Comment by sbarre
4 days ago
First off, I'm with you on the "don't try to pass off AI imagery as real"...
But.. OP never claimed these images were real in their post..
Since there are no giant beavers in the world today, we could have assumed they were AI generated?
This could have been an illustration or a 3D render instead.. Isn't AI image generation just another form of visualization, like those?
> Since there are no giant beavers in the world today, we could have assumed they were AI generated?
Both depict what are clearly supposed to be museum exhibits. Those exist: https://www.bellmuseum.umn.edu/blog/meet-the-giant-beaver/
The problem is not that people will think they still exist in the wild today. The problem is one can't trust the "size reference" an AI made up out of whole cloth.
Again I'm not asserting the validity of the image.
Are we expecting everyone to say "this was AI created" on every image that is AI created?
We don't expect this from 3D rendering, Photoshop edits, etc..
> Are we expecting everyone to say "this was AI created" on every image that is AI created?
Yes. The New York Times, for example, would say something at least like "photo-illustration by <so and so>" or "artist's depiction". It's not just the provenance here, though, that is upsetting. It's this bit that puts it well over the line:
> with human for size reference
Which implies the graphic is accurate and to scale enough to be used as a "reference". It is not. The human is weirdly proportioned; the beavers have different (amounts and styles) teeth; the AI comes with no scientific understanding of the real creature. It's a guess, based on a prompt unknown to us.
6 replies →