Seriously I’ve seen AI slop like 5 times today, some of it transparently AI slop, but a lot of it was trying to hide the fact that it’s AI slop. Why do people post this even though it’s not wanted?
Normalization
The more its done, the more people see it, then the more average people will go out and share it and even generate them themselves.
I’m sure this first generation of slop we’re seeing is probably majority generated by bots and automated services but eventually it will be done by people who have normalized this behaviour.
It’s like manicured green grass lawns … nobody really wants them, they’re a pain and they serve no purpose … but if you market them enough and spread them around a city and convince people that they are needed, then everyone normalizes it and green manicured lawns become a normal necessary part of society.
De Beers did it with diamond engagement rings as well.
Learning that diamonds are actually kind of common and wouldn’t be worth nearly as much if not for De Beers was a slap in the face harder than discovering quicksand wouldn’t be as much of an issue in my adult life as cartoons I saw as a kid made me think.
same reason EarlytoRisa posts incel propaganda to sh itjust works every single day, normalize normalize normalize
I just had a look at your history, you are incorrectly calling an image AI because some bogus “ai detecting” site claimed it was, despite being shown historical evidence to the contrary.
Quit trolling.
LOL yeah I see what you’re talking about. It’s like the Red Scare but for illegible text and wonky pixels.
You are either extremely confused or trolling. I very strongly suspect you are intentionally trolling, especially since you created a throwaway account to make this post.
The post you are complaining about appears to be this one:
https://lemmy.today/post/27979434
Here is your complaint:
https://lemmy.today/post/27979434/15777591
The OP in that post posted an image taken from a well-established website from a 2014 article, long before anything approaching today’s image generation AI existed.
You accused the images of being generated by an AI, based on a “probability rating” from an AI image detection website.
The person who posted those pointed out the date of the article. You then ignored this and claimed that the article consisted of a mix of AI generated images and real photographs.
Being extremely generous and assuming that there is a slim chance that you are not trolling, even aside from the issues with the date on the source, there is no reliable mechanism to detect AI-generated images. The best you’re going to get are heuristics.
If anything, this just illustrates the issues with software that tries to detect AI-generated images using any heuristic — you’re going to get false positives and negatives, and invariably people out there are going to misinterpret it (or attempt to leverage the false positives or negatives to encourage other people to misinterpret them, like to claim that an AI-generated image that passes a detection website must be a photograph or that a real photograph that fails must not be evidence of what is shown).
Wait is op using AI to detect… AI?
Lololol
Absolutely op is trash either way.
Bots, man. Bots.
Because they profit from it in some way or another, and have no regard for others.
How do they profit from posting AI pictures and having 30 people downvote them until they get banned from the community for posting AI slop?
The same way Spam emails work. Spit shit everywhere and get that 0.000000001% return click, but it costs you almost nothing to put it out.
The account gets history with actual posts, and if it survives without being banned for spam, will eventually be cleared of posts and sold as an established account.
They don’t respect their audience
Edit: but also in your case, you either lack the ability to scrutinize and critically examine media enough to reasonably parse AI from actual photographs or humanmade images, or you’re trolling.
You are using an AI tool to check if things are AI generated without considering that PUBLIC AND HISTORICAL IMAGES ARE USED IN THE TRAINING DATA.
I hate AI as much as the next guy, your lack of critical thinking is more of a blight on humanity.
You’re not going to want to hear this, but you’re being paranoid. And not in the good, self-preservation way, but in the bad, “everyone and everything is out to get me” kind of way.
I saw your comments about the wiring picture. It’s not an AI image, but you’re so convinced it is that you’re relying on other AI tools to try to prove your point, which is incorrect to begin with.
You’re seeing boogeymen.
TW: Unsolicited Advice
I hate AI as much as the next reasonable person, but unfortunately it’s not going anywhere anytime soon (it baffles my mind). So instead of bitching about to everyone, just downvote and move on. Pointing out “AI Slop” is as bad, if not worse, than people posting “AI Slop”.
That’s my two pence.
If it’s against the community rules, it’s either ignorance or deliberate obnoxiousness. When possible, assume ignorance - not everyone is as good as spotting AI slop as you probably are.
If it’s NOT against community rules, then it’s just a matter of personal taste - or, again, ignorance.
People are assholes.
It’s a way of getting easy engagement with minimal effort. There’s so many videos on YouTube lately where it becomes really obvious that they were sloppily made using AI. They’re all so… same-y, with the weirdly coloured text, grammatical errors and a looping AI generated video in the background.
