I have discovered that a lot of people are really bad at recognizing AI. The most likely explanation here is that a teacher who is not particularly tech savvy found this graphic in some "teacher resources" website and used it without knowing it is AI.
No, it's more simple than that. The sign isn't there because using AI is bad or because the teacher doesn't like it. It's because it's bad for learning.
And it's pretty obvious from the "for this assignment" specification. People participating in the AI culture war just assume everyone else is as extreme as them.
AI has a slightly uncanny overly caroon-y feel to the art that it generates. There's also inconsistent fonts and ease with which it generates not straight text (like in this case). It's not a sure-fire way to identify it but AI art does have a "smell". It's hard to describe until you've seen a bunch of it
Same. It just looks like cartooney clip art. The stoplight is in the right order and it's symmetrical. The raccoon has a normal number of limbs and a logical pose, and doesn't have any weird markings in random places. The font of the text looks consistent (for example, all the S's look the same), just stylized and intentionally warped for effect. What's the "tell" between this and something made by someone with clip art and a bit of knowledge on how to edit text in Photoshop? I genuinely don't know.
he raccoon has a normal number of limbs and a logical pose, and doesn't have any weird markings in random places.
AI makes full motion video where everyone has the right limbs, fingers, etc. on like, the free plans now. If you're relying on things like "6 fingers" or "5 limbs" to tell AI you're still in 2023.
Unfortunately. I feel crazy every time I have to point out how obvious AI slop is and some people who I guess don't have eyes of something stare at me like 0.0
Show me an example. 90% it is so obvious, the weird colours, the gloss, the similar posing, I'm not even looking for it, I'm just seeing how bad it is in the first look. Only a few things I miss and those are all super minor that are done with the newest models a lot of photoshoot to make it less like AI looking. Most sloppers don't care and think shit looks good while other sloppers try to mask the piece of shit as something else, but you can still tell it's a turd on the ground if you expect it.
From what I have seen of posts about images that can be proven to originate one way or the other (finding it in an old book before AI was even created or on a public page of an AI site, etc.) 75% of the people who think they can tell are just wrong. But then the anti-AI movement is driven by people who are extremely confident about of lot of things they don't know anything about, so it's not surprising.
So is it this ai image lol thats slop or ai in general is called slop, and no ai is good ai. Is this like Jesus and Paul are slop ai fiction and never existed type of slop? I'm confused why ai is slop in general lol
I think it's more likely they used AI. Sort of like how people use calculators to make tests even if you're not allowed to use a calculator on the test.
356
u/RobertJacobson 11h ago
I have discovered that a lot of people are really bad at recognizing AI. The most likely explanation here is that a teacher who is not particularly tech savvy found this graphic in some "teacher resources" website and used it without knowing it is AI.