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

Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 433 posts

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#261

Post by ninininino »

AStonesThrow wrote: post #251
ninininino wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

human-verified content is going to be the next billion dollar company.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Wikimedia Foundation. There is plenty of space there for more volunteer editors to verify content, and likewise, WMF operates its own cloud platform where developers are automating tools that do maintenance and transformation on the human-contributed content. Then, there is Wikidata, a machine-readable Wiki. Many other projects draw data from here, so that it can be localized and presen…

I don't think you understand what I meant by human verified, but I used a very vague term to express what I meant, I meant proving that some input or data that comes from a user was generated by a human (whatever we define that to mean) rather than an LLM or multi-modal image/video/audio model output.

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#262

Post by _DeadFred_ »

silisili wrote: post #109
rootusrootus wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little sad for anyone who didn't get to experience the Internet of the twentieth century. It was a unique point in time. I'm ready to pay for a walled garden where the incentives are aligned towards me, instead of against me. I know that puts me in a minority, but I'm tired of the advertising 'net.

I've said it before and say it again, I firmly think AOL was just ahead of its time. Bring it back. Charge me 10 or 20 a month. Give me the walled off chatrooms, forums, IM, articles, keywords, search, etc. Revamp it, make it modern. And make a mobile app. Everyone wanted a free and open Internet, until AI and the bots ruined it all.

All it would take is a not phone friendly internet. Just a slight barrier to entry changes the dynamics quite a bit.

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#263

Post by _DeadFred_ »

zem wrote: post #157
rootusrootus wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little sad for anyone who didn't get to experience the Internet of the twentieth century. It was a unique point in time. I'm ready to pay for a walled garden where the incentives are aligned towards me, instead of against me. I know that puts me in a minority, but I'm tired of the advertising 'net.

the problem with that is not the payment, it's that you will only be sharing it with people similarly willing to pay for a walled garden. I'm guessing most of what we're nostalgic for was created by people who wouldn't be up for that

It was created by people that

1. could afford a computer back then and saw the utility of owning one. 2. had access to the internet, so either in college, a 'tech' company, or ties to some local collective that provided access.

When people say 'the old internet' they are referring to a very self selective/elite group.

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#264

Post by _DeadFred_ »

whalesalad wrote: post #95

Drives me nuts. The internet is dead. I just bought a home and I have been googling the best way to tackle certain home improvement projects - like how to prepare trim for painting. Virtually every result is some kind of content farm of AI-generated bullshit with advertising between every paragraph, an autoplay video (completely unrelated) that scrolls with the page, a modal popup asking me to accept cookies, a secon…

I have an older car and a newer car. I can find out how to do any repair on my old car because it existed during the old internet when people did all kinds of write ups.

The information on working on my new car is non-existent other than Youtube videos where the majority is just a random dude who knows nothing filming himself doing a horrible self repair.

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#265

Post by tveita »

arp242 wrote: post #249
FabHK wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

digital signatures?

But I can generate something with AI and then sign it myself and say "I wrote it, pinky promise". Since most people don't write anything on the internet, I can pay people $5 to use their signature and operate a "sign farm". Look at the effort these people go though to send their spam.

A web of trust or reputation based system can be built on top of the signature scheme - maybe an appearance of smaller invite-only forums that share reputation. Or maybe it will just become an integrated part of the moderation of existing platforms like Reddit, Mastodon and Bluesky

If you put your name on AI spam people will flag your post and no-one will bother to see your posts for at least a few years.

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#266

Post by Nathanba »

jachee wrote: post #73
mg wrote: post #47

Well, nearly all of the Google Images results for "Woman" show a woman with makeup and additionally the photos were altered via Photoshop. We have been creating our own reality even before AI.

Creating a version of reality is significantly different from conjuring abject falsehoods. There is an objective reality for what (e.g.) a baby peacock should look like, and this AI slop is inherently misleading about that.

His comparison isn't totally off. At some point our global perception of a certain subject might be totally different from what it is in reality just because all images about X are the optimal, AI improved, photoshopped version. This is in fact what women mean when they say that beauty standards are becoming unrealistic: Quite literally the standard image of women is being altered. Kind of similar to how the standard image of a baby peacock is being altered.

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#267

Post by swells34 »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #212
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #53

Almost all of the "product X vs Y" results are AI ramblings now. This growth of the dead Internet is making me want to sign up for Kagi. We're going to need a certification for human generated content at some point.

I'm not sure human-generated content is any better on the whole. BS-laden drivel has been pervasive for some time now, even before AI started taking over. I'm talking about those 300-word, ad-ridden crap articles that are SEO'd right to the top, and if you're lucky you might get the 3-word answer you were looking for: " ... and in conclusion, .". Anyway, humans have been getting paid pennies to write those for a whil…

In the world of content moderation, we refer to this as constructive friction. if you make it too easy to do a thing, the quality of that thing goes down. Difficulty forces people to actually think about what they are writing, whether it is germaine and accurate. So generative AI, as you point out, removes all the friction, and you end up with bland soup.

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#268

Post by carlosjobim »

whalesalad wrote: post #208
thiht wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this kind of search, YouTube and TikTok (yes, TikTok) are your best bet. Videos are not (completely) flooded by AI (yet) and you can find pretty much anything about manual work. I prefer text content to videos by a long shot, but genuine, human text content is almost dead. Reddit might be one of the rare exceptions for now. There are also random, still active, old school forums for lots of things but they tend to…

You are right that youtube is better but so much of that content is also biased towards sponsors. At least the good instructional content with high production value tends to be very heavy on sponsorships. The indie stuff can be great, but you are gonna have a 720p shaky camera with terrible lighting and lots of umms and backstories about why I am redoing my vintage farmhouse (a-la the recipe meme where every recipe p…

Well why do you expect people to teach you for free how to do home improvement? Those people who know how to do it well are working with it and you can pay them to improve your home.

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#269

Post by pigeons »

Xenoamorphous wrote: post #184
jhbadger wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost impossible now. NotebookLM really impressed me. I knew voice synthesis has gotten better than Stephen Hawking's "voice" but I really wasn't expecting having two realistic voices with emotions that even banter with each other. There is a bit of banality to them - they like to call something a "a game changer" practically every "podcast" and the insights into the material is pretty shallow, but they are pro…

Fun fact, Stephen Hawkins could’ve used a much “better” synthetic voice but decided to stick with that one as people associated it with him.

And he associated it with him, in his thoughts.

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#270

Post by anal_reactor »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #263
zem wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem with that is not the payment, it's that you will only be sharing it with people similarly willing to pay for a walled garden. I'm guessing most of what we're nostalgic for was created by people who wouldn't be up for that

It was created by people that 1. could afford a computer back then and saw the utility of owning one. 2. had access to the internet, so either in college, a 'tech' company, or ties to some local collective that provided access. When people say 'the old internet' they are referring to a very self selective/elite group.

> When people say 'the old internet' they are referring to a very self selective/elite group.

And that's what made it fun I guess

Post reply on HN