• HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    While I don’t think you’re entirely wrong, I feel like this sentiment will lead people to believing AI content checkers more. The content checkers are wrong even for newer stuff. I always default to believing something is human made because I never want to accuse a real artist for using AI.

    • OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I don’t follow, if content checkers are wrong for not being able to tell original art from AI slop because they have been trained on datasets that include the original art, why wouldn’t they also be wrong for the same reason on newer art? They would still likely absorb that newer art into their datasets.

      Okay after writing it out I get what you mean, but I am thinking that the turnaround time of absorbing new art, using it to produce AI slop requests a few dozen/hundred/million times, and then calling the original works AI because the AI sloptificator can no longer tell the difference will be a constant, unless there is some way to track OC across multiple AI agents in the panslopticon.

      • HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        AI content checkers will always be wrong. They’ll always sometimes flag non-AI images as AI and AI images as human made some percentage of the time. I don’t want artists to have to prove that their art is real, I want them to be able to make and share the content they want.

        • OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          28 minutes ago

          I agree, I am not sure how they can do this… Maybe release original art work with some kind of 2FA QR code to verify authenticity to the original author? That probably wouldn’t work but you get my drift.