Human Web CollectiveWhere should the line be drawn for using the "AI generated" check box?
submitted by
edited
whoever loves Digit 🇵🇸🇺🇸🏴☠️In particular I’m not sure if my "woke cat" comics should have the box checked for future posts.
Written by me, and then I take multiple chat bot images and make manual corrections and edits in GIMP to get the comic panels.
So if I had to pick yes or no to “is it AI generated?” I’d say “no”
But I’m not sure if the “AI generated” check box is equivalent to that question, or more like “does it contain auto generated content?” which would be “yes”
Edit - will absolutely not be using the check box for these comics due to a fucked up reply that got too many upvotes
The checkbox is like the NSFW checkbox, so you should absolutely mark things that contain generated imagery. It is not about how you feel about it but to warn others who have stricter requirements.
Seemed agreeable when you posted this, but then another commenter and their upvotes revealed how you people actually think, which is not fucking agreeable at all. Fuck that shit and fuck your check box
Fuck your shitty slop comics then. AI sucks. Learn to do art for real instead of letting tech daddys’ slop engines do it for you.
Didn’t ask
The option is there for people who want to filter AI stuff from their timeline. Is such a person going to feel like you’re being deceptive when you claim it’s not AI generated? If you think the answer is yes, then tick the box.
Considering some of the other replies after yours, turns out those people are hostile and it’s better not to feed their aggressive delusions
Bloody hell… That’s AI generated and I’d feel pissed if somebody said it wasn’t so it wouldn’t filter from my feed.
You can’t just slop your artwork together, fix the messed up fingers and then say because you drew three lines yourself it’s no longer AI. If it has AI in there, it’s AI. It’s either done without AI or it’s AI.
So you’re a liar that gets mad when other people don’t lie.
I assume your reply was designed to manipulate me into feeling like I should never use the AI check box, because that’s how I feel now.
Will change my mind if you get downvoted to shit. Otherwise, can’t take the risk of validating people like you.
Wat?
Correct:
Lying:
Type of liar that gets mad when others don’t join in:
Did you ask this so folks would make you feel better about your shortcuts or did you want an honest answer?
Either you rushed to reply without reading fully or you’re trolling me
The crowd is usually a mob. Make up your own mind, regardless of the clicks other people click.
My own mind was made up to take input from the community, and the input from the community said “if you use the check box, we will heck you”
Okay. I see. Interesting test.
ITT: OP calls everyone who thinks he should use the checkbox “liars”
Not sure what you think “OP” means but that would be me, not whoever’s doing that
Yeah, they mean you. You’re the one calling people liars.
You might wanna learn to read, what they said wasn’t “calling people liars”
yuri: “ITT: OP calls everyone who thinks he should use the checkbox “liars””
iloveDigit: “You might wanna learn to read, what they said wasn’t “calling people liars"”
Okay…
Copying and pasting without reading doesn’t achieve the same goal as reading
So I guess what we all take from this is OP is the kinda person that asks if we’re all ok if he shits in the pool then after we all say “no thank you” they get mad and say they’re gonna do it anyways.
Right?! Lol.
Every reply OP has made has either been "Your lying and wrong" or "I don’t like you, so I’m gonna ignore you".
They asked for the community’s opinion about a legit question and got all butt-hurt that they didn’t like the answers.
I love when people act like this on Lemmy because two reasons: It’s hella entertaining, and it points a flashing neon arrow at who to block to make your Lemmy better.
Why would you block someone that is so entertaining though?
Oh don’t underestimate me!
I’m planning to block them *after* their downfall! 😆
Incorrect, try reading
Man, I unblocked you just to see this response… and then that is all? Meh.
To me, comics are a fusion of both writing and art. So in my opinion, even though the words are yours, the art being ai generated is enough that I would say you should check that box, even though you’re making corrections and edits yourself in GIMP.
Cuz frankly, I’d rather read the same comic with the worst stick figure cat art you can imagine than read a comic with any ai art at all, as ai art is not art at all and defeats the purpose of creating a comic strip in the first place.
If the point of creating a comic strip is to make me look at shitty drawings, I assume your writing is shitty too and there’s no point left for viewing what you create.
Btw, I would have just listened to you respectfully and not replied if it weren’t for the upvotes on another user’s reply trying to gaslight me about what “AI” and “generated” mean. Those upvotes made me hostile to you people.
Nobody is trying to gaslight you about what ai generated means. You’re literally over there asking, “are my comics ai generated when the artwork is ai generated?” And getting mad that people are saying yeah, it is.
As for shitty drawings, xkcd became one of the most successful web comics out there with mostly stick figure art. But the writing was still good, so it found an audience.
Weak gaslighting attempt, didn’t read past first few words
“You’re never going to create actual art if you just keep shifting responsibility for your choices. The artists that are successful don’t get in that position by refusing to learn anything.”
-woke cat (mostly)
Did you think you had a point here or are you just whoring for upvotes from your fellow bullies?
The point is, you created this thread to ask people their opinion about something, and when people disagreed with you, you called them liars and said they’re gaslighting you. THAT is shifting responsibility. THAT is refusing to learn.
You asked. We answered. It’s not our fault you didn’t like the answer. You could’ve been like, well, I guess I should check the box then, instead you doubled down and started attacking everyone that disagreed with you. Kinda like a bully would do.
People are against ai for ethical reasons for example :
So people do have a right to identify AI generated content.
Personal opinion for a distant futur :
My worst fear is that we will come to a point where we won’t be able to distinguish AI generated content.
Then we will lose because we will have no meant to protect against it. So it will create some new movement as no tech or cooptation social network as scuttlebutt.nz, p2p and federated network will close.
You use less resources generating an image than using photoshop for a few minutes
Authors often use references from internet as well. The contribution is similar.
LLMs and image generators are different.
The current trend is buying energy generator, lot gpu…i think the scale of those ressource is already beyond sustainability. Be it in a individual scale or industrial scale.
No because it is centralized under a name (open AI, deepseek…) and it’s an “industrial” production. No human can create that much content in a short time.
And people use references, but they did it with their how hands and mind. That’s a huge difference, they put effort to create something inspired by, copied…
Both are used for the same purpose, I provided example : deepseek in Taiwan and grok. There is also openAI that Trump could use to influence a country. We are already here.
On the good side, AI can be used for auto subtitle, creating posters, researching new treatement, making paralysed people walk…but, they also use it to influence people.
So to come back to the topic, this is a good option that we can flag ai content.
I agree with flagging (and traceability of content in general, photographies in particular), I think however that the reasons put forward are simply wrong and misinformed.
Name one resource you think is “beyond sustainability”. Rare earth? Water? Energy? None are and this meme really has to die.
There is also a huge difference in what a good artist can produce in one hour and what I can produce in one hour. Yet my work is considered (pretty reasonably) to be of less value. There is no inherent value in spending time on a work if the result is considered good enough.
Hmmm, no? In almost any case I can think of.
It is not a meme, it is happening and i know that you work there and are probably the most knowledgeable person among us.
However, you can’t dimiss that they do use ressource as water, rare earth…The problem is that they benefit outrageous funds and double their calculation power each year.
That’s not about the result but the road to learn through hardship how to create something. It create a feeling of fullness. If you give yourself more time, you could achieve a good work instead relying on a third party and tell your kid “i did it”.
You really think they never used it to change our history narrative ? It is not something new, the Trajan column in Roma serve the same purpose.
The french “resistance”. They removed the video since but it was published by our government :
China trying to take over Taiwan :
Did not realize it was you :-) I don’t want to be aggressive, just to dispel some myths that I really think are harmful to understand this field (in which I am working) well.
My image generation and local LLMs do not use water. They are air-cooled.
Datacenters do use water (during operation) and rare earth (during construction). I am disagreeing on their use being unsustainable.
You know, it is not because I work in the field that I defend it. If these claims were true, I would simply have not chosen to work in the field. I remember very well in engineering school when I first was confronted over the claim that some mineral resources usage were unsustainable. It was copper. It shocked me. Copper, so central to electronics, which I was studying, was going to deplete. Damn. “How much left do we realistically have?” was the first immediate question. Is that solely an engineers instinct to try to quantify problems? Once I dug up, I realized that the claims were untrue. That reserves were extremely abundant and that the people raising the alarms simply did not understand geological reports. It was in the late 90s. Since then we have “ran out” of copper several times according to doomsayers.
“Sustainability” can mean several things and is used in different definitions when considering different resources. Oil usage for energy production is the text book example of unsustainable process: we need to destroy at a given rate a resource with a limited stock to maintain an activity.
Water usage in datacenter is not unsustainable according to that definition: water is not destroyed, the stock is not depleted. Datacenter implementations can be problematic in places where not enough clean water is available ofr the population but it is not an ecological problem or a resource exhaustion problem. It is an infrastructure problem, and it comes with a ton of political and social consideration. But in that respect there is not a lot of difference between implanting a datacenter somewhere and putting a farm, that will also use water.
Rare earths are used for construction. Building a datacenter requires a set amount of it, but operating it does not. One could argue that infinite growth of the number of datacenters is unsustainable, which is true for almost any infinite growth, but no one is believing that we need to double the number of GPUs every year for centuries.
Also, rare earth are badly named. They are not rare. There are plenty of deposits, plenty of reserves and none of these are predicted to be in geological shortage. The only one you could make a case for is helium, which is not used in AI datacenters. The USGS is a good resource for quantifying the scarcity fears.
Here again, conflating many issues. Image generation models were used since day one for problematic uses: deepfakes, revenge porn, propaganda. Same can be said of photoshop (and no, making a good convincing fake with AI is not easier than with photoshop. I remember the exact same moral panics when I was a teenager and some people were copy-pasting stars or classmate faces over nudes with photoshops).
What I am arguing is that we have no example so far of image generation models purposefully trained to follow an agenda. They have biases (they will gender and racialise many profession for instance) but these biases come from their datasets, “what they see”, not from an agenda. On the contrary, the examples you give, Grok (from v3) and Deepseek, were demonstrably trained with an agenda in mind. (If you have sources about OpenAI being caught doing the same, I am interested, I may have missed it)
LLMs don’t have to be trained that way. It is not inherent to the tech. Many models are uncensored. Open weight models like DeepSeek have been also modified by the community to remove their censorship (with occasionally hilarious effects, as a model trained to “never do X” is often easy to reversed to “being very good at doing X")
Actually the layer of fine-tuning that these agenda-givers use, is a technically simple but very political process that I wish more people joined instead of lambasting AI as a whole.
If you have good ressource on ecological side of AI and rare earth, i’m interested because i don’t have lot informations. Most of the tell us that they are building nuclear reactor. You may want create a post and invite use to raise our knowledge on these topics.
Most of my knowledge come from the ADEME (french ecological structure that analyse various situation), and they did predict metal ressource depletion around 2050.
More exactly, digging machine will have a lower mining rate for a given ressource. We will have to remove lot more earth to find iron, copper… it’s the same problem for oil.
And for the misuse of AI, that’s the scale of it that worry my the most : governement and big tech. Especially big tech, i’m fearfull of them. I would prefer a collective solution : made by people, for people and respecting human diversity and right.
I haven’t given example of OpenAI but Microsoft is one of its main investor. They were at Trump meeting with other american big tech. So my trust that was already low dropped to the bottom. 😅
I don’t pay for fake AI so it’s not my fault they’re buying up graphics cards
And a lot of the people who pretend it’s my fault are X blue checks, Disney subscribers who hate piracy, etc. whose fault it actually is
Being the fault of someone is not my point. I explain why the option to flag AI content is needed.
The goal is to empower people by giving them a choice. A set of tools, options to create their own space along mod team.
It is the belief that we can stand up and purpose solutions to allow people to remove AI content from their timeline. It is also a defence system for everyone and create space where we think and write our own opinion.
That’s fair then. Sad that people use systems like this to be manipulative and I’m pressured out of using it myself
Why do you fell pressured using it ?
AI generated =/= AI assisted
AI generated is just something straight outta slop machine
Since your comment is older and still somehow has fewer upvotes than the one from @Asetru@feddit.org I will absolutely not be using the check box for these comics
👋
I feel like you asked a question, got a lot of form replies, fought with people for providing their opinions, cherry-picked a positive response, and declared yourself a winner.
FIFA may have a silver trophy still, if you ask.
My recommended method of knowing a text’s contents would be reading it, instead of training yourself to “feel like” it’s whatever will get you the most upvotes.
Deleted by author
Deleted by author
Thats ai generated bud. Tag it as AI. You didnt create the art.
Instead of using a checkbox I considered having a slider so people could choose various values in between no and yes. But that would have been confusing…
I think it’ll come down to whatever the mods in each community want and there will be significant variation to that.
IMO your process does not reach the threshold of AI Generated because you’re just using it as a short-cut for some of the steps and you still have your hands on the wheel. Unlike this which was probably just someone prompting “gimme a cute hamster with a helmet”.
I don’t know… would you feel the same if someone made a “short-cut” with the text instead of the images? That seems a bit of a double standard that graphical artists probably find offensive.
I don’t know either. Let’s leave it to the mods to figure out, hopefully they know more about their subject than I ;-)
We have decades of practice distinguishing between NSFW and SFW and it’s still not fully resolved so this could take a while.
But if someone took (entirely) AI-generated content and changed a single word, would that make it not AI-generated anymore?
I like @poVog@slrpnk.net’s viewpoint (in their top-level comment): it is like NSFW, where even putting a thong onto a naked person (male or female) still leaves the image as NSFW? Various levels of lower degrees of nudity including adding a bikini, underwear, or even full covering (like paint or spandex) but with certain poses and the overall “look” likewise still leaving it as something that someone may feel could be problematic to have pop up while at work. It’s a problem if said person may have to avoid using the Threadiverse in such a setting if that kind of thing can happen - like even if they themselves are okay with it, if a boss is looking for any excuse to fire someone… then why hand them a convenient scenario with which to do so?
At the other end of the spectrum, like using a spell- or grammar-check is not AI, image editing software also remains as a “tool” under the agency & full control of the user at each step along the way of the process. I think what you are describing as “AI” there (as taking short-cuts to deliver a crappy product with the lowest amount of human effort possible) may rather be “slop”, which is not unique to AI as human slop also exists:-P.
As @poVog@slrpnk.net mentioned, we can borrow from those prior decades of NSFW (& NSFL) and use the same definition for AI: if someone would be offended by encountering it, then mark it (blur, semi-transparent, reduce or even block it). If someone wants finer-grain controls than that then… well that’s a much lower prioritization to provide, compared to having vs. not having AI marking at all?
Thank you, will remember to get feedback from individual communities / mods on this
Edit - nevermind, this thread got flooded with trolls and bullshit after this comment, I no longer care how the idiots feel & will not be using the check box for these comics