• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’ll be honest, the real pictures would fool me. The era where you could tell by the number of fingers or toes is gone, apparently. She does seem to change military branches a bit too often to be realistic. And, her colleagues seem a bit too unbothered by someone taking a picture of her with her shoes and socks off and feet up on a desk in an apparent military setting. But there aren’t any pictures I glance at and think “oh, that’s obviously AI”.

    • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      My only immediate reaction would be “The fuck is that badge thing” followed by “why is the car British and why are there plate carriers strapped to the seats”. But otherwise I would initially think it’s just low quality slop, especially after the IDF thirst trap propaganda trend.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        24 hours ago

        I don’t know what modern military wear is. The badge thing seems strange, but I don’t know if it’s wrong. I can imagine putting plate carriers on the seats to dry them out if it has been hot and sweaty, but I don’t know if that’s actually common. As for the car, I would guess there are places where they might use what’s available locally, and who knows what that would be.

        You have to admit that it’s at least high-quality slop. No extra hands, no extra toes or fingers. No text that is obviously slop.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          23 hours ago

          High quality? Yes. Good under scrutiny? Absolutely fucking not.

          Just to further my the points I made. The badge is stupid and indistinct also why the fuck would they be wearing it in fatigues. The plate carriers are strapped to the seats in a way I’m not even sure would be possible for their size. And the car is a fucking mess of random design elements and even eras, this one is hard to put into words but the interior has bits taken from GM cars, Land Rovers, and even some Toyota elements, also the vents are all fucked.

          Point is that you can easily rip this image apart if you just look for things that just don’t make sense. Hell the plate carriers alone being strapped that tightly to the seats are fucking weird.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            if you just look for things that just don’t make sense.

            Do we have to do that with every image we see now? I would bet that a real image also has a lot of things that don’t make sense. I feel sorry for people who genuinely have 6 fingers. It’s rare, but it happens.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              No not really, most of the AI slop out there is still obviously flawed in some ways that are obvious. Liquids, consistent backgrounds, and general weirdness can all be solid signs but none of these things are individually signs of AI. Honestly the best way to pick it out isn’t any individual but of weirdness but compounding weirdness, this image for example has the plate carriers, no door handle on the car, the interior having multiple manufacturers design elements, the stupid badge, and that I can’t define what’s going on in the background. Any one of these could just be weird but together is a general tell tale of AI.

    • nymnympseudonym@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      2 days ago

      Reminds me of people who proclaim AI can’t code for shit.

      I wonder if they’ve used Claude or Codex in the last ~3 months.

      • d15d@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        I have and while it seems to be doing a decent job at things I’m bad at it is far from usable for the things i’m actually good at

        • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Which is often a sign for something not being good at anything, only you not being good at assessing something you don’t have expertise in.

          See also: journalism about events you’ve actually participated in.

        • nymnympseudonym@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yes exactly. At least for now, use the AI for things you are not expert at.

          I suck at graphic design so I get nanobanana to do that for me.

          For simple bugs or creating testcases or easy to describe new features, Codex does it because it does a good job 85%+ of the time saving me a lot.

          For really complex race conditions or vast complex enterprise applications… I’m literally an expert at debugging, a minority of human practitioners are better than me. Ofc I do that myself.

      • Flamekebab@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Whilst I’ve not used those tools, I’ve used their competitors and they constantly hallucinate methods, parameters, and write pointless unit tests (as in mock a return value and then test for that return value).