People keep sharing an image of a bird with a drop of water bursting on its head like a crown.
-
@GOKUSHRM Yes, agreed!
@CiaraNi one more thing I want to mention here that we can't not stop AI involvement in our daily life because soon everything will be run by AI. We could resist for some time. So enjoy the resistance.
-
@Amorpheus @jwcph I think both parts are deception. Even without text explicitly claiming it was a photo, the person posting knows it is being presented as a photo and will be seen as a photo of a real moment in time.
@CiaraNi @jwcph True. Still, the impact of the actual lie carried significantly more weight to it than the image itself.
I first just saw the image and thought... "this looks way to perfect". Then I read the text and went to "unbelievable... what are the odds for such an event". Now I am like... "the written word seems to have more impact on my plausibility control than my imagery vision".
-
People keep sharing an image of a bird with a drop of water bursting on its head like a crown. It's AI, but people share it in good faith, believing it’s an amazing photo by a human of a real bird in a real moment of time. Meanwhile, humans who have taken amazing photos of real birds captured in real moments of time, like a hummingbird in ballet with a butterfly, get questioned in good faith by people who are tired of being cheated by AI-deceit. The way AI has broken social trust is distressing.
@CiaraNi We've started seeing rare species being uploaded to iNaturalist and other citizen science platforms and then it turns out it's AI and I just don't see whyyyy people are doing that. Like No, your AI imagination of a rare insect isn't just as good as someone finding a living specimen, what do you mean. Who profits from that. Who wants to see a "photo" of a fake bird. What's going on.
-
@CiaraNi @jwcph True. Still, the impact of the actual lie carried significantly more weight to it than the image itself.
I first just saw the image and thought... "this looks way to perfect". Then I read the text and went to "unbelievable... what are the odds for such an event". Now I am like... "the written word seems to have more impact on my plausibility control than my imagery vision".
@Amorpheus @jwcph Agreed. That's true. The use of text further manipulates us
-
@CiaraNi @henryk Agreed. I don't know where people find the time or what exactly they get out of it doing it inside. Kinda sad, really.
(though I guess there is also a part of me that *wanted* to believe someone had luckily caught a raindrop corwning a bird like that, cause it woulda been kinda awesome.
).@awws @henryk This is it, exactly. And there are so many genuinely amazing real images that are awesome. Which is what makes it all even worse. Human photographers feel insulted when people think their genuinely amazing images are AI. People doubt amazing images are real because they have been tricked before by other humans who pretend fake images are real. All the humans lose, except the ones making money off AI tools.
-
@CiaraNi fuck ai and this very violating of public life and art. It's obscene and abusive on all levels.
@KristinHenry Agreed. It does feel violating. And humiliating, and insulting, and wearying. The way in which AI use and abuse and misuse leads to humans questioning each other, bickering with each other, makes it all even worse - violating of public life and art, yes.
-
@CiaraNi We've started seeing rare species being uploaded to iNaturalist and other citizen science platforms and then it turns out it's AI and I just don't see whyyyy people are doing that. Like No, your AI imagination of a rare insect isn't just as good as someone finding a living specimen, what do you mean. Who profits from that. Who wants to see a "photo" of a fake bird. What's going on.
@weirdmustard That's so depressing. And so 'unnecessary', for want of a better way to say it!
-
A few people have questioned whether I am right to say that the image of a drop of water bursting on a bird's head like a crown actually is AI-generated. They think I may be wrong. That it is not faked. That it is real.
If I'm wrong, if it really is an unmanipulated photo by a verified human photographer, please do let me know so that I can correct myself and my toot.
(All this uncertainty is part of the whole problem. We all spend so much human time & energy trying to act in good faith.)
@CiaraNi I haven't seen the picture but water drops only form crowns when they hit a body of water, not when they hit a surface.
-
@weirdmustard That's so depressing. And so 'unnecessary', for want of a better way to say it!
@CiaraNi People are spending quite some time on the community boards trying to figure out how to keep that stuff from destroying the usability of these platforms in scientific data sets. The goddamn time it takes just to prove that a "photo" is genAI. I mean even on your post ppl are like "Where's the proof?". It truly is all so unnecessary.
-
@CiaraNi I haven't seen the picture but water drops only form crowns when they hit a body of water, not when they hit a surface.
@geoffl That's my understanding too.
-
A few people have questioned whether I am right to say that the image of a drop of water bursting on a bird's head like a crown actually is AI-generated. They think I may be wrong. That it is not faked. That it is real.
If I'm wrong, if it really is an unmanipulated photo by a verified human photographer, please do let me know so that I can correct myself and my toot.
(All this uncertainty is part of the whole problem. We all spend so much human time & energy trying to act in good faith.)
@CiaraNi Breaking social trust is the entire point of these things. A society fragmented into infinitely smaller cells cannot fight back. And they cannot even know who is friend or foe. The high valuation of these corporations lay in the security they give one another to continue the Capitalism cancer ponzi scheme.
-
@CiaraNi People are spending quite some time on the community boards trying to figure out how to keep that stuff from destroying the usability of these platforms in scientific data sets. The goddamn time it takes just to prove that a "photo" is genAI. I mean even on your post ppl are like "Where's the proof?". It truly is all so unnecessary.
@weirdmustard Agreed. The amount of human time and energy wasted because of AI and the mistrust it has generated is shocking. It's wearying enough in a low-stakes discussion about a photo posted on a social media. It's terrible that it's threatening the credibility of scientific data, as well as draining scientists' time and trust and energy.
-
@CiaraNi Breaking social trust is the entire point of these things. A society fragmented into infinitely smaller cells cannot fight back. And they cannot even know who is friend or foe. The high valuation of these corporations lay in the security they give one another to continue the Capitalism cancer ponzi scheme.
@retech Yes indeed
-
People keep sharing an image of a bird with a drop of water bursting on its head like a crown. It's AI, but people share it in good faith, believing it’s an amazing photo by a human of a real bird in a real moment of time. Meanwhile, humans who have taken amazing photos of real birds captured in real moments of time, like a hummingbird in ballet with a butterfly, get questioned in good faith by people who are tired of being cheated by AI-deceit. The way AI has broken social trust is distressing.
@CiaraNi Even AI thinks it's AI generated
-
@CiaraNi Even AI thinks it's AI generated
@Mary_Amado92 What a vicious circle we're in!
-
People keep sharing an image of a bird with a drop of water bursting on its head like a crown. It's AI, but people share it in good faith, believing it’s an amazing photo by a human of a real bird in a real moment of time. Meanwhile, humans who have taken amazing photos of real birds captured in real moments of time, like a hummingbird in ballet with a butterfly, get questioned in good faith by people who are tired of being cheated by AI-deceit. The way AI has broken social trust is distressing.
@CiaraNi I believe all this is transitory. It’s only us old-timers who keep having difficulty in telling AI from real life.
The next generations will do as humans always have done, and quickly develop the necessary skills to tell apart fact from fiction.
-
@licho I did think it looked like a real photo, in the technical sense. I didn't see obvious at-a-glance technical signs of photo manipulation. But the drop of water didn't seem right or natural and the foreground and background focus seemed too smooth. No verified source has been forthcoming, despite discussion in the thread under the photos.
-
@CiaraNi I believe all this is transitory. It’s only us old-timers who keep having difficulty in telling AI from real life.
The next generations will do as humans always have done, and quickly develop the necessary skills to tell apart fact from fiction.
@gimulnautti It's hard to know if those brought up on it - the 'enshitiffication natives' and 'AI natives' - will be able to tell fact from fiction or will not feel the need to see if they can tell fact from fiction. I fear it can go either way.
-
People keep sharing an image of a bird with a drop of water bursting on its head like a crown. It's AI, but people share it in good faith, believing it’s an amazing photo by a human of a real bird in a real moment of time. Meanwhile, humans who have taken amazing photos of real birds captured in real moments of time, like a hummingbird in ballet with a butterfly, get questioned in good faith by people who are tired of being cheated by AI-deceit. The way AI has broken social trust is distressing.
Doesn't this call for some sort of traceable watermarking, or otherwise trustworthy assurance of human originality? While such stupid conditions prevail, for now?
The citationless crap that fills social media is readily regurgitated. I'm sure I'm guilty of it too. I just meant well...
-
@stekopf @VerenaRupp Everything points to it being AI (there are plausible reasons in the photo's thread and in this one.) I don't know how I can prove technically that it is not an AI image. A verified source for the actual photographer and original photo would prove it but nobody seems to have found one.
How do we prove something is or isn't AI in the absence of an original source?
Edit to add: I was sure. Until people started questioning me. Which made me unsure. This is the whole AI mess.
