4 ms·

First off, I'm with you on the "don't try to pass off AI imagery as real"... But.. OP never claimed these images were real in their post.. Since there are no

by sbarre 1y ago

First off, I'm with you on the "don't try to pass off AI imagery as real"... But.. OP never claimed these images were real in their post.. Since there are no giant beavers in the world today, we could have assumed they were AI generated? This could have been an illustration or a 3D render instead.. Isn't AI image generation just another form of visualization, like those?

ceejayoz 1y ago
> Since there are no giant beavers in the world today, we could have assumed they were AI generated? Both depict what are clearly supposed to be museum exhibits. Those exist: https://www.bellmuseum.umn.edu/blog/meet-the-giant-beaver/ https://www.bellmuseum.umn.edu/blog/meet-the-giant-beaver/ The problem is not that people will think they still exist in the wild today. The problem is one can't trust the "size reference" an AI made up out of whole cloth.
- sbarre 1y ago
  Again I'm not asserting the validity of the image. Are we expecting everyone to say "this was AI created" on every image that is AI created? We don't expect this from 3D rendering, Photoshop edits, etc..
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > Are we expecting everyone to say "this was AI created" on every image that is AI created? Yes. The New York Times, for example, would say something at least like "photo-illustration by <so and so>" or "artist's depiction". It's not just the provenance here, though, that is upsetting. It's this bit that puts it well over the line: > with human for size reference Which implies the graphic is accurate and to scale enough to be used as a "reference". It is not. The human is weirdly proportioned; the beavers have different (amounts and styles) teeth; the AI comes with no scientific understanding of the real creature. It's a guess, based on a prompt unknown to us.
    - sbarre 1y ago
      I hate to break it to you but some random Internet forum like HN is not the New York Times. I think it's ridiculous to expect to hold everyone to the same standards as a globally renowned newspaper that is in the business of trying to authoritatively report the truth and where its existence relies on its credibility (let's leave aside how good/bad they are at it for now). But that's not what happened here, someone just posted AI-generated images to give people a visual interpretation. There was no attempt at science or at credibility or authority here. They could have just drawn those images with a pencil, or MS Paint, instead. > Which implies the graphic is accurate and to scale enough to be used as a "reference". It is not. No, you are implying this. You are bringing your own interpretation here. "Human for reference" is just a thing people do to give a sense of scale, it's common in all kinds of imagery. At this point you're nitpicking and splitting hairs to remain upset/offended. AI imagery is just another kind of visualization, another kind of illustration or artist's rendering to help people imagine a thing alongside words, it's just using different tools.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > You are bringing your own interpretation here. Yeah, that's how/why implying things works. Darkly whispering "Bob is always hanging out with underage girls and buying them expensive gifts" implies a conclusion. It is intended to cause you to "bring your own interpretation". "Human for reference" heavily implies it should be considered a useful reference. There's no point to it otherwise! Nah. I'll keep flagging undisclosed low-value AI posts like this. It appears others agree.
        sbarre 1y ago
        I feel like we're having 2 different conversations here. I never said you should not feel what you feel about AI imagery. "Human for reference" is about scale. There's nothing about "human for reference" that implies any kind of authority or accuracy in the content. If I put a human in my image standing next to an imaginary creature, or a sci-fi spaceship, or a building I rendered in Blender, am I implying that those things are in fact real? I am not (although you may choose to assume I am). I am providing a reference for scale with something that everyone will recognize. Look, I accept your aversion to AI imagery. I certainly don't understand it, but I don't need to understand to accept, so all good.

by sbarre 1y ago

ceejayoz 1y ago

> Since there are no giant beavers in the world today, we could have assumed they were AI generated? Both depict what are clearly supposed to be museum exhibits. Those exist: https://www.bellmuseum.umn.edu/blog/meet-the-giant-beaver/ https://www.bellmuseum.umn.edu/blog/meet-the-giant-beaver/ The problem is not that people will think they still exist in the wild today. The problem is one can't trust the "size reference" an AI made up out of whole cloth.

sbarre 1y ago
Again I'm not asserting the validity of the image. Are we expecting everyone to say "this was AI created" on every image that is AI created? We don't expect this from 3D rendering, Photoshop edits, etc..
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > Are we expecting everyone to say "this was AI created" on every image that is AI created? Yes. The New York Times, for example, would say something at least like "photo-illustration by <so and so>" or "artist's depiction". It's not just the provenance here, though, that is upsetting. It's this bit that puts it well over the line: > with human for size reference Which implies the graphic is accurate and to scale enough to be used as a "reference". It is not. The human is weirdly proportioned; the beavers have different (amounts and styles) teeth; the AI comes with no scientific understanding of the real creature. It's a guess, based on a prompt unknown to us.
  - sbarre 1y ago
    I hate to break it to you but some random Internet forum like HN is not the New York Times. I think it's ridiculous to expect to hold everyone to the same standards as a globally renowned newspaper that is in the business of trying to authoritatively report the truth and where its existence relies on its credibility (let's leave aside how good/bad they are at it for now). But that's not what happened here, someone just posted AI-generated images to give people a visual interpretation. There was no attempt at science or at credibility or authority here. They could have just drawn those images with a pencil, or MS Paint, instead. > Which implies the graphic is accurate and to scale enough to be used as a "reference". It is not. No, you are implying this. You are bringing your own interpretation here. "Human for reference" is just a thing people do to give a sense of scale, it's common in all kinds of imagery. At this point you're nitpicking and splitting hairs to remain upset/offended. AI imagery is just another kind of visualization, another kind of illustration or artist's rendering to help people imagine a thing alongside words, it's just using different tools.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > You are bringing your own interpretation here. Yeah, that's how/why implying things works. Darkly whispering "Bob is always hanging out with underage girls and buying them expensive gifts" implies a conclusion. It is intended to cause you to "bring your own interpretation". "Human for reference" heavily implies it should be considered a useful reference. There's no point to it otherwise! Nah. I'll keep flagging undisclosed low-value AI posts like this. It appears others agree.
      - sbarre 1y ago
        I feel like we're having 2 different conversations here. I never said you should not feel what you feel about AI imagery. "Human for reference" is about scale. There's nothing about "human for reference" that implies any kind of authority or accuracy in the content. If I put a human in my image standing next to an imaginary creature, or a sci-fi spaceship, or a building I rendered in Blender, am I implying that those things are in fact real? I am not (although you may choose to assume I am). I am providing a reference for scale with something that everyone will recognize. Look, I accept your aversion to AI imagery. I certainly don't understand it, but I don't need to understand to accept, so all good.