11 ms·

Title should be "Man arrested for deceptive and antisocial behavior". The only reason you are seeing this right now is because it has AI in the title.

AussieWog93 6mo ago
Yes, it's an interesting and novel thing about a topic many people here are interested in.
darkwater 6mo ago
Yes, and at the same time we should ask the question: would the intersection between "people who think this is a funny thing to do" and "people with the technical capabilities to actually generate something that misleads police" [1] return a value > 0 before GenAI? [1] waiting for some example where fool policemen where outsmarted with simple tricks /s
jamesnorden 6mo ago
The one time the headline isn't misleading, you want it changed?
raincole 6mo ago
Except the actual title here is clearer. Your suggestion is so anti-AI-clickbait that it overflew and became a bad title again. If Tesla (insert any car manufacturer you hate) ran over a kid I'd like to see the title say it, instead of "Tesla fined for violating traffic laws."
- sebastiennight 6mo ago
  I'd say "Tesla" in your example would be the equivalent attention-grabber to "AI" in the article here, so your non-clickbait example might have been "car manufacturer fined for car accident"
maplethorpe 6mo ago
Isn't the technology that enabled the deception noteworthy? Presumably this person wouldn't have been able to do this before AI. Hypothetically, if a hacking tool was released that let non-technical people hack into sensitive databases, and then a journalist wrote the headline "local man hacks IRS", without any mention of the tool, wouldn't that be a bit irresponsible, to purposely leave that information out?
- tete 6mo ago
  > Presumably this person wouldn't have been able to do this before AI. Photoshop? I don't think you need much skill.
  - Loughla 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - conartist6 6mo ago
    To make a shooped image good enough to fool the police into think they're looking at a completely real picture, you'd think it would take a reasonable amount of skill. If nothing else you need an exact match picture in terms of lighting and perspective.
    - sigmoid10 6mo ago
      I guess people here are too young to remember things like the WTC plane guy. Half the people online thought it was genuine, while he did it for the lulz in a few minutes. Nobody cared about inconsistent lighting and perspective. Same way most people don't care about the obvious hallmarks of diffusion model generated pictures today.
      - maplethorpe 6mo ago
        I'm not too young. I can't remember if I thought it was real at the time, but if I did, I give myself a pass since I was probably viewing it on a 15 inch CRT at 1024x768. Because we're talking about the ease of Photoshopping a wolf into a scene, I think it's also worth pointing out that floating objects are a lot easier to work with than grounded objects, since cast shadows and bounce lighting are less of an issue. Having said that, it would still require some basic skill to achieve the WTC image which I think you're discounting. You'd need a working knowledge of layers, masks, and the lasso tool, which already would have placed it out of reach for most people at the time. Online resources were much more scarce, so I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was a hobbyist photographer or graphic designer. It definitely wouldn't have been achievable in a few minutes for the average person, and doing the same thing with a wolf would have been far more difficult, and well outside the realm of possibility for anyone who wasn't an expert.
latexr 6mo ago
The technology used is very much relevant, because the ease of access and easiness of production are likely to have been the biggest contributors. Had they had to open an image editor and spend a few hours to make something convincing, they would’ve been much less likely to do so, assuming this particular person even had the skills, and would have had multiple opportunities to change their mind. It’s a crime of opportunity¹, one where you have the idea and act on it on a whim. No opportunity, no crime, and the technology provided the opportunity. So yes, the technology used matters. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_opportunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_opportunity
heddycrow 6mo ago
I so wish this were true. Put AI in the title, garner instant attention.
mminer237 6mo ago
That would be so vague as to be useless.
conductr 6mo ago
It’s relevant in the sense that I would have never guessed this little prank would get someone arrested. We need to learn/adapt what we post, see, believe in photos to avoid arrest. Especially so in the AI reality because generating these images, and these pranks, has become increasingly easy for anyone to do with no skills and minimal time. I think the part I find most fascinating though is it’s not clear if he took this picture to the police, actively wasting their time, or if he just posted it and they found it and mistakenly took it as truth. I have no insight to SK laws but for me it’s going to be unfair if they were the ones that used this picture as evidence when if it was never meant to be taken seriously.
culi 6mo ago
That's like saying "guns don't kill people, people do". We know that's bologna and you can't just ignore Weapon Instrumentality http://web.archive.org/web/20250201051019/https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/firearms-and-assault-guns-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people-gun http://web.archive.org/web/20250201051019/https://www.ojp.go...

AussieWog93 6mo ago

Yes, it's an interesting and novel thing about a topic many people here are interested in.

darkwater 6mo ago

Yes, and at the same time we should ask the question: would the intersection between "people who think this is a funny thing to do" and "people with the technical capabilities to actually generate something that misleads police" [1] return a value > 0 before GenAI? [1] waiting for some example where fool policemen where outsmarted with simple tricks /s

jamesnorden 6mo ago

The one time the headline isn't misleading, you want it changed?

raincole 6mo ago

Except the actual title here is clearer. Your suggestion is so anti-AI-clickbait that it overflew and became a bad title again. If Tesla (insert any car manufacturer you hate) ran over a kid I'd like to see the title say it, instead of "Tesla fined for violating traffic laws."

sebastiennight 6mo ago
I'd say "Tesla" in your example would be the equivalent attention-grabber to "AI" in the article here, so your non-clickbait example might have been "car manufacturer fined for car accident"

maplethorpe 6mo ago

Isn't the technology that enabled the deception noteworthy? Presumably this person wouldn't have been able to do this before AI. Hypothetically, if a hacking tool was released that let non-technical people hack into sensitive databases, and then a journalist wrote the headline "local man hacks IRS", without any mention of the tool, wouldn't that be a bit irresponsible, to purposely leave that information out?

tete 6mo ago
> Presumably this person wouldn't have been able to do this before AI. Photoshop? I don't think you need much skill.
- Loughla 6mo ago
  [dead]
- conartist6 6mo ago
  To make a shooped image good enough to fool the police into think they're looking at a completely real picture, you'd think it would take a reasonable amount of skill. If nothing else you need an exact match picture in terms of lighting and perspective.
  - sigmoid10 6mo ago
    I guess people here are too young to remember things like the WTC plane guy. Half the people online thought it was genuine, while he did it for the lulz in a few minutes. Nobody cared about inconsistent lighting and perspective. Same way most people don't care about the obvious hallmarks of diffusion model generated pictures today.
    - maplethorpe 6mo ago
      I'm not too young. I can't remember if I thought it was real at the time, but if I did, I give myself a pass since I was probably viewing it on a 15 inch CRT at 1024x768. Because we're talking about the ease of Photoshopping a wolf into a scene, I think it's also worth pointing out that floating objects are a lot easier to work with than grounded objects, since cast shadows and bounce lighting are less of an issue. Having said that, it would still require some basic skill to achieve the WTC image which I think you're discounting. You'd need a working knowledge of layers, masks, and the lasso tool, which already would have placed it out of reach for most people at the time. Online resources were much more scarce, so I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was a hobbyist photographer or graphic designer. It definitely wouldn't have been achievable in a few minutes for the average person, and doing the same thing with a wolf would have been far more difficult, and well outside the realm of possibility for anyone who wasn't an expert.

latexr 6mo ago

The technology used is very much relevant, because the ease of access and easiness of production are likely to have been the biggest contributors. Had they had to open an image editor and spend a few hours to make something convincing, they would’ve been much less likely to do so, assuming this particular person even had the skills, and would have had multiple opportunities to change their mind. It’s a crime of opportunity¹, one where you have the idea and act on it on a whim. No opportunity, no crime, and the technology provided the opportunity. So yes, the technology used matters. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_opportunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_opportunity

heddycrow 6mo ago

I so wish this were true. Put AI in the title, garner instant attention.

mminer237 6mo ago

That would be so vague as to be useless.

conductr 6mo ago

It’s relevant in the sense that I would have never guessed this little prank would get someone arrested. We need to learn/adapt what we post, see, believe in photos to avoid arrest. Especially so in the AI reality because generating these images, and these pranks, has become increasingly easy for anyone to do with no skills and minimal time. I think the part I find most fascinating though is it’s not clear if he took this picture to the police, actively wasting their time, or if he just posted it and they found it and mistakenly took it as truth. I have no insight to SK laws but for me it’s going to be unfair if they were the ones that used this picture as evidence when if it was never meant to be taken seriously.

culi 6mo ago

That's like saying "guns don't kill people, people do". We know that's bologna and you can't just ignore Weapon Instrumentality http://web.archive.org/web/20250201051019/https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/firearms-and-assault-guns-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people-gun http://web.archive.org/web/20250201051019/https://www.ojp.go...