My spouse yelled at me after she showed me too many AI videos, and I would watch it and 1) if it's under 15 seconds, 2) too good to be true, 3) has unrealistic physics, and/or 4) has AI artifacts, I wouldn't enjoy the video, and just say "yeah, that's AI."
She just wants to enjoy the videos, and didn't care if staged or AI or what. She likes the concept of what's on the video. AI takes that away from me, and not her, apparently.
I'd be firmly on your side of that fence, the idea being its cute or cool cause it happened in real life. this is a recording of real life. if its a computer drawing using the severed and reconstituted husks of other things and did not happen, its just something completely different- would she watch a hand drawn cartoon of the same thing? Would she really?
Another possibly interesting way to tease it out, is say it's a video of her close friend being given an award from a prestigious institution and she feels a sense of pride. Or, its a video from the same friend where her partner does something very sweet and poignant. In both cases, she then finds out that this never happened, its just a computer drawing her friend made of these non-events. Too different to draw out the reason while real vs fake matters? Possibly.
Say the video of a cat that can accurately work and excel spreadsheet. Does that one matter (spoiler, its REAL)
Usually when people share a post, it's because the post evoked a reaction, and they want to share that with someone. Making the conversation about the provenance of the post truncates the exchange in an unsatisfying way. For a news story, propaganda, or the like, the source is important. For funny dog videos? Maybe the quality of the exchange is more important. A nice middle ground would be to react as if it were true, and then point out it's probably AI. Videos are easier to spot, but the difference between an image that's obviously AI and one that looks real is like 10 min of work in Photoshop. So we're often better off saving our faculties of discernment for the stuff that matters.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well, with the comparison to hand drawn animation. Honestly, I'm not sure, but I expect that would not hit quite the same way. Claymation...maybe the same, actually. It might also be just no glasses scrolling and quick reactions without discernment.
I've explained how to recognize AI videos, and she knows how to ID most (I hope), and I have noticed that she shows me fewer AI clips now. Not none, but fewer. I think she knows I don't like them, and doesn't want me too be the killjoy.
I even made a clip in Sora of our cat doing stuff, as an olive branch. I think that sort of made the point you were making about the friend getting an award.
this is all very thoughtful, and it seems like your thinking on it is aligned quite closely to my own.
just to say, I think its understanding and kind of you to be hands off and respectful of what she enjoys. I find all gen AI slop disquieting, but if someone else really enjoys it with their eyes wide open, really who gives a shit, there are very real and serious things to worry about and someone liking an AI cat video or not prolly isnt one of them
I've found, as I've gotten older, that my desire to believe things that are true is far from universal. It's mind boggling to me that people willingly delude themselves for a hit of dopamine or whatever, while they slowly lose the ability to tell the difference between reality and fiction
One of the things that makes a staged video less troubling is that the staging itself always comes with tells. Camera angles, cuts, framing, and of course actual staging.
AI videos can have that too, but they aren't the inherent tells. AI tells are unnatural: bodies that shift in subtle ways, objects warped or merging outside the center of frame. It's not stuff that you look for because it's not stuff that actually happens in nature, or even in human constructed CGI all that often. But it does add up to a sense of uncanny valley.
If the video is obvious a fake and overexaggerated, I dont mind AI videos. Its no different than the shitposts people made before. But its the click farming shit that really irks me.
If someone were to say to you "why did the chicken cross the road?" You wouldn't demand that there is actually a chicken. You would accept it as a framework for a joke.
The same holds true for staged videos or AI or anything. Is the framework important to the point? A video claiming people can fly and using AI as proof... That's problematic. A staged bit where it would still be funny if it was just told verbally by a standup comedian? Who cares how real it is, the realness was never the point, the concept of the situation was.
Almost all comedy movies are just long staged bits.
And "how funny would this be if a standup comedian told this as a joke" vs "the context of this potentially actually happening is very important to the underlying humor of it" is a variable line for people. And that's ok. Unless someone is in danger (don't let someone jump off a cliff because ai said they can fly), other people's lines don't really affect you
When you sit down to watch a movie, you know it isn't real. When you watch media coverage of current events, you should not have to guess if it is or isn't.
I agree. But that's wrong because lying about current events is wrong. This is what I meant about framework. AI is a tool in that regard and not the problem. There is plenty of "real" journalism out there spreading lies too that I have problems with.
I'm fortunate I guess that most of the AI slop I dismiss is things more akin to baby panda sneezing scares mom panda. Where it doesn't REALLY matter if it's real because there are no consequences. It's either funny or it's not.
If all we were seeing is the prompt used to generate the video, then there wouldn't be a problem. Human-written fiction is generally valuable.
Instead we're getting single sentences masquerading as "a picture worth a 1000 words", or worse with video. Only 1% of that is actually the valuable part (the prompt), the rest is filler words and hallucinated slop.
A video or picture of reality is inherently more informative than any AI generation.
I have the exact same problem with AI-generated articles. They're nearly empty of any actual information, and it completely wastes your time to filter through it and find the actual point. Just like the backstory that gets put before every online food recipe; it's useless fluff.
I don't find AI cat videos half as offensive as the "I found this kitty shivering in the rain and rescued it on my hike" videos with a 3000 buck show quality Bengal.
Only media that verifiably exists on the internet before 2021 is allowed. That's still billions of cute animal photos and videos.
EDIT:
And a sister project: RAW-only social media. Only photo/video uploaded as raw sensor data (which even phones can take now) is allowed. Metadata is stripped, and they're post-processed by the site.
Why? RAWs are technically possible to fake, but difficult enough to deter lazy slop spam. As a bonus, they can't be heavily edited either; they're unprocessed, unglamourous slices of reality. And they can be served in HDR with modern compression, as a cherry on top.
...Now I just need a few billion dollars to host it, and about a trillion to survive anticompetive attacks.
Honestly, I don't think your edit is crazy at all. I have a hunch that all the fake, filtered, AI-processed, vtuber'd social media is going to result in a sharp backlash soon. Kind of like how over-the-top, image-focused glam and heavy metal of the 80s spawned a backlash in the rawer, more "real" feel of grunge and stripped down alt-rock in the 90s.
Maybe that desire for reality will be one of the triggers for the AI bubble bursting.
Just another flavor of cynicism for me. Before AI, I would look at most "cute" animal videos and just see an animal performing a trained trick under the guise of "Omg, LOOK my dogs love spontaneously hugging each other, isn't that cute??!!"
There was a wave of "sleepy baby animals collapsing in sleep together" on Spez's site until someone figured out most of them were "sleepy" because they were drugged.
Just like a lot of animal rescue videos. Horrible, heartbreaking animal abuse, staged to look like an act of heroism.
I used to watch those videos on YT a lot, until I suddenly pieced it together, that two cats had the very same markings, and figured out what their scam was, I felt so disgusted I ended up making a massive rant and telling every person I knew for months.
Yeah this was my reaction, before AI cynicism there was “this is obviously scripted” cynicism and then even tropes that built on it like nothing ever happens
People lied way before the internet;
Look at the octopus jump to escape the holding tank (crew poured bleach).
Staged stuff like that has been going since recording was possible ... they even staged pictures.
I have begun policing myself for feelings of amazement. Seems to be the biggest thing slop tries to induce, followed closely by outrage. I know I can't control when something makes me outraged or amazed but I definitely can choose what I signal boost
It's interesting to watch people sus this out in real time. Society as a whole will land on some sort of "solution", and I expect it's one most of you won't like.
What are your thoughts? I’m starting to lean toward avoiding any fakeable content (even though I’m contradicting myself by even posting here). That can’t be worse than pre internet times right?
Before ai there was photoshop. People who knew how to use it could make good fakes, but far from everyone could do that.
Then ai was created, it was fun to experiment with image generation, but it still was kind of a toy, and images was obviously generated.
Now ai became so advanced, that some ai "photos" or "artworks" require through examination to determine whether its real or fake.
If ai is so "good" right now, future generations of ai will make it nearly impossible to distinguish real pictures from generated, doesnt matter if its a photo, drawing, or other digital artwork.
It's certainly still improving in many areas - like coding assist, for sure. I think video generation is still improving but it takes a shit ton of resources, so it's a bit slower. Maybe image generation has plateaued, but that could certainly be temporary. There are lots of more niche applications that are still progressing at a slower pace like I just read an article on using image processing AI in fertility clinics to better predict viability of embryos for implantation. Cool stuff that could actually improve people's lives.
It's pretty simple: if it's not important, who tf cares if it's AI or not. If it's important, there normally is a way to verify if the portrayed information is authentic because it will be important for others too (the info is the important part, not even if the medium where you got the info from is real or not). Life is easier this way, and important info should have been verified before AI too.
The info provided is that there exists another happy dog out there doing happy dog things and I briefly connected with it, which made me happy. This information would be incorrect if it was AI generated.
The information that there are happy dogs out there doing happy dog things isn't wrong tho, regardless of how many images of happy dogs are real or fake.
You can also tell me that someone out there won the lottery this week and have it be true. It's not the same as seeing this person's live reaction to learning about it. It wouldn't be the same if you watched that person act out the scene exactly as it happened. AI generated is so much further removed from all that.
I get what you're saying, but I really miss shows that did re-enactments of actual events. That shit was funny as hell. Especially the ones on Operation Repo, which were re-enactments of entirely bullshit/exaggerated stories. Like the dude who took down a whole mob operation because he had to reposses a car. 🤣
I'd say its less removed - the person reenacting is acting on his own interpretation of what happened, while the generated images are the distilled versions of real people winning the lottery.
Also, like I said, life is much easier accepting that not everything that i can emotionally connect to has to be authentic. I can very much connect to the notion that there are happy pets out there even if i see a drawing of a happy pet.
Sure. But I can make my own AI image of a cute dog, and where's the satisfaction in that?
Hence, I think it cracks open a bigger issue than AI: the 'illusion' of authenticity on social media. Our squishy brains doomscroll with the fantasy that the stuff is real, and candid, and honest, and gems we found...
But that's never really been true.
It's largely staged content designed to go viral and make someone a buck. Or sell something. And it's served by billion dollar algorithms designed to model and hijack your brain.
My hot take: people are upset that slop smashed that illusion with a hammer. Social media has been addictive fakeness for years; it's just glaringly obvious now.
If someone tells me a entertaining story that connects with me emotionally, it's not so much important if the story is true per se, it's important that it's told well. The storyteller might have invented the whole thing or based it on something similar and modified/exaggerated it, but that doesn't take away from the story. If i tell myself a story it wouldn't be satisfying either (if i'm not worldbuilding or an author, where the satisfaction has other sources).
It's an interesting thought and would explain why people react so intensely. I for my part was very quickly picking up on the fakeness of facebook - when i was riled up during the arabian spring in Libya, i realized that i get easily emotionally manipulated by the served content, which made me quit.
Nowadays i know much better how to verify information that's important to me; a dogs picture licking a cat which makes her purr will always emotionally positive for me, because a) it doesn't matter outside of my satisfaction, just like the well told story, and b) i can't check it for authenticity either way, so i do not care about authenticity.
I agree. It honestly makes me mad that people get in such a huff over using generative models for fiction; they’re just another generation of storytelling tools.
The issue is blurring fiction and reality.
This isn’t just a problem with AI. See: influencers, tabloids, and “news” that sell caricatures of reality.
But AI makes it too, too easy to distribute fakeness in spaces that are supposed to be real. That is very dangerous. And this is what it ended up being used for.
Nowadays i know much better how to verify information that’s important to me; a dogs picture licking a cat which makes her purr will always emotionally positive for me, because a) it doesn’t matter outside of my satisfaction, just like the well told story.
…I think I’ve used generative models enough to get desensitized to the “feel good” bit. I guess I felt like you once, but having peeked behind the curtain, the feeling has gone away.
But if they make you feel good, good. That’s what arts supposed to do.
Like i said in another answer, maybe that loss of confidence in the authenticity of what we see online has a positive effect in the future where people start rejecting what they see on the web as the truth and start believing in what authoritative people say again; i hope they start listening to their doctors, teachers and scientists again instead of grifters and con-men. In that case anonymous social media will find itself dead in the water, with media using verified and authenticated profiles winning out.
It might cause the combined stupidity - that made things like qanon possible - to fall apart into the small splinter cells of town idiots they were before.
But the problem exists if the average person can't tell the difference or doesn't care to verify it. Media literacy is at an all time low, at least in my country (guess). Without regulation, the presence and lack of labeling of AI content on social platforms can only further the decline.
That's an age-old problem, just scaled up. There has always been misinformation in social media (and before that in every bar). In the US it's especially bad, mostly because the GOP profits directly from misinfo and has done as much damage as possible to the education system to ensure it stays that way. That's also the reason there wont be any legislation regarding labeling of AI content (which is preferrable, but not enforceable even today) coming from your continent in the next few decades, sorry :-(
That might still be a "good" thing. More people than before become aware that what they see in social media is not reality, but entertainment that might or might not be real. It could lead to a general rejection of the notion that SM shows the truth.
But all in all it is still of no importance if it's imagery to give cozy feelings because of cute animals like in the meme. An entertaining story does not have to be true to be entertaining, and in the same vein a cute pet image doesn't have to depict a real pet to be cute.
It's not that hard to spot; my mother will watch them sometimes. A parrot using complete sentences and witty turns of phrase about a cat trying to attack them? Yeah no. But how do you get a "I just want to sit under my blanket, eat soup and watch cute animal videos" boomer retiree to understand she's destroying the world by paying attention to this?
By actively selecting these videos, watching them, sometimes multiple times through, going back to them to show them to me "You've got to see this video I saw" god hate fucking dammit, she's driving revenue toward their uploaders, which is causing them to pave over the entire continent of North America with data centers that are destroying the concept of truth itself and murdering the environment.
I figure it’s not going to be long before you are unable to tell the difference. Consider the rate at which you’ve had to go from “zero effort at all” to “it’s not hard to spot”.
;–;
Assume it’s all AI and don’t engage. Go learn to play guitar.
This might need to be the way forward.
Internet was fun, that was a really sick 30 years, but GG.
But then you are just training and generating music with AI... (Acoustic Instruments)
Get an electric guitar then.
I just adjusted my way of thinking. Before it was "this video is staged, until proven otherwise", now it's "this video is AI, until proven otherwise".
Also dont forget about the bots!
My spouse yelled at me after she showed me too many AI videos, and I would watch it and 1) if it's under 15 seconds, 2) too good to be true, 3) has unrealistic physics, and/or 4) has AI artifacts, I wouldn't enjoy the video, and just say "yeah, that's AI."
She just wants to enjoy the videos, and didn't care if staged or AI or what. She likes the concept of what's on the video. AI takes that away from me, and not her, apparently.
thats actually pretty interesting.
I'd be firmly on your side of that fence, the idea being its cute or cool cause it happened in real life. this is a recording of real life. if its a computer drawing using the severed and reconstituted husks of other things and did not happen, its just something completely different- would she watch a hand drawn cartoon of the same thing? Would she really?
Another possibly interesting way to tease it out, is say it's a video of her close friend being given an award from a prestigious institution and she feels a sense of pride. Or, its a video from the same friend where her partner does something very sweet and poignant. In both cases, she then finds out that this never happened, its just a computer drawing her friend made of these non-events. Too different to draw out the reason while real vs fake matters? Possibly.
Say the video of a cat that can accurately work and excel spreadsheet. Does that one matter (spoiler, its REAL)
Usually when people share a post, it's because the post evoked a reaction, and they want to share that with someone. Making the conversation about the provenance of the post truncates the exchange in an unsatisfying way. For a news story, propaganda, or the like, the source is important. For funny dog videos? Maybe the quality of the exchange is more important. A nice middle ground would be to react as if it were true, and then point out it's probably AI. Videos are easier to spot, but the difference between an image that's obviously AI and one that looks real is like 10 min of work in Photoshop. So we're often better off saving our faculties of discernment for the stuff that matters.
Nah, screw that. I am disgusted by the way AI looks. I'd rather people not send me anything than to send me slop.
The monkey paw curls you only get photoshopped dick picks from now on.
I predict you'll get your wish.
I disagree completely, but I mean your position makes sense.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well, with the comparison to hand drawn animation. Honestly, I'm not sure, but I expect that would not hit quite the same way. Claymation...maybe the same, actually. It might also be just no glasses scrolling and quick reactions without discernment.
I've explained how to recognize AI videos, and she knows how to ID most (I hope), and I have noticed that she shows me fewer AI clips now. Not none, but fewer. I think she knows I don't like them, and doesn't want me too be the killjoy.
I even made a clip in Sora of our cat doing stuff, as an olive branch. I think that sort of made the point you were making about the friend getting an award.
this is all very thoughtful, and it seems like your thinking on it is aligned quite closely to my own.
just to say, I think its understanding and kind of you to be hands off and respectful of what she enjoys. I find all gen AI slop disquieting, but if someone else really enjoys it with their eyes wide open, really who gives a shit, there are very real and serious things to worry about and someone liking an AI cat video or not prolly isnt one of them
I've found, as I've gotten older, that my desire to believe things that are true is far from universal. It's mind boggling to me that people willingly delude themselves for a hit of dopamine or whatever, while they slowly lose the ability to tell the difference between reality and fiction
Oh man I've noticed zero difference. Religion, a thousand times religion.
Honestly I'll take staged videos. At least it's real humans doing it.
One of the things that makes a staged video less troubling is that the staging itself always comes with tells. Camera angles, cuts, framing, and of course actual staging.
AI videos can have that too, but they aren't the inherent tells. AI tells are unnatural: bodies that shift in subtle ways, objects warped or merging outside the center of frame. It's not stuff that you look for because it's not stuff that actually happens in nature, or even in human constructed CGI all that often. But it does add up to a sense of uncanny valley.
"I'll take people shitting into my mouth over dogs. At least it's real humans doing it."
If the video is obvious a fake and overexaggerated, I dont mind AI videos. Its no different than the shitposts people made before. But its the click farming shit that really irks me.
If someone were to say to you "why did the chicken cross the road?" You wouldn't demand that there is actually a chicken. You would accept it as a framework for a joke.
The same holds true for staged videos or AI or anything. Is the framework important to the point? A video claiming people can fly and using AI as proof... That's problematic. A staged bit where it would still be funny if it was just told verbally by a standup comedian? Who cares how real it is, the realness was never the point, the concept of the situation was.
Almost all comedy movies are just long staged bits.
And "how funny would this be if a standup comedian told this as a joke" vs "the context of this potentially actually happening is very important to the underlying humor of it" is a variable line for people. And that's ok. Unless someone is in danger (don't let someone jump off a cliff because ai said they can fly), other people's lines don't really affect you
When you sit down to watch a movie, you know it isn't real. When you watch media coverage of current events, you should not have to guess if it is or isn't.
I agree. But that's wrong because lying about current events is wrong. This is what I meant about framework. AI is a tool in that regard and not the problem. There is plenty of "real" journalism out there spreading lies too that I have problems with.
I'm fortunate I guess that most of the AI slop I dismiss is things more akin to baby panda sneezing scares mom panda. Where it doesn't REALLY matter if it's real because there are no consequences. It's either funny or it's not.
news has been lying to people long before AI
So add fuel to the fire right?
honestly...seems like AI-slop is making things so bad that it's pushing people away back into real life, so...kinda
It's kind of a shame you're getting down voted for this. It's a perfectly reasonable perspective, and makes sense.
If all we were seeing is the prompt used to generate the video, then there wouldn't be a problem. Human-written fiction is generally valuable.
Instead we're getting single sentences masquerading as "a picture worth a 1000 words", or worse with video. Only 1% of that is actually the valuable part (the prompt), the rest is filler words and hallucinated slop.
A video or picture of reality is inherently more informative than any AI generation.
I have the exact same problem with AI-generated articles. They're nearly empty of any actual information, and it completely wastes your time to filter through it and find the actual point. Just like the backstory that gets put before every online food recipe; it's useless fluff.
I feel like the photorealism is what makes it bad. When you notice it's fake you feel lied to. If it's a cartoon, or blatantly cartoonish, it doesn't.
It is a great exercise to test your media literacy. That you can't even trust cute cat videos and art really does suck though.
I don't find AI cat videos half as offensive as the "I found this kitty shivering in the rain and rescued it on my hike" videos with a 3000 buck show quality Bengal.
I do hate being a cynical bastard but the slopification of the internet has made me this way.
Upside is that I now look a lot closer at the pictures in my feed.
As much as I vehemently despise AI, these days, I'll take positivity where I can get it.
I have a business idea:
Vintage social media.
Only media that verifiably exists on the internet before 2021 is allowed. That's still billions of cute animal photos and videos.
EDIT:
And a sister project: RAW-only social media. Only photo/video uploaded as raw sensor data (which even phones can take now) is allowed. Metadata is stripped, and they're post-processed by the site.
Why? RAWs are technically possible to fake, but difficult enough to deter lazy slop spam. As a bonus, they can't be heavily edited either; they're unprocessed, unglamourous slices of reality. And they can be served in HDR with modern compression, as a cherry on top.
...Now I just need a few billion dollars to host it, and about a trillion to survive anticompetive attacks.
Honestly, I don't think your edit is crazy at all. I have a hunch that all the fake, filtered, AI-processed, vtuber'd social media is going to result in a sharp backlash soon. Kind of like how over-the-top, image-focused glam and heavy metal of the 80s spawned a backlash in the rawer, more "real" feel of grunge and stripped down alt-rock in the 90s.
Maybe that desire for reality will be one of the triggers for the AI bubble bursting.
It’s still a fantasy though. People aren’t in control of their phones/feeds.
Heck, we can’t even get the world to support JPEG-XL or HEIF or anything, much less take RAW pictures.
And Twitter has convinced me there is absolutely no line these services can cross to get people to quit.
Well, I had a brief moment of hopefulness at least 😐
When I do search for something that is not a current event I will filter for at older results to avoid any inaccurate AI answers
Fr your second idea is actually quite good.
I was thinking about digitally signing content and you can go check the author’s public key against it or something.
Just another flavor of cynicism for me. Before AI, I would look at most "cute" animal videos and just see an animal performing a trained trick under the guise of "Omg, LOOK my dogs love spontaneously hugging each other, isn't that cute??!!"
People have ALWAYS lied on the internet.
Or the contrived stories. "He does this every day until we feed him <3"
"This [specie of animal] hid in the corner every day for [X] [months/years] until one day THIS happened! (wait for it)"
There was a wave of "sleepy baby animals collapsing in sleep together" on Spez's site until someone figured out most of them were "sleepy" because they were drugged.
Just like a lot of animal rescue videos. Horrible, heartbreaking animal abuse, staged to look like an act of heroism.
I used to watch those videos on YT a lot, until I suddenly pieced it together, that two cats had the very same markings, and figured out what their scam was, I felt so disgusted I ended up making a massive rant and telling every person I knew for months.
next you'll tell me people don't always tell the truth on the internet or to not always believe what you read in the newspaper
Yeah this was my reaction, before AI cynicism there was “this is obviously scripted” cynicism and then even tropes that built on it like nothing ever happens
People lied way before the internet; Look at the octopus jump to escape the holding tank (crew poured bleach). Staged stuff like that has been going since recording was possible ... they even staged pictures.
How to avoid AI Slop:
Step 1: Adopt a cat (aka: be adopted by a feline overlord)
Step 2: Observe the cat (but make sure to occasionally wink-blink at them)
Better quit browsing shorts and get a real dog instead
I have begun policing myself for feelings of amazement. Seems to be the biggest thing slop tries to induce, followed closely by outrage. I know I can't control when something makes me outraged or amazed but I definitely can choose what I signal boost
Solution is to either enjoy for what it is or stop consuming it.
It's interesting to watch people sus this out in real time. Society as a whole will land on some sort of "solution", and I expect it's one most of you won't like.
What are your thoughts? I’m starting to lean toward avoiding any fakeable content (even though I’m contradicting myself by even posting here). That can’t be worse than pre internet times right?
It's shopped you can tell by some of the pixels also stopped being true after a few years and people just stopped caring.
We are just going though the same thing. People will just stop caring in a few years.
Or, it could be one of those videos from china which animals are forced to act.
Before ai there was photoshop. People who knew how to use it could make good fakes, but far from everyone could do that.
Then ai was created, it was fun to experiment with image generation, but it still was kind of a toy, and images was obviously generated.
Now ai became so advanced, that some ai "photos" or "artworks" require through examination to determine whether its real or fake.
If ai is so "good" right now, future generations of ai will make it nearly impossible to distinguish real pictures from generated, doesnt matter if its a photo, drawing, or other digital artwork.
AI has plateaued.
And what a minuscule plateau it reached.
It's certainly still improving in many areas - like coding assist, for sure. I think video generation is still improving but it takes a shit ton of resources, so it's a bit slower. Maybe image generation has plateaued, but that could certainly be temporary. There are lots of more niche applications that are still progressing at a slower pace like I just read an article on using image processing AI in fertility clinics to better predict viability of embryos for implantation. Cool stuff that could actually improve people's lives.
medical applications of machine learning are a pretty far cry from llms/genai
Many medical applications of ML do use transformer architectures, so it's fundamentally the same technology.
Yeah, because it's kind of harder to get better than photorealistic.
At least the ones where the cat or dog start Fortnite emoting at the end are obvious.
AI is more than the theft of art.
AI is the theft of joy. AI is the theft of trust. AI is the theft of intellectualism.
AI is control. AI is fascism.
Theft of RAM too
i usually assume something is not AI unless its obvious or someone in the comments says its AI
Do we even know what is AI nowdays? websites like tiktok, are number one in the list of testing AI content.
But is it not cute?
Most time it's off putting at best. Sometimes though, it's creepy af.
Is this cartoon made by AI? Must have? Or isn’t it? Can’t decide.
It's pretty simple: if it's not important, who tf cares if it's AI or not. If it's important, there normally is a way to verify if the portrayed information is authentic because it will be important for others too (the info is the important part, not even if the medium where you got the info from is real or not). Life is easier this way, and important info should have been verified before AI too.
The info provided is that there exists another happy dog out there doing happy dog things and I briefly connected with it, which made me happy. This information would be incorrect if it was AI generated.
The information that there are happy dogs out there doing happy dog things isn't wrong tho, regardless of how many images of happy dogs are real or fake.
You can also tell me that someone out there won the lottery this week and have it be true. It's not the same as seeing this person's live reaction to learning about it. It wouldn't be the same if you watched that person act out the scene exactly as it happened. AI generated is so much further removed from all that.
I get what you're saying, but I really miss shows that did re-enactments of actual events. That shit was funny as hell. Especially the ones on Operation Repo, which were re-enactments of entirely bullshit/exaggerated stories. Like the dude who took down a whole mob operation because he had to reposses a car. 🤣
I'd say its less removed - the person reenacting is acting on his own interpretation of what happened, while the generated images are the distilled versions of real people winning the lottery.
Also, like I said, life is much easier accepting that not everything that i can emotionally connect to has to be authentic. I can very much connect to the notion that there are happy pets out there even if i see a drawing of a happy pet.
Sure. But I can make my own AI image of a cute dog, and where's the satisfaction in that?
Hence, I think it cracks open a bigger issue than AI: the 'illusion' of authenticity on social media. Our squishy brains doomscroll with the fantasy that the stuff is real, and candid, and honest, and gems we found...
But that's never really been true.
It's largely staged content designed to go viral and make someone a buck. Or sell something. And it's served by billion dollar algorithms designed to model and hijack your brain.
My hot take: people are upset that slop smashed that illusion with a hammer. Social media has been addictive fakeness for years; it's just glaringly obvious now.
If someone tells me a entertaining story that connects with me emotionally, it's not so much important if the story is true per se, it's important that it's told well. The storyteller might have invented the whole thing or based it on something similar and modified/exaggerated it, but that doesn't take away from the story. If i tell myself a story it wouldn't be satisfying either (if i'm not worldbuilding or an author, where the satisfaction has other sources).
It's an interesting thought and would explain why people react so intensely. I for my part was very quickly picking up on the fakeness of facebook - when i was riled up during the arabian spring in Libya, i realized that i get easily emotionally manipulated by the served content, which made me quit.
Nowadays i know much better how to verify information that's important to me; a dogs picture licking a cat which makes her purr will always emotionally positive for me, because a) it doesn't matter outside of my satisfaction, just like the well told story, and b) i can't check it for authenticity either way, so i do not care about authenticity.
I agree. It honestly makes me mad that people get in such a huff over using generative models for fiction; they’re just another generation of storytelling tools.
The issue is blurring fiction and reality.
This isn’t just a problem with AI. See: influencers, tabloids, and “news” that sell caricatures of reality.
But AI makes it too, too easy to distribute fakeness in spaces that are supposed to be real. That is very dangerous. And this is what it ended up being used for.
…I think I’ve used generative models enough to get desensitized to the “feel good” bit. I guess I felt like you once, but having peeked behind the curtain, the feeling has gone away.
But if they make you feel good, good. That’s what arts supposed to do.
Like i said in another answer, maybe that loss of confidence in the authenticity of what we see online has a positive effect in the future where people start rejecting what they see on the web as the truth and start believing in what authoritative people say again; i hope they start listening to their doctors, teachers and scientists again instead of grifters and con-men. In that case anonymous social media will find itself dead in the water, with media using verified and authenticated profiles winning out.
It might cause the combined stupidity - that made things like qanon possible - to fall apart into the small splinter cells of town idiots they were before.
But the problem exists if the average person can't tell the difference or doesn't care to verify it. Media literacy is at an all time low, at least in my country (guess). Without regulation, the presence and lack of labeling of AI content on social platforms can only further the decline.
That's an age-old problem, just scaled up. There has always been misinformation in social media (and before that in every bar). In the US it's especially bad, mostly because the GOP profits directly from misinfo and has done as much damage as possible to the education system to ensure it stays that way. That's also the reason there wont be any legislation regarding labeling of AI content (which is preferrable, but not enforceable even today) coming from your continent in the next few decades, sorry :-(
That might still be a "good" thing. More people than before become aware that what they see in social media is not reality, but entertainment that might or might not be real. It could lead to a general rejection of the notion that SM shows the truth.
But all in all it is still of no importance if it's imagery to give cozy feelings because of cute animals like in the meme. An entertaining story does not have to be true to be entertaining, and in the same vein a cute pet image doesn't have to depict a real pet to be cute.
It's not that hard to spot; my mother will watch them sometimes. A parrot using complete sentences and witty turns of phrase about a cat trying to attack them? Yeah no. But how do you get a "I just want to sit under my blanket, eat soup and watch cute animal videos" boomer retiree to understand she's destroying the world by paying attention to this?
Okay, I'll bite. How exactly is your mom "destroying the world" by paying attention to it?
By actively selecting these videos, watching them, sometimes multiple times through, going back to them to show them to me "You've got to see this video I saw" god hate fucking dammit, she's driving revenue toward their uploaders, which is causing them to pave over the entire continent of North America with data centers that are destroying the concept of truth itself and murdering the environment.
I figure it’s not going to be long before you are unable to tell the difference. Consider the rate at which you’ve had to go from “zero effort at all” to “it’s not hard to spot”.
Which is why it's important to starve them for attention, and thus ad revenue, now.
We past that point a year ago if not longer. The only point that would have worked came went and is long gone.
get her on libretube she can watch it all day with no effect