We get it. AI slop is getting good enough to replace photography. This isn't good for humans, and makes the world a worse place.
The fact that the suck machine works isn't something to be proud of.
We get it. AI slop is getting good enough to replace photography. This isn't good for humans, and makes the world a worse place.
The fact that the suck machine works isn't something to be proud of.
That’s not what they’re saying. They’re challenging the “I can always tell” people who are both proud and regularly wrong.
As fake news becomes more and more real and with photo evidence, this matters more and more.
They're not challenging that at all. The time limit makes it a game rather than an experiment. "You can't tell it's AI if you don't have enough time to examine the details" is not exactly a compelling claim...
Another poster in this threads commented that their strategy was to question why anyone would take the photo that was presented. I think this touches on one of the most important issues with this whole schoolyard level argument of "I can tell" and "no you can't." That is: what is even the point of all of this?
I had funding for a project I had proposed at work yanked out from under me because I had refused to vibe code the whole thing. I had proposed the project to create a tool that would be beneficial to my division, which represents a good 25% of the company's revenue (we're a consulting company). It had the enthusiastic support of my entire direct leadership line, very heavy hitters in the company. But the executives in charge of the internal R&D budget have their own agenda of pushing AI out on everything to gin up this idea that our company is "AI forward." Nevermind that our IT infrastructure is a joke, we need to play a game to convince non-existent investors that we are suddenly, out of the blue, after 50 years, a "technology company" when what we really do well is manage client relationships.
The executive I was closest to at one point told me I had failed because I hadn't used AI to tell me what the requirements for the project should be, that I was just doing "whatever I wanted."
If I were really doing whatever I wanted, I would not be building some kind of data management analysis workflow whatever. I designed the project around exactly the sort of thing that would benefit our direct line analysts. I don't need to be told what the requirements are, I know then intimately from working with these people for years. But because I was not using AI to tell me what to build and using AI to build it for me, I am being "behind the times." Another executive told me it wouldn't matter if I succeeded at the project if I didn't use AI to build all of it. Another time he told me it wouldn't matter if the project was any good, so long as I used AI to build it.
What is even the point? Why would I abdicate everything to AI? I know what I'm doing and I know how to do it. But that is unimaginable to the AI-pilled executive class. They are so used to not knowing how to do anything that they can't imagine anyone else actually knows how to do their job.
That sounds like a really horrible situation and some terrible leadership and I'm sorry to hear that.
... was I the person you meant to respond to, though?
Yes, it was meant to add to your point about the stupid "can/can't tell" argument.
Yeah, exactly, they're right, we're successfully making shit worse. Yay us.
> makes the world a worse place
In what way?
Well, now instead of paying the photographers for the stock photos to use as headline pictures, people instead pay the AI firms for the stock pictures to use as headline pictures.
Which is "worse" by some metric, I'm sure.
The same could be said of commissioned paintings when photography became a thing. And yet here we are, and I doubt anyone - except maybe artists - would say the world is worse off.
Stop, stop, he’s already dead! You guys are getting straw everywhere.
Couldn’t wait more than 3 minutes for someone’s actual position before setting up that straw man to take down?
The actual position: "First, prove you're not an AI, and then we can discuss..." Yeah, no, I'll take myself being strangely prescient this morning.
The partial comment you’re quoting is
- not even a position
- not something you were remotely “prescient” about
Precisely. There is no need to wait for "the position" to be formulated since a) it won't be; b) it's mostly "AI is bad because, full stop" anyhow, not even a strawman.
> it's mostly "AI is bad because, full stop" anyhow
Ooh, the rare* double straw man. Since you look like you could use the exercise in intellectual honesty, I’ll pose the question directly: can you think of any reason that the ability for anyone to generate fake photographs indistinguishable from reality with no skill, time, or money required might make the world a worse place? Cause harm?
* I wish
First, prove you're not an AI, and then we can discuss whether being able to generate AI output indistinguishable from human output can cause harm.
And again, how is "AI or human" relevant to discussing? Given the potential of an indistinguishable discussion (which will eventually be the case). Although also eventually it's AI that will consistently provide the superior discussion experience, then... what? Those against AI actively seek out inferior experiences? Should be interesting.