Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Is Being Overrun with Stolen, AI-Gen Images That People Think Are Real

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 320 posts

Re: Facebook Is Being Overrun with Stolen, AI-Gen Images That People Think Are Real

#311

Post by libraryatnight »

shellygoodman wrote: post #150
libraryatnight wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the content market is due for a correction, then. If people are sick of toxic ads, and toxic ads pay for content, but nobody else wants to pay for the content, the content can just die and we'll figure something else out I'm sure.

I think you're on the right track. Unfortunately, the toxic "free" model with ads has trained everybody to expect all content for free. This is completely unsustainable; there will be a correction of some sort, and it's my opinion that we've already entered that stage. It's going to be painful, but I'm hopeful that the end state is that people consider ad-laden "free" content to be not worth their time. I'm already t…

I'm also a Kagi user! I'm leaning towards using products that I pay for that promise me a dignified experience. I worry though, that we're heading to future where there's a class of people that do not see ads and have some degree of privacy and a class of people that do see ads and have no privacy and I fear for their minds and that culture, as I do not think that system lends itself to narrowing any inequality gaps. I worry for increasingly ad supported hardware. I worry. ;)

Re: Facebook Is Being Overrun with Stolen, AI-Gen Images That People Think Are Real

#312

Post by libraryatnight »

tayo42 wrote: post #153
libraryatnight wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the content market is due for a correction, then. If people are sick of toxic ads, and toxic ads pay for content, but nobody else wants to pay for the content, the content can just die and we'll figure something else out I'm sure.

I think people would pay. Ads offer more money then people are willing to pay. Alot of content is expensive for what it offers.

I agree, and I think part of the correction would be because of your latter point.

Re: Facebook Is Being Overrun with Stolen, AI-Gen Images That People Think Are Real

#313

Post by arp242 »

darkerside wrote: post #310
arp242 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Brainwashed" is a hugely extremist scenario. The point is that if I ask about topics I don't know about, then by definition I can't judge what is or isn't true. That is also the case on HN where I'm reading a discussion about a topic I don't know about, but that on HN there are some signals such as votes and replies to comments, whereas on ChatGPT there are no external signals. Is this perfect? Of course not. Does i…

> For books or sites or most things these signals exist too; I can look up what others have said about it. That's no different from ChatGPT. The control on books at least is a publisher, but that is not really the case for a website. That's why fake news is a real issue. And your uncle may talk to you in private. Or maybe it's your parents around the family dinner table. There are many sources of dangerous misinforma…

Let's not lose track of what this discussion is about: it's not about whether your uncle might be feeding you bullshit, it's about whether ChatGPT is a good source to learn about new topics you're not knowledgable on. Your crackpot uncle is not the baseline here – a well-reviewed book (or documentary series, or podcast, or whatever) is.

That there are crackpot books out there is besides the point; I can trivially find out which the good books and crackpot books are. With ChatGPT you need to verify every single reply it gives you.

And there is nuance here. Take Horrible Histories. I like Horrible Histories – it's fun, and generally the history is accurate. But it's not perfect and has mistakes, and there's a ton of lists enumerating these mistakes, so you can safely watch the show and then read these lists to ensure you're not believing a mistake.

There is no "historical inaccuracies in ChatGPT" list. It would be impossible to construct such a list. You need to verify every single reply it gives you, and every detail of that not just the general gist.

General critical thinking helps you surprisingly little because many of the signals of reliability that you usually rely on are lacking. Thinking you can trust ChatGPT on topics you're not already fairly knowledgable on and can't be easily empirically tested (e.g. math, programming to some degree) is a good way to get fooled.

Re: Facebook Is Being Overrun with Stolen, AI-Gen Images That People Think Are Real

#314

Post by galaxyLogic »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #268
pjc50 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did do something: they blocked people using adblockers. Really we need some body like the UK ASA to say "you're liable for all these frauds, Google".

That sounds like a classic example of doing something and making the situation worse (aka almost every regulation ever) If advertising providers were de jure and de facto liable for fraud, then that will raise the bar for competing advertising providers, as if Google wasn't enough of a monopoly. Regulation almost universally benefits established players and stifles competition, which is why a lot of regulation is (se…

It's simply a question of fraud. Fraud is a crime. And aiding and abetting to commit a crime is a crime as well.

Re: Facebook Is Being Overrun with Stolen, AI-Gen Images That People Think Are Real

#315

Post by darkerside »

arp242 wrote: post #313
darkerside wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For books or sites or most things these signals exist too; I can look up what others have said about it. That's no different from ChatGPT. The control on books at least is a publisher, but that is not really the case for a website. That's why fake news is a real issue. And your uncle may talk to you in private. Or maybe it's your parents around the family dinner table. There are many sources of dangerous misinforma…

Let's not lose track of what this discussion is about: it's not about whether your uncle might be feeding you bullshit, it's about whether ChatGPT is a good source to learn about new topics you're not knowledgable on. Your crackpot uncle is not the baseline here – a well-reviewed book (or documentary series, or podcast, or whatever) is. That there are crackpot books out there is besides the point; I can trivially fin…

I think you overestimate the reliability of the random crap you hear from other human beings on a daily basis

Re: Facebook Is Being Overrun with Stolen, AI-Gen Images That People Think Are Real

#316

Post by arp242 »

darkerside wrote: post #315
arp242 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not lose track of what this discussion is about: it's not about whether your uncle might be feeding you bullshit, it's about whether ChatGPT is a good source to learn about new topics you're not knowledgable on. Your crackpot uncle is not the baseline here – a well-reviewed book (or documentary series, or podcast, or whatever) is. That there are crackpot books out there is besides the point; I can trivially fin…

I think you overestimate the reliability of the random crap you hear from other human beings on a daily basis

I'm not primarily talking about random crap from random people; I'm talking about making a conscious effort to learn more about a specific topic. I really don't know how to explain this better than I already did. You keep trying to turn this in to a "people on random sites saying stupid stuff" vs. ChatGPT thing, but that's not what this is about. But even there, of course you shouldn't believe random stuff on the internet, but at the same time it does have some mechanisms for correction that ChatGPT lacks.

Re: Facebook Is Being Overrun with Stolen, AI-Gen Images That People Think Are Real

#317

Post by katbyte »

unshavedyak wrote: post #203
katbyte wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the massively overpriced $15/m why do you consider this massively overpriced? 55% of it i believe goes to content creators and they make more from a subscription watch then an ad supported watch.

> why do you consider this massively overpriced? Because i struggle to imagine the ads i watch would amount to $15/m. So it feels like significant markup. A flat rate seems either upcharging, or subsidizing. Neither feel good as a consumer. I rather (and have) quit than pay them $15/m for a handful of ads. They started fighting a month back or w/e and i just stopped watching them for ~2 weeks. When i tried later, the…

Imho content is content and the creators get more when I pay, and I also don’t see ads. It’s win win and cheaper then other streaming platforms so I don’t see it being out of line cost wise.

55% to creators 45% to platform to host and stream while also supporting a ton of creators who have little to no views.

Seems a better deal then Netflix ect with more ability to control where your dollar goes

Re: Facebook Is Being Overrun with Stolen, AI-Gen Images That People Think Are Real

#318

Post by dkersten »

Dolototo wrote: post #231
dkersten wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they can still vet, just doing so would make them less money. That is their problem, not yours or mine. If they can’t figure out a way to vet at scale, then they don’t deserve that scale. Most of us could be more profitable if we decided to act unethically or illegally. Serving scam adverts (and my YouTube and Google adverts appear to be substantially more scam than not) is Alphabet saying they care more about pr…

Dude... YT is cheap like hell. It has one of the most diverse high quality content I know. Way of entry for producers/creators is tremendously low. YT löst a lot of money for years. If we are not even able to pay 12$ / month for YT what do you want? Everything for free adfree?

So? That doesn’t excuse profiting from allowing scammers to defraud people.

Re: Facebook Is Being Overrun with Stolen, AI-Gen Images That People Think Are Real

#319

Post by unshavedyak »

katbyte wrote: post #317
unshavedyak wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why do you consider this massively overpriced? Because i struggle to imagine the ads i watch would amount to $15/m. So it feels like significant markup. A flat rate seems either upcharging, or subsidizing. Neither feel good as a consumer. I rather (and have) quit than pay them $15/m for a handful of ads. They started fighting a month back or w/e and i just stopped watching them for ~2 weeks. When i tried later, the…

Imho content is content and the creators get more when I pay, and I also don’t see ads. It’s win win and cheaper then other streaming platforms so I don’t see it being out of line cost wise. 55% to creators 45% to platform to host and stream while also supporting a ton of creators who have little to no views. Seems a better deal then Netflix ect with more ability to control where your dollar goes

Yea, i think i'd agree if i saw the revenue split or if they helped me understand what went to consumers. I'm not invested enough to research this (which isn't an excuse, just saying i'm not interested), so as a basic consumer my assumption is that the revenue i put into something like Patreon is far better than Youtube.

I say that primarily because of experience. For example i subscribe to Spotify, and the revenue split there is atrocious and often a point of debate between platforms. Maybe YT is better, but it's not clear to me from the outside if that's true.

Re: Facebook Is Being Overrun with Stolen, AI-Gen Images That People Think Are Real

#320

Post by kleiba »

phyzome wrote: post #281
kleiba wrote: post #136

How is it possible to generate a stolen image?

The article explains: People have bots that are taking real images, running them through img2img AI, and then posting those images.

I'm referring more to botched semantics here: either you steal something - then it must have pre-existed - or you generate something - then it cannot have pre-existed. You cannot generate stolen pictures.
Post reply on HN