Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)E
Posts
16
Comments
1479
Joined
11 mo. ago

  • Pretty much every form of content these days is engagement bait. As it turns out, the only things advertisers care to clutch their pearls over in the modern age is sex and drugs. The only concern otherwise is getting as many eyes on it as possible, and nothing gets attention quite like outrage.

  • A wallet like that doesn't belong to someone that calls the police. I'd just keep walking.

  • I'm saying an 8 year old game isn't exactly going to be selling like hotcakes. And even if they somehow sold thousands of copies this week, $1 per still amounts to pretty much nothing considering they've made hundreds of millions off of the games. They're tossing less than a penny (that they still make 80% revenue from) at conservation and acting like it's something meaningful from them. It's a joke that does more for them than for anyone else.

  • So, like...$20? Pretty feeble PR for their shitty boss saying more dumb shit.

  • Frustrating waiting for people to realize it's all intentional.

  • ...huh. Garland has a good track record, imo. Fantasy would be a new one from him, but also weird-as-fuck, so he can probably run with it. Reserved interest to see how this turns out.

  • No objectionable comment. No comment at all - just a downvote. And of course the mod downvoted this very post (*and comment, lol. Checking in to see what people think of you, eh?). How very "rules for thee" of them as they continue their sad little banning spree.

  • I see what you mean about the settings, not 100% convinced it is AI, but yeah definitely have some doubts on it.

    A human made image will have intent in a scene like this. The classrooms could be different, but the similarities will be consistent and the differences will be intentional and have purpose. With generated images, it's a poorly structured facsimile. It's actually easier to pick out in series of images like this, because the "this is what a classroom looks like" features exist in each image, but they're slightly different for no reason - the speaker is lower or shifted to the side, the poster board turns into a cork board, the ceiling changes material at random, etc, etc.

    IMO, the more reliable sign in images like this is the poses. Those can be spotted even in singular generations. LIMs can't do groups of people very realistically (yet), so it ends up repeating poses throughout the image. In the first two images, all the characters are positioned pretty much identically. In the next to, you have can see differences, but even those get repeated elsewhere in the same image. Part of this is a model having similar patterns for "this is the facing forward pose" and "this is the facing right pose" that you'll see between generations, combined with a tendency for results to have less diversity within individual iterations. If "laughing and pointing" means one thing with a certain seed, it will typically mean that same thing anytime the algorithm results in "laughing and pointing" throughout the image.

    It’s unfortunate how much you have to scrutinize content now to figure out if it’s real or AI slop.

    It is, and it's going to get harder. But fwiw, my sole experience with this tech is locally hosted LLMs and LIMs that are necessarily much weaker than the commercial variants (since I don't have the means or desire to wreck communities and nature to erect heinous numbers of data centers), but even with the admittedly more impressive models, these tells still exist.

  • Maybe. Until they start calling this out for the farce it is, I'm gonna blame them as much as the journalists pushing the hype.

  • It looks a lot like it. The text is the biggest giveaway. Then there's the poses repeated between many different characters. On top of that, the "almost identical but slightly different" settings in each image is an obvious tell that someone iterated this prompt through different seeds until they got results they liked.

  • Artist unknown

    There is no artist. It's slop.

  • The invention of certain technologies at a certain time had effects that didn’t match the prediction and they don’t know why. Someday somebody will figure it out and the model will be better.

    Also known as "being wrong". Being wrong is fine. It's great even. It means that there's more to discover and improve. Calling it a "paradox" is a pathetic, self-serving attempt to save face when presented with evidence that makes them look bad. Instead of saying "We don't know, but we're working on it," they pass it off as unsolvable.

  • Economists: "We can't be wrong. The results are obviously a paradox. Yeah, that's the answer."

    I guess it takes years of study and experience to just double down over and over again instead of admitting the "miracle" tech you're hyping accomplishes a fraction of what you're trying to make it do. Very illuminating to us plebs that wouldn't know better.

  • Should append the country to the title. As is, it's just fear-mongering clickbait.

  • All good. It's just something I see a lot of people say without sarcasm or irony a lot, and I think it's a dangerous assumption to have about these algorithms. The personification of them has been the biggest boon to the over-hyped adoption and investment they received these past years, so I generally make a point to clarify when I see it, if only to better inform those who might not realize.

  • There was no thinking, "assumptions", addition, or conversions. It saw numbers and generated another number that hit it's "this should go next" filter first.

  • I'm not sure I would call myself "adventurous" - I know what I like and generally stick to it - but I've also realized that new, interesting music isn't just going to fall into my lap, so I'll occasionally go seeking for new stuff, and I'll usually check out anything that gets recommended to me. At worst, I wasted a minute or two, but it's usually worth at least a listen, even of it's not something I'll look for more of.

  • Those things are what make Ron a good person despite his libertarianism. The show goes to great lengths to make it's characters likeable, but the characters are also often wrong about things. Ron is generally wrong when he's clinging to capitalist nonsense like this (among other things), but when it's about duty, friendship, and responsibility, Ron is a great example of how to be a decent person. Tbh, thinking about it, Ron is probably more of an anarchist than a libertarian. He doesn't trust the government or corporations, and is much more comfortable living in the middle of the woods than he is in a "free market".

    In short, just because the character has good traits doesn't mean they're the one intended to be "right" in an episode. Ron is great, but he's wrong a lot. That's just part of the show (which I highly recommend. Start with season 2 if you do. Season 1 isn't terrible, but it's a rough start for the series).