This is bizarre to me. There's plenty of actual pictures of hurrican devastation.
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
363 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
59366 readers
3990 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Woah! Comment "Amen"
Amen!
I wanted to put Gordon Ramsay but the AI wouldn't let me so I chose the next best thing.
Amen!
Amen.
Yea, but if you have your own OC devastation, you can broadcast your gofundme scam or whatever.
Yeah but actual journalism is a cost center
Just generate images and text from the general idea and you are good
If I can pump out fake flood pictures, I can convince a couple million Americans that none of the flood images are real. That it’s ALL AI generated. Thus I can make roughly $100k on ad impressions and further convince people that climate change is a hoax.
But starting this weekend, the account shifted its approach dramatically, as first flagged by a social media user on X.
Instead of posting "photos" of leaping dolphins and sandy beaches, the account suddenly started publishing images of flooded mountain neighborhoods, submerged houses, and dogs sitting on top of roofs.
But instead of spreading vital information to those affected by the natural disaster, or at the very least sharing real photos of the destruction, the account is seemingly trying to use AI to cash in on all the attention the hurricane has been getting.
They need an editor.
AI saying AI is bad.
Whatever is trending Anti-AI AI slop is extremely trendy and always the same 5 talking points
I read this recently (quoted in the article too). It was fascinating and explains the « why » :
Paywalled
Guess we'll never know! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(I too, was disappointed to get a little ways in before hitting that same wall myself)
For what it’s worth, was an easy paywall to bypass. Firefox focus w/ trackers disabled and a VPN let me read it.
Well that explains a lot!
I knew it was this guy just from the headlines. He’s tricked the media in the past with the fake beach pictures after hurricanes/nor’easterns.. also flooded the market around here with fake sunsets and dolphins, etc. and has really hurt the livelihood of some local artists because a lot of people can’t tell they are fakes. He’s another provoquer and seeing this make the news will inspire him to keep making more fakes.
Facebook is 99% AI slop at this point. And they don’t care. It gets engagement, and that’s all they care about.
There is so much wrong with it. Much more than the red circles indicates.
Like most ai stuff it looks good at a glance, but when you start to zoom in you see all kinds of weird shapes, extra bits, like an extra roof, or a roof that blends into the brush behind. Or just straight stuff that makes you go "huh, that's just nothing"
While I can see lots of things like drunk windows and droopy rooflines, this really doesn't strike me as obviously AI. Have you ever been to a mountain town of former coal glory? PA/WV has many towns like that. 150-year old buildings fighting frost heaves, people tacking on decks just to bring a little joy, signs that look 50 year sout of place. Sucks that AI has so much overlap with a poor town of 200 people.
randomly oriented buildings on a straight street lol. random rooflines too.
I’ll provide some context but when your AI pals becomes sentient I want to be spared. The roof is non-Euclidean, the porch has a weird support structure, and the sign is gibberish.
check on your boomer relatives. is it just me or can any other people immediately tell an AI photo because of the lighting and Depth of field is always wrong? Like it's always off.
For me it's simple rule, if nobody tells the sources or credits, it's not even worthy to analyze it and cross check the news. The worst thing is that even "reputable media agencies" like reuters and bloomberg use heavily "anonymous sources". Very often used as propaganda purposes
No words
… goes on to write article
This isn't different than people shitposting hurricane flooding memes.
Although this has anti petrol flavour underneath
anti petrol flavour
?