NOTE: I am NOT defending AI or it's usage or anything like that. So just tie that horse right back up at the kitchen sink. I don't like the whole AI thing. This post is not about AI.
I get that it was necessary at first, but now whenever there's any hint of AI, there's a great chorus of everyone saying the same thing 'AI slop bla bla bla' like a gaggle of sheep jerking their knees.
It's not fucking helpful. It only sows even more division among the peasants, while the oligarchs take zero notice and continue on as usual. The correct way to engage with AI content you don't like is just not at all.
Examples:
Recently I watched as a post for a community event was removed, because it had an AI image. The image was not requested or created by the organiser, it was provided to them, and had information in several languages. But the post was removed because AI slop and now there is less human connection happening. Yay. Well fucking done. You literally are helping the AI overlords now.
I've seen many actual legit digital artists getting hit with the cries of AI slop and even banned, when they have been making art for years before AI was even a thing. People actually can't tell the difference half the time when they think they can, and end up hurting real artists.
Now is not the time to be attacking each other over using AI to generate some stupid meme. There are much, MUCH bigger issues at stake right now, and calling everything AI slop does nothing to help.
/rant
111 Comments
nutbutter@discuss.tchncs.de · 56 pts · 1d
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 1 pts · 19h
"Don't confuse slop with legitimately useful content just because some part of it was created with AI tools."
Fawkes@lemmy.zip · -4 pts · 9h
Fuck off with this purity test bullshit. Whatever happened to inclusivity? Acceptance? Removing gatekeeping? Now gatekeeping is 100% acceptable if it's a gate you personally don't like?
whalebiologist@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3h
yes. humans are inherently contrary. now pick a side.
Fawkes@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 2h
No. Stop being an absolutist loon. Be better than the screaming chimps. Use that prefrontal cortex and put down the fist full of feces.
abc@suppo.fi · 1 pts · 20m
Block and move on.
zombiebikini@lemmy.zip · 36 pts · 1d
Not just artists. There seems to grow a kind of AI paranoia that suspects AI everywhere. Benign posts that are a little longer than usual or use a uncommon word: AI SLOP!!!!!1!!!1. Maybe the poster is just a non-native speaker or neurodivergent. I agree to most reasons to hate AI but calling it out everytime there is just the slightest hint is annoying at least
FaceDeer@fedia.io · 25 pts · 1d
I got called a bot once because I used bullet points in a comment.
abc@suppo.fi · 7 pts · 18h
Kind of how like biological women are being called out for being trans when they're in the women's restroom because everyone's so worked out about it.
luthis@lemmy.nz · -2 pts · 17h
It is very similar to that.
bootstrap@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 32 pts · 1d
Not calling it out is akin to not calling out anything else unethical.
See a parent hitting their child? Shut up and move along.
AI data center being built in your neighbourhood? SHUT UP, JUST DONT USE IT.
Someone littering on your street? Stop whinging, just ignore it and it will eventually blow in to the ocean - all good!
If no one speaks up, then it just gets worse. Protest is fundamental to pushing back against the horse shit that corpos try and push down our throats every day. Someone less informed may take the lack of negative comments towards AI slop as it being OK and normal when it clearly isnt, therefore adding to the problem.
Hard disagree with your opinion and I think it comes across as corpo cuckery so you get an upvote I guess.
luthis@lemmy.nz · -7 pts · 17h
Well you could instead say something like, "You shouldn't use AI for images, it massively harms the environment and has a huge societal cost that we will all pay."
Engage with the person, not the content. That's far more effective.
bootstrap@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 6h
You could, but your original take was to not engage at all.
And I dont know if youve tried to engage with an AI user before but the whole point is that they dont want to learn to do the thing they got AI to do, trying to educate them about anything is likely to result in glazed over eyes and deaf ears.
If youre very lucky, they might ask AI about its environmental impact, to which it will probably lie and justify its existence, thereby burning a lump of coal in the process and we come full circle to what we are trying to avoid.
fodor@lemmy.zip · 31 pts · 1d
Your disclaimer is false. You said the post isn't about AI but it's entirely about AI. Because look, we all know that there's a backlash against AI. We all know that if you're planning an event, you probably shouldn't use AI if you aren't ready to piss off people who don't like it... That's the reality. Now, you could wish that reality were different, but it's not a big burden to say hey, don't have AI make the poster, just make it yourself. It's really not that hard.
Now, you also mentioned people who were accused of using AI when they didn't. Of course, that's not cool... But this is not a problem of reactions to AI. It's a problem of not fact checking. And if you came here telling us that people should fact-check better, or properly, than I think everyone would agree with you.
In summary, I think your post does the opposite of what you claim you want it to do. You don't want people to be divisive, but you've intentionally created a divisive set of guidelines. And then you've told people to shut up but you know they're not going to which means you're just looking for an argument... I guess this entire strategy bores me.
But you posted in the right place, so it's all good.
luthis@lemmy.nz · -5 pts · 17h
It's not about AI, it's about people's reactions to AI slop.
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · -5 pts · 19h
What the flog is wrong with having AI make a poster as long as it's reasonably clean, professional, and free of slop content? Indeed, much of what AI can do in those situations is little more than automation acting on PhotoShop-like sets of tools.
Make all the AI content you want, says I, but here's a tip-- don't make it obvious that AI was used in its production. Bam, problem solved.
bootstrap@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 18h
This is whats wrong with it
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · -4 pts · 17h
Now if you could put that in to your own words...
EDIT: To the enlightened downvoters-- that person's trying to get me to read a 5,000pp science paper instead of answering themselves.
bootstrap@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 6h
Nah you obviously dont care enough to read it so I'm good
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 0 pts · 3h
GTFO. That's a ~5,000pp science paper. You want me to try to read and understand all that instead of you doing the simple of thing of using your own words to convey your point?
Fuck off, troll.
luthis@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 17h
If it uses one of the online services, then it's a problem (environment, water etc).
You could somewhat make that argument for local models. But not many people are going to have any conception of that
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · -3 pts · 17h
Metrics are needed. Based on an article that Rimu shared a few days ago, I didn't get the impression that stuff like simple graphics work needed for a poster particularly added much strain.
There's also the simple fact that it's too late to be herding cats on this one. Most people who've gotten used to using AI for various tasks aren't going to give it up very easily. While I agree that it can be useful to talk up and spread the word about the destructiveness of AI costs, that energy and pressure ultimately needs to be funneled to lawmakers in order to draft and pass appropriate legislation.
Fawkes@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 9h
It's also an issue that every person that complains about AI has absolutely no fucking idea what it is, how it works, how to differentiate different models/forms, or even why it's a special unique technology that is inherently bad. Unlike things like alcohol, X-rays, methamphetamines, gunpowder, oil, nuclear, mining, farming, etc, etc, that are only harmful when used/done wrong.
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 0 pts · 8h
I don't understand how that could be at this point, but it would help explain the paranoia. To me, there's a huge difference between a simple, clean, low-cost use-case in which little or no trace of AI tools is detected, versus obvious AI slop media, versus having an LLM do extensive programming which winds up being filled with spaghetti code and whatever inefficiencies. The latter two involving a tonne more queries and tokens used.
It's all the same thing to a lot of people, I guess.
Fawkes@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 7h
Because it has become a purity signal and tribal call rather than an actual coherent position. I've seen people get angry at researchers using AI to develop new drugs, and novel bacteriophages. I've seen people get angry at "AI" in word processing and image editing, claiming there's no difference between ChatGPT and the algorithms than have been used for decades.
There is such a idiotic mix-up between the horrible corruption of OpenAI, and the term "AI" itself, that morons with no understanding of anything are waving torches and grabbing pitchforks at the word itself, without any comprehension of what they're angry at.
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 0 pts · 2h
Yeah, I guess that pretty-well covers it. Well said!
Not totally sure what you mean, there. I do use GPT a lot for complex searches, rarely anything else.
luthis@lemmy.nz · -1 pts · 16h
100% agree
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -5 pts · 1d
Maybe not, but it doesn't feel great when people think they can push you around like that. "Just comply with our demands, it's easy" is exactly the kind of attitude that makes it even more intolerable.
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1d
Yeah that's how a society works, so are you gonna cut yourself off and live off the land in a cabin in the woods where no one can tell you what you have to do or are you going to continue to comply with society's demands in order to reap it's benefits?
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 17h
Going for a mix of strategic isolation and speaking out against smug mob rule bullies personally. The existence of rules is one thing, but when it's both about micromanaging the arguably innocuous use of information processing tools, and enforced in the most obnoxious way possible, that seems like the right hill to take a stand on.
anyhow2503@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 1d
Fair point. How are we going to pull ourselves together and rise up against the ones causing actual societal damage?
Ah, yeah that'll help. Call everyone sheep and make them sound stupid while you're at it.
Mim@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 1d
Oh, the mob does that perfectly on its own. They are really quite good at it. Definitely better than accurately spotting AI things.
anyhow2503@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1d
Good point. Being even more condescending will unite us and encourage cooperation!
rimu@piefed.social · 15 pts · 1d
PieFed users: if you don’t want to see any AI generated images, go to https://piefed.social/user/settings/filters and set the “AI-generated posts” setting accordingly. Also if you see a slop image without an 'AI' tag, report it.
No need to abuse the poster about it.
https://piefed.social/c/piefed_meta@piefed.social/p/2304120/piefed-1-7-12-detects-ai-generated-images
FaceDeer@fedia.io · 6 pts · 1d
How does one know if it's an AI image?
rimu@piefed.social · 0 pts · 1d
AI images include some special metadata in the file. It works sometimes!
FaceDeer@fedia.io · 7 pts · 1d
Some AI providers add that metadata, yes. It's what piefed searches for with its automatic filters. But metadata can be stripped, or not added at all in the first place.
My avatar image is AI-generated, for example. I did it using local AI models, edited it with image editing tools, converted formats, and so forth. I doubt it's got anything the automated filters would recognize on it. If I didn't tell you its pedigree would you know to report it? What if it actually isn't AI generated after all, how can your report be tested for accuracy? That's the sort of problem that OP is calling out here.
Auth@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 12h
it doesnt need to catch 100% of cases
FaceDeer@fedia.io · 0 pts · 12h
False positives are fine?
Some artist spends days working on some bit of art, posts it, gets the scarlet letters "AI" hung around their neck and now they not only have that particular post taken down they're a "suspect" from then onward.
Auth@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 12h
Yes it is fine. Posting is not a critical thing. If its falsely flagged they can submit a report to the mods to get it removed and everyone continues living.
FaceDeer@fedia.io · 1 pts · 12h
Ah yes, mods are famously level-headed and will take the word of the person objecting to their actions. Same with the general commenter population of art communities.
rimu@piefed.social · 0 pts · 1d
When automated detection fails then it's up to people to manually report it and mods / admins to manually apply the label.
I was talking about screening and reporting posts and you've moved to profile pics for some reason?
FaceDeer@fedia.io · 7 pts · 1d
Which is not reliable, and which therefore leads to the witch-hunting problem.
Whether an image actually is AI and whether some random person thinks it "looks" AI are not always in alignment. Especially considering that "is AI" has shades of grey too, given that lots of images are made using AI tools for only some aspects. And even "AI tool" is open to interpretation.
It was just an example of an AI-generated image that I could point to that I'm quite sure doesn't have any special metadata attached to it. If for no other reason than I generated it years ago.
victorz@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 23h
Upvoted for very unpopular opinion.
Yes, let's just ignore all the bad things happening around us. Great idea.
luthis@lemmy.nz · -3 pts · 17h
Not ignore, find better ways to deal with it.
victorz@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 8h
Those examples you mentioned of unfair and undesired outcomes after witch-hunting AI slop are legitimately unfortunate. Very clear cases where we should pick our battles and not be overly confident in our identification of slop. I agree fully on that.
But if people are posting slop that they explicitly or implicitly pose as their own work, just for our simple viewing, then most people are going to take a stand. We don't want that stuff. 👍🫶
To summarize, I grant that I don't fully disagree with your original post.
Take care!
fbn@slrpnk.net · 14 pts · 1d
dont blame the anti-slop crowd for the problems created by the stupid jerks destroying our only livable planet for profit
it's OUR fault that the dogshit that is getting plastered everywhere is causing a backlash?
unpopular for sure, despite its thoughtlessness, have an upvote
luthis@lemmy.nz · -5 pts · 16h
You've missed the point of the post.
fbn@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 14h
sorry
recarsion@discuss.tchncs.de · 13 pts · 1d
While I agree in spirit, I think when it's been shoved down our throats as aggressively as it has been for the past few years while nobody asked for it, a similarly radical reaction in the opposite direction is only natural. Fuck AI.
luthis@lemmy.nz · -2 pts · 17h
Yes, but the reaction shouldn't be to antagonise other people
stoy@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 1d
Well, I am stumped.
Do I downvote this because I disagree, thus telling OP that it isn't an unpopular opinion, or do I upvote the post because it is an unpopular opinion?
luthis@lemmy.nz · 9 pts · 1d
You upvote if you disagree, and upvote if you think it is an unpopular opinion. Downvote if you agree
Endmaker@ani.social · 6 pts · 1d
What if you agree, but think it is an unpopular opinion?
luthis@lemmy.nz · 5 pts · 1d
damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Downvoted because I agree.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 1 pts · 1d
0x52534B@feddit.nl · 10 pts · 17h
Feels like MLK's quote fits right here
luthis@lemmy.nz · -2 pts · 16h
We do need tension, but not between us peasants, it needs to be between us and legislators/oligarchs.
nomen_dubium@startrek.website · 3 pts · 8h
btw, the way you keep calling everyone a peasent is really not helping your case imho xD
andicraft@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 18h
nah, fuck ai and anyone who uses it
luthis@lemmy.nz · -6 pts · 16h
GarboDog@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 17h
Ok, but you’re saying AI is a problem, but we shouldn’t call it out along with other issues? Nah, we’ll call out whats slop: slop.
Overall you’re saying it’s not actually about AI but it’s literally feeling pro ai, and none of us are conformists, especially when it comes from horrendous shit/actions to individual instigators.
luthis@lemmy.nz · -2 pts · 16h
GarboDog@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6h
Ok so if you’re adamant on that point, why wouldn’t you be mad/call that out? You’re having to suffer because of people’s stupid choices. /neutral /genuine question
qevlarr@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 9h
Finally an actually unpopular opinion. Angry upvote. AI slop needs to die and I will not shut up
yesman@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 22h
BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 1d
AI slop has stopped being commentary on slop being bad and is now just the popular clique people want to be seen as being involved. It happens to a lot of things, unfortunately it usually eventually gets recognized in the same way you have here in a wider audience and starts to make the people with legitimate points look bad by association.
luthis@lemmy.nz · -4 pts · 17h
Yep I'm just playing my part trying to get us past the point where the slop is mistaken for the actual problem
Fierro@piefed.social · 7 pts · 14h
I dislike it too, but I strongly disagree, ai slop is much worse and you have to be loud because of how strongly it is forced upon us.
luthis@lemmy.nz · 2 pts · 13h
Be loud about why it's bad
Fierro@piefed.social · 2 pts · 5h
It undermines human effort and is generally spam, maybe we have different experiences but I've heard that to death already, which is why it's annoying to me.
silentjohn@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 17h
Truly an unpopular opinion.
Fuck AI and everybody using it
luthis@lemmy.nz · -3 pts · 16h
If we cannot stop the infighting, the machines have already won.
Malica@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 1d
People are stressed out and taking it out on each other. People are desperate for any kind of solidarity. The result is this. The revulsion with ai will die down as soon as it stops destroying lives on this scale.
luthis@lemmy.nz · -1 pts · 17h
Somehow I don't think that is going to be very soon. And I doubt the scale is going to trend downwards either.
Exactly, this is what needs to stop
MoonRaven@feddit.nl · 5 pts · 17h
Anyone can post Ai slop by accident. It's how you handle it. And if you do it on purpose, you know what side you're on. I'm fine with people acknowledging that they used something they didn't intent to.
MoonRaven@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 17h
In regards to that event. Did they just say "hey I didn't know, here's an image that's just word art?". There are so many ways to handle things. Hell, just hand draw something in a minute when you find out and post that instead.
AI slop is not your friend.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 13h
Yup, an unpopular opinion.
I'd argue there's absolutely no moral usage of it because it's a tool of the oligarchs to devaule workers further and further. AI media slop is a real problem, if you allow any of it then where is the line at which you stop then?
luthis@lemmy.nz · -1 pts · 11h
Regardless of moral usage or not, chanting 'AI slop' at every opportunity provides minimal benefit and doesn't encourage the user over to our side.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1h
Some people may not know it's AI Slop and pointing out and how to identify helps. For those who are wholly in support of we'll never get them to agree. I don't try to change people's opinions who will not ever change them. Which is why I stopped arguing with most conservatives and all reactionaries.
Auth@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 12h
how is it a tool of the oligarchs to devalue workers? It can be used by any worker for a tiny cost and the models themselves are a pretty competitive space with very little signs of any of the big companies having a moat.
AI media slop would be a problem if the content on these platforms wasnt already the worst shit possible.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 12h
The fact they see it as a replacement for certain workers for cost cutting it the entire reason. You don't think they'll validate that if AI can do X of your job you deserve less money? Nothing about AI is to help YOU, the worker, it's to help THEM the business.
Auth@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 12h
Ok so tool of the oligarch to devalue workers is meaningless since every piece of tech falls under that description.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1h
Being purposely obtuse is unbecoming of you.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 12h
Auth@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11h
This is deep if you're 14. The costs to access it are dirt cheap. If you think its useful there is nothing stopping you from using it to access wealth.
Wealth never has trouble accessing skill. If anything it undermines wealth by giving everyone access to skill.
That being said I consider AI to be access to skill in the same way a search engine is access to skill more of a tool than a worker replacement.
luthis@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 11h
Unfortunately for us, the oligarchs definitely see it as a way to pay people less
Auth@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 9h
Thats a different claim. Companies have always wanted to reduce labor costs. The question is whether AI actually gives them the ability to do that at scale. So far, there is no evidence of broad wage suppression or mass job loss caused by AI. Companies will always have access to skill. So I dont think you can say that a tool accessible to millions of ordinary people is exclusively empowering elites and removing access to wealth from people. If I believe AI was that powerful I would be forced to think the opposite, that it was giving ordinary people access to skill and wealth.
nomen_dubium@startrek.website · 5 pts · 8h
(kinda replying to your the machines have won replies)
there are no 'machines' that will 'win' anything... the only way 'ai can win' is by normalising it, by forgetting the costs (environmental and human) of using it, as well as those who benefit from it's use (the people who stand to win something).
what you're calling for is exactly that (being complacant about it) and it's probably why people get upset..?
p.s. i do agree that we should approach each other with more love and understanding and probably inform more than shame. i'm truly believe most people are just lazy or curious, not actively malicious.
beliquititious@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 1d
You're absolutely right. Whining about AI is not going to get people to stop using AI. I mean honestly if you really hate it, you should use it as much as humanly possible because of how insanely expensive it is. If everyone that whinged about AI slop spent an hour a day hitting the max limit on the free accounts of the main AI providers they'd be forced to reduce the usage of free accounts which would hinder the dumbasses using it instead of thinking.
Malica@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 1d
Seeing how quickly it makes people dumb makes me want to say it should be avoided at all costs.
luthis@lemmy.nz · -1 pts · 1d
That is actually a decent strategy.
scrion@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
It is actually not. It damages the environment, deprives people of drinking water, is addictive and makes people dumber as they begin to rely on it.
webp@mander.xyz · 3 pts · 1d
luthis@lemmy.nz · -2 pts · 17h
The last one I saw made me cringe so hard I needed reconstructive surgery.
It was of a woman on a bed reading the bible to her kids while shielding them from the trans rainbow.
Yeah, I know, it hurts, I hope you have cheap medical care.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de · 3 pts · 1d
To be fair, I wouldn't want people to stay silent about it, either.
I mean the event post is kind of a relatable example. But there is a good way to deal with it. Removing the human-written(?) text because of an attached image seems to be too much to me. We could ,though, just send some backlash. Have it stay there but the first post is always some "Slop image" comment with a healthy dose of upvotes.
I've been in similar situations before. You'd have an event that targets artists amongst other people. And for some reason the organizers think it needs to go with some slop image... But wtf? Don't they know lots of artists don't agree with the way those generative AI models are made? Why affront their target audience? What we did, wasn't boycott them. But we sure demanded an explanation. Which was: It was quicker to cook up something with AI, than talk to the humans who've drawn the promotion pictures in the time before.
luthis@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 17h
Yeah that is so stupid, I would believe that it probably happened at some point.
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 10h
If you can replace a word with the N-word and your sentence sounds like it came out of jim crows' mouth then you are being anti-AI wrong. If you sound exactly as dumb as an anti-vaxxer promoting your lack of understanding as evidence then you are being anti-AI wrong. I really only defend it here but I don't even like the only AI that people here seem to use the big chatbots.
And then there is the people that see AI and freak out those are irrational people with a morality that only activates for this particular subject.
MirrorGiraffe@piefed.social · 1 pts · 1d
I don't think it's a big problem for normal consumers to use LLMs to generate content, no artists are losing their jobs because of that and most people have other vices that are more problematic to the environment etc.
The main issue I see with it is the normalisation of AI which could affect adaptation elsewhere but I think these greedy corporate fucks will go 100% no matter what.
Consumer choice, based on morals or ethics, has very rarely been a major motivator to production (I think, honestly I have no idea).
Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 14h
Anecdote:
I have heard drawing/painting artists discuss losing customers because people generate a slop replacement and call it good instead of paying for commissions.
"Why would I pay $15 for your version when I can just make one myself?"
MirrorGiraffe@piefed.social · 1 pts · 8h
I was more thinking of scenarios where you wouldn't hire an artist anyway. But undoubtedly there's a gray zone there and risk that it's moving.
What I was trying to say is that if I would've just handslopped together an invitation card to my party before, it's not that big a crime to let an LLM do it now. Even though I would be much happier to see a sloppy handmade card than genslop.
Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 3h
This is a fair take. I think AI slop is AI slop even if it has cinnamon in it. But I completely agree that a handmade card is always better.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 14h
This particular opinion is popular with me, only because one of the things that got SO tiring on reddit was scrolling past all the FAAAAAKE FFFFEEEEAAAAAAAKKKKKEEEE FAKE AKF EKA FKEF FEEEAAAAKKKEEE comments on any submission that happened before AI, or SCRIPTEDDDDDDDD on any video that might be a sketch or might even be legit. Those people now stroke their genitals while posting AAAAAAIIIIIII SSSSLLLLOOOPPPPPPPPPP.
So either it is these things or it isn't, but S H U T T H E F U C K U P . Jesus fucking christ.
That said, AI slop sucks.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 13h
abc@suppo.fi · 0 pts · 18h
Thanks for this honeypot. Lots of great assholes to block in the comments.
bstix@feddit.dk · 0 pts · 3h
What's worse is that it's also being used to suppress true images in the news.
It only takes a second to discredit a picture, but it takes several hours to prove it, and the damage is never undone.
I don't really care about a computer making fictious images, but I am concerned how humans abuse the whole situation.
Engywuck@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 23h
Yeah, but then how people here or on Reddit would feel special?
luthis@lemmy.nz · -2 pts · 15h
It's a dangerous trap to fall into