Here's a thought experiment.

[tomgwozdz@oldbytes.space]

@sjn it’s a warning label

[terryhancock@realsocial.life]

@sjn

Actually, I don't think using AI inherently brings down quality.

But the fact that they thought AI would help to promote it suggests they could not think of a better reason.

Sort of like how I automatically distrust food and drink that is marketed for its health benefits -- they wouldn't feel they needed to say that if it tasted good, right..?

[tshirtman@mas.to]

@sjn i put "no difference", but i really want to say "it depends". In the general case i would say it's not really useful information, in many cases, ai will produce muqh better quality than a low skilled or low motivated human, in many cases it will produce the same quality than a decently competent human, in some cases it will do terrible mistakes that humans would very rarely do.

i think we'll see less and less of the latter.

[karen5lund@mastodon.social]

@sjn I voted "lower quality" but there does need to be some context. Some day in the future, if AI improves, products made with AI might be a good thing for utilitarian objects--small appliances, for example. But for creative works such as books, music and art I cannot imagine "Made with AI" ever being a positive thing. At best it might be a curiosity.

[meduz@m.nintendojo.fr]

@sjn [x] “Holy shit this dystopia is really kicking hard.”

[daniel@mstdn.degu.cl]

@sjn The question already says that both products are identical, so I assume they do not have a difference in quality. So, I should vote no difference. The differences can be the fairness of the process used to make the product and why I am interested in the product. If the product is a painting by a person, I would prefer one that tells me more about that person. If it is a map generated with an algorithm from the data, I would consider the social and environmental impact of making it.

[budududuroiu@hachyderm.io]

@sjn using AI or not isn't a marker of quality imo, but if you put "made with AI" on your product I'm gonna assume you're not smart enough to steer AI meaningfully

[enigma@norden.social]

@sjn As long as you won’t tell what kind of product it is and how AI is related all bets are off
This way your poll is a psychological pattern without any value

[km@mastodon.babb.no]

@sjn well, "it depends", doesn't it?

there's a difference between "made with ai" and "made by ai".

yet, i'd regard such a mark as a signal to stay off the object marked.

[ki@chaos.social]

@gisgeek @rpbook @sjn
pardon my French, but what the fuck are you blabbering?

legality doesn't matter for the question of whether or not you should scrape the web and abuse art for some uncredited heuristic amalgamation without any artistic vision or value

a couple of assholes (including users of LLMs) burning the planet for inherently disrespectful consumerism isn't something that should stop you from still creating and publishing, unless you've already given up on life anyway

[hauchvonstaub@nrw.social]

@gisgeek

I wouldn't say, that it says nothing about yourself.
It says what you're willing to show others as a visual representation of yourself and it's not flattering.

That you're willing to use "AI" for your profile picture at all already says a lot.

It reminds me of all those incels who used to have profile pictures of half naked women or their "anime waifu" and didn't get, how this is an issue, especially when approaching women.

The lack of self-awareness is similar.

@sjn

[ripienaar@devco.social]

@sjn how it’s used not if it’s used influences the outcome.

[aron@nerdculture.de]

@gisgeek @sjn

While you're right with what you say you circumvent the actual question.

It's about the expected/perceived level of quality, not the actual quality (and maybe about morality).

If the prices are the same would you buy the organic fair traded oranges or the ones that come from a company known for exploiting their workers and not caring for environmental impacts of their production?

[aron@nerdculture.de]

@ainmosni @sjn @gisgeek

Funny thing is, this isn't even new. I had students in the past (~2008) who blatantly copied and pasted stack overflow solutions to a compiling program that almost did the things they wanted them to do.

Unfortunately these programs also did a lot more, a lot wrong and didn't show structure or a recognizable thought process behind it.

These students couldn't even describe what their code, that they claimed they wrote themselves, was supposed to do.

Feels a lot like vibe coding nowadays, with the main difference, that each if these students realized that they had to put in the effort to learn their basics to actually receive their grades (Most of them did) and it was part of their learning journey.

IMHO this stage of realization is missing with most vibe coders nowadays, so these people never actually start a learning journey.

[danbri@mastodon.social]

@sjn I’m trying to think of a non-frontational analogy, so let’s park electricity & metal for now. How would “made with plastic” or “sugar” look? Is current AI more like plastic, or sugar?

[lazyb0y@mastodon.social]

@sjn
apparently not many people from marketing departments voted here

[lazyb0y@mastodon.social]

@gisgeek
basically correct ...

but if a company thinks they must try to make their product appear more advanced by advertising with AI features i get the impression they spend more thought on mimick innovation instead of creating innovation

and thats where i start assuming the AI product is likely worse
@sjn

[ascendor@social.tchncs.de]

@sjn Impressive result, given the high number of votes.

[garonenur@rollenspiel.social]

@gisgeek @sjn I would go further with the whole quality of the product. For me, the use of AI tells me something about the quality of the user.
I shall update my profile and be more rigorous with blocking AI users.

[amymagdalena@lgbtqia.space]

@sjn Thanks for pulling the pro AI dweebs out of the woodwork so that we may block them