4 ms·

I’m genuinely curious about how this title was misleading. I have not heard anything about this issue until this link on HN. I did indeed assume the crying was

I’m genuinely curious about how this title was misleading. I have not heard anything about this issue until this link on HN. I did indeed assume the crying was added by AI at the behest of White House staff. Please don’t misread: I am genuinely curious how I one may have read this another way and how that could have been helped with rewording.

Planktonne 9mo ago
Two things, I think: 1. "Defends" suggests some level of explanation and justification; the White House did not present any here. 2. "AI image showing arrested woman" could mean a fully-generated image of a woman, rather than editing an image of an existing person under law enforcement control to disguise the actual facts. The first one would be bizarre, the second one is much more problematic.
- Larrikin 9mo ago
  There is no meaningful difference between a 100% percent fabricated image and a some slightly smaller percentage of a digitally manipulated image when presented from the government as fact. There's no need to split hairs.
  - Planktonne 9mo ago
    It's the difference between drawing a cartoon and editing a photograph; the second one is a definite attempt to misrepresent matters of fact, the first could be argued to be illustrative only.
    - Larrikin 9mo ago
      Both are lies to push a political viewpoint.
haritha-j 9mo ago
Oh in my head I just assumed they used AI to generate an image of a woman crying while being arrested from scratch. Given that the white house previously shared AI generated videos of Trump putting a flag on Greenland or dropping feces on protestors, I assumed it was a from-scratch generated image to show something 'aspirational', rather than using AI to edit an existing arrest image.
- IAmBroom 9mo ago
  OK, in your head. That's a problem with your assumptions. The image is AI, whether AI added a tiny cloud in the upper corner, or completely fabricated it from a prompt.
  - yunwal 9mo ago
    > The image is AI, whether AI added a tiny cloud in the upper corner, or completely fabricated it from a prompt. Your example shows two things that are obviously different from a moral standpoint. The first would not be news and the second would.
    - Volundr 9mo ago
      I mean agree to disagree I guess. If the government was modifying photos to make seemingly innocuous changes to the weather I would have a lot of questions as to why and would indeed hope that someone would report on it.

Planktonne 9mo ago

Two things, I think: 1. "Defends" suggests some level of explanation and justification; the White House did not present any here. 2. "AI image showing arrested woman" could mean a fully-generated image of a woman, rather than editing an image of an existing person under law enforcement control to disguise the actual facts. The first one would be bizarre, the second one is much more problematic.

Larrikin 9mo ago
There is no meaningful difference between a 100% percent fabricated image and a some slightly smaller percentage of a digitally manipulated image when presented from the government as fact. There's no need to split hairs.
- Planktonne 9mo ago
  It's the difference between drawing a cartoon and editing a photograph; the second one is a definite attempt to misrepresent matters of fact, the first could be argued to be illustrative only.
  - Larrikin 9mo ago
    Both are lies to push a political viewpoint.

haritha-j 9mo ago

Oh in my head I just assumed they used AI to generate an image of a woman crying while being arrested from scratch. Given that the white house previously shared AI generated videos of Trump putting a flag on Greenland or dropping feces on protestors, I assumed it was a from-scratch generated image to show something 'aspirational', rather than using AI to edit an existing arrest image.

IAmBroom 9mo ago
OK, in your head. That's a problem with your assumptions. The image is AI, whether AI added a tiny cloud in the upper corner, or completely fabricated it from a prompt.
- yunwal 9mo ago
  > The image is AI, whether AI added a tiny cloud in the upper corner, or completely fabricated it from a prompt. Your example shows two things that are obviously different from a moral standpoint. The first would not be news and the second would.
  - Volundr 9mo ago
    I mean agree to disagree I guess. If the government was modifying photos to make seemingly innocuous changes to the weather I would have a lot of questions as to why and would indeed hope that someone would report on it.