You must log in or # to comment.
My spouse yelled at me after she showed me too many AI videos, and I would watch it and 1) if it’s under 15 seconds, 2) too good to be true, 3) has unrealistic physics, and/or 4) has AI artifacts, I wouldn’t enjoy the video, and just say “yeah, that’s AI.”
She just wants to enjoy the videos, and didn’t care if staged or AI or what. She likes the concept of what’s on the video. AI takes that away from me, and not her, apparently.
thats actually pretty interesting.
I’d be firmly on your side of that fence, the idea being its cute or cool cause it happened in real life. this is a recording of real life. if its a computer drawing using the severed and reconstituted husks of other things and did not happen, its just something completely different- would she watch a hand drawn cartoon of the same thing? Would she really?
Another possibly interesting way to tease it out, is say it’s a video of her close friend being given an award from a prestigious institution and she feels a sense of pride. Or, its a video from the same friend where her partner does something very sweet and poignant. In both cases, she then finds out that this never happened, its just a computer drawing her friend made of these non-events. Too different to draw out the reason while real vs fake matters? Possibly.
Say the video of a cat that can accurately work and excel spreadsheet. Does that one matter (spoiler, its REAL)
Usually when people share a post, it’s because the post evoked a reaction, and they want to share that with someone. Making the conversation about the provenance of the post truncates the exchange in an unsatisfying way. For a news story, propaganda, or the like, the source is important. For funny dog videos? Maybe the quality of the exchange is more important. A nice middle ground would be to react as if it were true, and then point out it’s probably AI. Videos are easier to spot, but the difference between an image that’s obviously AI and one that looks real is like 10 min of work in Photoshop. So we’re often better off saving our faculties of discernment for the stuff that matters.
Nah, screw that. I am disgusted by the way AI looks. I’d rather people not send me anything than to send me slop.
I disagree completely, but I mean your position makes sense.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking as well, with the comparison to hand drawn animation. Honestly, I’m not sure, but I expect that would not hit quite the same way. Claymation…maybe the same, actually. It might also be just no glasses scrolling and quick reactions without discernment.
I’ve explained how to recognize AI videos, and she knows how to ID most (I hope), and I have noticed that she shows me fewer AI clips now. Not none, but fewer. I think she knows I don’t like them, and doesn’t want me too be the killjoy.
I even made a clip in Sora of our cat doing stuff, as an olive branch. I think that sort of made the point you were making about the friend getting an award.
this is all very thoughtful, and it seems like your thinking on it is aligned quite closely to my own.
just to say, I think its understanding and kind of you to be hands off and respectful of what she enjoys. I find all gen AI slop disquieting, but if someone else really enjoys it with their eyes wide open, really who gives a shit, there are very real and serious things to worry about and someone liking an AI cat video or not prolly isnt one of them
I’ve found, as I’ve gotten older, that my desire to believe things that are true is far from universal. It’s mind boggling to me that people willingly delude themselves for a hit of dopamine or whatever, while they slowly lose the ability to tell the difference between reality and fiction
Honestly I’ll take staged videos. At least it’s real humans doing it.
One of the things that makes a staged video less troubling is that the staging itself always comes with tells. Camera angles, cuts, framing, and of course actual staging.
AI videos can have that too, but they aren’t the inherent tells. AI tells are unnatural: bodies that shift in subtle ways, objects warped or merging outside the center of frame. It’s not stuff that you look for because it’s not stuff that actually happens in nature, or even in human constructed CGI all that often. But it does add up to a sense of uncanny valley.
But that’s the point for the AI owners. To get people to not care about the destruction of your brain, the world, our income, our art, etc.
At that point, when we stop pushing back, AI slop peddlers have won.
It is a great exercise to test your media literacy. That you can’t even trust cute cat videos and art really does suck though.
I don’t find AI cat videos half as offensive as the “I found this kitty shivering in the rain and rescued it on my hike” videos with a 3000 buck show quality Bengal.
Upside is that I now look a lot closer at the pictures in my feed.
As much as I vehemently despise AI, these days, I’ll take positivity where I can get it.
I do hate being a cynical bastard but the slopification of the internet has made me this way.
I have begun policing myself for feelings of amazement. Seems to be the biggest thing slop tries to induce, followed closely by outrage. I know I can’t control when something makes me outraged or amazed but I definitely can choose what I signal boost
Better quit browsing shorts and get a real dog instead
Solution is to either enjoy for what it is or stop consuming it.
Do we even know what is AI nowdays? websites like tiktok, are number one in the list of testing AI content.
But is it not cute?
Most time it’s off putting at best. Sometimes though, it’s creepy af.
Before ai there was photoshop. People who knew how to use it could make good fakes, but far from everyone could do that.
Then ai was created, it was fun to experiment with image generation, but it still was kind of a toy, and images was obviously generated.
Now ai became so advanced, that some ai “photos” or “artworks” require through examination to determine whether its real or fake.
If ai is so “good” right now, future generations of ai will make it nearly impossible to distinguish real pictures from generated, doesnt matter if its a photo, drawing, or other digital artwork.
AI has plateaued.
And what a minuscule plateau it reached.
At least the ones where the cat or dog start Fortnite emoting at the end are obvious.
It’s pretty simple: if it’s not important, who tf cares if it’s AI or not. If it’s important, there normally is a way to verify if the portrayed information is authentic because it will be important for others too (the info is the important part, not even if the medium where you got the info from is real or not). Life is easier this way, and important info should have been verified before AI too.
The info provided is that there exists another happy dog out there doing happy dog things and I briefly connected with it, which made me happy. This information would be incorrect if it was AI generated.
The information that there are happy dogs out there doing happy dog things isn’t wrong tho, regardless of how many images of happy dogs are real or fake.
You can also tell me that someone out there won the lottery this week and have it be true. It’s not the same as seeing this person’s live reaction to learning about it. It wouldn’t be the same if you watched that person act out the scene exactly as it happened. AI generated is so much further removed from all that.
I get what you’re saying, but I really miss shows that did re-enactments of actual events. That shit was funny as hell. Especially the ones on Operation Repo, which were re-enactments of entirely bullshit/exaggerated stories. Like the dude who took down a whole mob operation because he had to reposses a car. 🤣
I’d say its less removed - the person reenacting is acting on his own interpretation of what happened, while the generated images are the distilled versions of real people winning the lottery.
Also, like I said, life is much easier accepting that not everything that i can emotionally connect to has to be authentic. I can very much connect to the notion that there are happy pets out there even if i see a drawing of a happy pet.
i usually assume something is not AI unless its obvious or someone in the comments says its AI
Is this cartoon made by AI? Must have? Or isn’t it? Can’t decide.
