from this person/channel/etc.". I'm sure a significant chunk of us have worked on similar algorithms, so you get the gist of it. But this change resulted in users getting attention from the global audience (because in order for algo to detect what you like, it has to throw in suggestions from everywhere). I get that forums have existed for decades, and people were getting Reddit karma since 2000s, but it was still more deliberate action when you wanted to see something. TikTok, YouTube and Instagram changed the entire playing field in the last 6 years or so, where your real life "social score" didn't have to be depend on whom you know in real world for anyone. It translates into - you can generate posts, content, whatever you wanna call it, for everyone rather than actively getting someone's attention. Like, going viral on YouTube was a big thing at some point. There's some ongoing meme-like comments saying "you would be invited to Ellen's show in 2010", which is kinda true because breaking out of the "only seen by people whom you know" box was extremely rare. Well, now, everyone, technically has a chance, which incentivizes people to constantly push out content. It doesn't matter, if you're doing it for just social media clout, or financial motives, and etc. It's just possible for something to go "big", albeit for minuscule benefits from it. So there's constant churn of... content. And now AI is just making it even simpler to create such content. But again, resulting in even further decrease of social importance of such pictures/videos/texts. I understand there's always a group of people that "write/create/paint for themselves", which I understand. I'm on a similar boat. But the if majority of creators have different incentives, the platforms will cater for them. And in this case, platform is the whole Internet, and incentives are "financial, and seeking global attention". Right now, it takes about a minute to create a video and post it on any of the websites, which was basically impossible back in the day. That barrier of entry, combined with one's deliberate discovery what, I think, was making the internet look more fun. I'm not touching the subject of ad-infestation in every corner, and it definitely accelerated the downward spiral of average quality of content. But in the end, I blame ourselves for choosing this path, because we could've put pressure on global-algorithms of YouTube, TikTok, and etc. We chose to not to do so, because, well, it still gives us dopamine hits.
- edg5000 2y agoYandex and Bing don't seem to have this problem as much as Google does.
- fsckboy 2y agowho ever searched for baby peacock? in this searchspace, is peacock distinguished from peahen? because peaweewee is potentially not as interesting a search as peacock, and I'm referring to the tail as the romance languages refer to it.
- ropable 2y agoThe irony of Google's core value proposition (search) being rendered useless by a technology that Google is investing heavily into (AI). It's a self-licking icecream cone of suckage.
- husamia 2y agothe "business model" is going to be created soon, it will be doable with bitcoin. the problem is that we have to redefine what quality means.
- squigz 2y agoHonestly the amount of "The Internet is dead!!1!" comments in this thread is more depressing than TFA.
- garfieldnate 2y agoI don't know why, but AI-generated images have a very particular look; here I pick up on a certain bokeh blurring and huge, shiny eyes. The peacock actually reminds me of the AI girl that always gets generated: a sort of Asian Amanda Seyfried with unnaturally huge Alita-like eyes.
- NikkiA 2y agoSearched for 'peacock chick' and got 100% genuine images. Searching for 'baby dog' would probably get you garbage images too. (it does)
- rurban 2y agoNot on duckduckgo
- NautilusWave 2y agoGiven the query, "baby peacock", doesn't describe something that actually exists, what results is Google expected to return? Actual baby peafowl? Cartoons of peacocks with "baby" proportions? Should they be consistent with the results for a similarly fanciful query like "baby rooster"?
- silexia 2y agoDang - what protections does HN use for AI generated comment garbage similar to this baby peacock issue?