People are getting a little too paranoid if you ask me, and it’s always tempting for people to jump on the bandwagon in order to make themselves feel cool or aloof or in-the-know or whatever else. I don’t hang around anywhere except Lemmy so I have no idea if it’s as bad as it is here, but it seems like any time basically any picture of any stripe gets posted there are always one or two dinguses who reflexively parrot “it’s AI!!!” and claim they can magically tell, even though it demonstrably isn’t. For extra hilarity, this occasionally includes people howling about how literal decades old image macros that were circulating in the first couple of years of the century are “obviously” AI because apparently it’s their first friggin’ time using the internet or something.
For the record, I vehemently loathe AI slop and the current crop of generative “AI” products in general, I don’t use any of them, and I never will. But people really can get carried away over this, too.
But I’m disproportionally annoyed by posters who think they’re experts at something when they’re not. Especially so angrily/loudly, like the scenarios you point out.
It’s especially ironic in this case, as the “false confidence” AI gives is what the accusers are against, isn’t it?
My hot take. Apologies, but:
Why do people think they’re walking AI detectors, soley based on the art itself?
I find it pretentious.
To be clear, the who, where, and how a piece is published is important context. One should be suspicious of suspicious artists.
But not the what.
Don’t even look at the piece. Extreme cases aside, no one can definitively tell if art is AI generated just by looking at it.
People are getting a little too paranoid if you ask me, and it’s always tempting for people to jump on the bandwagon in order to make themselves feel cool or aloof or in-the-know or whatever else. I don’t hang around anywhere except Lemmy so I have no idea if it’s as bad as it is here, but it seems like any time basically any picture of any stripe gets posted there are always one or two dinguses who reflexively parrot “it’s AI!!!” and claim they can magically tell, even though it demonstrably isn’t. For extra hilarity, this occasionally includes people howling about how literal decades old image macros that were circulating in the first couple of years of the century are “obviously” AI because apparently it’s their first friggin’ time using the internet or something.
For the record, I vehemently loathe AI slop and the current crop of generative “AI” products in general, I don’t use any of them, and I never will. But people really can get carried away over this, too.
Eh. I can live with internet paranoia.
But I’m disproportionally annoyed by posters who think they’re experts at something when they’re not. Especially so angrily/loudly, like the scenarios you point out.
It’s especially ironic in this case, as the “false confidence” AI gives is what the accusers are against, isn’t it?