1057
Your bad art is better than AI slop [Sophie Labelle] (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 days ago by [M] to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
229 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sophie Labelle | Instagram | Bluesky

Transcriptfour frame comic.

first frame shows a typical AI poster that says : All chatgpt flyers look the same, especially with this font! the text above it reads : I won’t go to your event if the poster was made by AI.

second frame shows a still frame from a Hank Green youtube video. text above reads : I won’t read your post or email and I won’t watch your video if they were made with AI.

third frame shows an AI restaurant poster of burgers and chicken in a window. text reads : I won’t patronize your shop or restaurant if it is advertised with AI.

last frame shows an MS paint window with badly written : Your bad art is better than AI slop. text reads : if you can’t take the time or make the effort to interact with me yourself, then why should I do it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 child)

It was a very niche topic about crocheting or something, I think? The problem is that he didn't know about it, so he was researching it as part of the script. And because he didn't know about it, he didn't realize that some of the information was wrong. Well, the crochet community knew it was wrong, because of course they'd know more about the topic. So that got people questioning how Hank could have come to this wrong information which led to people further dissecting the video and concluding that it was AI assisted.

So, Hank, a human, looks to learn about a topic he wants to talk about it. He, a human, does check the material, but he's not really qualified to know if the material is right (hence wanting to learn about it).

I think what he should do (and I think he kind of touched on this, but I don't know where) is he should reach out to experts in that field to verify his scripts. Rather than just trying to verify them himself. Especially if its about a topic he's not super confident in.

But most importantly... none of that makes the man out to be some kind mega villain, AI-slop loving, earth killing hypocrite that people are making him out to be. Just a dude who wanted to talk about something and made a mistake. And yet people want to run him through some kind of humiliation ritual and penance. It's sad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    What you're describing doesn't count as checking the material to me. If I was tasked with double-checking AI research on a topic where I had zero knowledge, I would use a search engine to find some reliable-looking source that said the same thing as the AI.

    If you find a second source, then you should be able to point at that page to day where you got it from.

    If the fact is so esoteric that you can't find any reliable second sources, then you have to start questioning where did the AI get the information in the first place, and suspect that the facts were hallucinations.

    To me, that's what you have to do to check AI. I do this process even if I am just googling something for myself and am presented with an AI summary that seems on-point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 days ago* (1 child)

    Yea well, anyone can come in after the fact and be like "Well if it was me, I would have earned my honorary doctorates researching the topic beforehand to verify it"....

    Not very helpful. And it's easy for you to say that because you're not a position to prove it. So... yay you, you sure would do that, good for you.

    I'm not gonna play "move the goal posts" with you all day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    My original comment explicitly used the term "thoroughly checked" because I wanted it to be obvious what I meant. When you got the wrong idea, I simply explained it more clearly. That's not "moving the goalposts." I simply didn't think anybody would see the term "thoroughly checked" and imagine the sort of half-assed process you spoke of.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    that's textbook moving the goal posts....

    "person should have done A"

    person did A

    "nono, I said A but I meant my standard of A, which is B"

    You're just here to engage in bad faith bullshit. You act like some authority on the matter while having to prove nothing. Nothing will appease this made up bar you set because you already have a foregone conclusion. If anyone manages to meet these conditions, you raise it. Meanwhile couch it all with a tone of pseudo intellectual with a holier than thou attitude (see: redditor).

    All you really are is a slimy manipulative concern troll.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent