this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
287 points (97.4% liked)

196

2960 readers
1623 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://pawb.social/post/22215920

Source (Via Xcancel)

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"A computer made this" is so dumbed down from what is going on that it's wrong. The actual process of generating images from noise is a very fascinating one and still seems like magic to me, but it is far from the computer creating something from nothing. Then again, to get metaphysical, humans who do artwork get their spark of creation somewhere from something they've experienced. Go too deep and it becomes a Matrix "what is real" discussion.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago (3 children)

i always like to call it hallucination, it's significantly closer to how it works both technically and in effect.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What messes with me is how many AI videos I've seen that are so similar to dreams. The hallucinations that AI produces are very similar to the ones our brains produce, and that makes me feel like more of a meat computer than usual.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What I've found even more fascinating is, particularly in earlier iterations of the technology, visual effects produced were remarkably similar to visual distortions people experience with certain drugs.

Easy to make a lot out of this where it's not warranted, but at minimum it gives some interesting food for thought re: how visual processing works. Have seen people write about this, but am too dumb to actually understand.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

I have thought the same thing for years now. I almost wish GenAI stayed as simple and shit.

Unrelated but kinda related, Symmetric Vision makes some wonderful psychedelic recreations, the most accurate by far.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

King gizzard have a fantastic AI music video relating to a mushroom trip, its incredibly similar to intense hallucinations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njk2YAgNMnE

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You're a meat computer and always have been, flesh sack named after a famous abuser

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think fabrication is a better term than hallucination because of the double entendre of it being industrially fabricated and also being a lie.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

that's more of a comment on the usage than on the technology itself.

remember that google deepdream thing that would hallucinate dogs everywhere? it's the same tech.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

*shrugs

I think calling it a hallucination is anthropomorphizing the technology.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

so is calling it fabrication. something incapable of knowing what is true cannot lie.

also, gpts and image generators are fundamentally different technologies sharing very little code beyond the basic matrix manipulation stuff, so the definition of truth needs to be very different.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

that's literally how it works though, the software is trained to remove noise from images and then you feed it pure noise and tell it there's an image behind it. If that's not hallucination idk what would be.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

If that's the case, then we anthropomorphize technology all the time. Like, constantly. How many times has your phone died when its not even alive? How does a phone drop a connection without hands? We feed a computer input and it regurgitates or spits out output, all without a mouth. The examples are endless but hard to immediately pick out, because the usage has changed to be completely commonplace. Even bytes were originally conceived as a play on words with 'bite sized' to refer to a small collection of bits. I don't necccessarily defend these 'AI' tools, but policing the language people use ain't it. Changing the word hallucinate to refer to a part of technology is exactly how language has functioned since always

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

that removes the reference to how it actually functions though, at that point you might as well just stop being coy and call it "AI dogshit"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, good point, and it's incredible that so often the hallucination is close enough that our pattern-matching brains say, yes, that's exactly right!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

eh is that really true though? in my experience our brains tend to go "wow, this looks exactly right but there's something ineffably off about it and i hate it!"

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

i dunno if this is the point of the post, bt im pretty sure the comic is generated..

my reasoning, in case nayone cares:

  • painting isn't the same in first and last panel
  • small imperfections in the ears in the second and third panel
  • second and third frame look almost identical, but are not. it doesn't make much sense to redraw a scene when it's exactly the same... at least to me..

so lik--- what is the point of dis post? ai image bad? i agee, bt is there another point?

EDIT: srri if it was obvious to evrione thad the comic is fake... to me it was not, so i thought i share what i see

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The hand holding the painting in the first panel must be huge lmao

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

*optimized XXXXL-size for simultaneous choking and finge- I mean, uh, nevermind.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

oh ur right!!! i complitli missed that!! ha!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Sole people just have large hands, OK?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yep the subversion here is that the comic itself is AI-generated. So the humor is based on the misdirection of the speaker and the fourth wall break.

The fact that a lot of people missed this means the quality of AI images (in some cases) is finally approaching human levels of quality, further emphasizing the shock of the speaker.

Arguments about whether or not it’s ethical aside, that is really quite the technological achievement.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Translation in case others struggle with reading this reply:

I don't know if this is the point of the post, but I'm pretty sure the comic is generated.

My reasoning, in case anyone cares:

  • Painting isn't the same in first and last panel
  • Small imperfections in the ears in the second and third panel
  • Second and third frame look almost identical, but are not. It doesn't make much sense to redraw a scene when it's exactly the same... at least to me.

So like--- what is the point of this post? AI image bad? I agree, but is there another point?

EDIT: Sorry if it was obvious to everyone that the comic is fake... to me it was not, so I thought I share what I see.

Given the context, it wouldn't be surprising if the comic was at least partially AI generated.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

may i ask - is dis "translation" generated?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

No, I manually replaced the words one by one with what I thought it was supposed to be, only then was I able to understand your post.

No offense, despite your points being valid, I can't understand your broken English as it doesn't read out in my head.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The redrawing of the third frame is to show a pause before the response. At least that's how I interpret it.

Like looking at someone who is showing you something blatantly obvious as if it were new to everyone. Pausing, then responding. "Well duh"

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago

yesm i kno...

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

I don't get the first tweet, the four panel comic. Are they excited because ai can generate images that imitate art, or are they worried because no one seems to take it seriously?

Edit:

Looking at the real thread and looking at the other ai bros, I think I've come to the conclusion that the poster is shocked and confused that people aren't as excited as they are about this.

This for example was one of them.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I interpreted he's taken aback that no one is acknowledging or celebrating his super neat prompt slop.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

I looked through kimmonismus' profile, and they're a huge ai fan. So I think you're probably right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

i dun think so...othrwise he'd hav said "i made this" n not "a computer made this"... cuz lik... hes not praising himself and not claiming its his, bt instead says that the putr made it..

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Yeah, I think, there's just some tech folks and tech bros, who think AI is going to change everything. Then there's other tech folks, who are simply fucking tired of the hype cycle. And then there's the majority of people, i.e. the non-techies, for whom AI has largely no bearing on their life. From the position of "it's going to change everything", you would probably be alienated massively by there being people who just don't think about it at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

i thinksies the guy is like "woah, computr cn do dis! dis crazi" n peeps lik "yea so what" n he agn lik "nununu u dun realize. dis is scari!!! lik - bad scari!!!"

i dun think the guy liks it, othrwise eh wouldn look so scared kinda in last panl

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Looking at kimmonismus' profile, the person posting the comic, they are a huge ai fan. I'd find it strange if they posted something that would criticize ai, especially with a comment seemingly agreeing with the comic.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago

yes, chubby is huge ai fan. bt lik... peeps cn be self-reflecting i feel... evn if ai peeps.

im an ai peep. jus not an image ai peep.... n i totalli kno ai is mostli dum n shiddi n nt useful, which a babbl bout in this post

sooo yis... maybsies theyr reflectin... or mayb it rlli is jus "woah dis comic genrated!!!! :o" n nothin else..

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think the methods they use to make all this 'ai' art is really interesting, like diffusion models and stuff, but the fact that they are literally stealing from artists and creators without compensating them is pretty bad

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

i mean i'm all for shitting on people who think AI should replace humans, but surely it only hurts the message to call AI content ugly when it looks completely nondescript? At least to me it comes across as a bit dogmatic.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Ai image output is ugly. It just averages everything at a massive scale from stuff its trained on. It might look cohesive enough to be ignorable but under scrutiny its just generic and sloppy at best.

Not to mention everything being so glossy all the time

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

To me the main thing that's ugly about it comes from how most of what gets posted is from the top few services, which intentionally standardize their outputs so that any prompt will result in an image that is generically 'good quality'. So then you get stuff that's all in the same boring style, like the style of the OP comic that you see in (fully generated) AI comics everywhere. The actual range of what AI images can look like is much larger than what people are getting from ChatGPT.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

you seem to be talking about a specific kind of content, completely ignoring that AI can be made to fart out anything you want.

Like the whole point is that it just takes parts of what it's been fed and recombines it into an output, right? so it only makes sense that it should be capable of making beautiful things, because it was fed beautiful things. if you insist that everything AI models put out is ugly then you're kinda implying that all art is ugly, which obviously cannot be true.

AI art is soulless, which is a very different thing from being ugly. Most corporate things are surface-level pretty but fundamentally soulless.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Your ignorance is showing, maybe you're thinking of a year ago but it's 2025.