468
Trump rages at Biden for wrecking his plans for executions: ‘Makes no sense’
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
468 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19241 readers
1767 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
these where what caught my eye:
The blue of the rug seemed to be leaking into the chair. Biden almost has a double leg or it's out of alignment. And his hair seems to merge with the wallpaper.
And strong accusation? Bruh we live in an era where AI slop is basically the norm. Expect people to assume a very staged looking photo where Trump has the appearance of a shocked baby and Biden looks like the good humor ice cream man to raise hackles. And it's a bummer that their job is under threat, but that doesn't mean I'll lower my guard against AI slop.
Sorry, you don't understand lighting and are not qualified to make this judgement. This image was taken by Saul Loeb, photographer for Agence France-Presse based in Washington, DC. The source is in the article, 2 minutes of research and you can find the source with other pictures of the same event.
Here's are the photos: https://www.instagram.com/saulloeb/p/DCUdmOiv2v9/?hl=en&img_index=4
It's worth rejecting an occasionally not AI generated image in favor of a higher pass filter.
Are you on drugs?
Being on your guard against AI doesn’t mean jumping at literal shadows. If you’re going to accuse specific people of misrepresentation/ fraud (it would be really bad if a photojournalist assigned to the White House was using AI photos!) you should at least run it through one of the many AI detectors first to see if any of them show it as likely AI. They’re not 100% foolproof, but if they all return very low likelihood of AI then it’s probably not.
No, I won't be doing those things, and it would be foolish to take the approach you've outlined. Far better to set your pass filter higher and simply accept that you'll have some false positives that where rejected when they shouldn't have been.
There were horses employed in the millions before internal combustion engines, and it sucks that in this case photojournalism is being replaced with something far worse. However, in a greed economy this seems the way of things, and no amount of effort on my part is going to stop that from happening. So I'll set my filter a touch higher and sometimes reject somethings for being AI when there not. The consequences of being wrong in that scenario are minimal and far outweigh the cost of being wrong in the other direction.
One of the reasons AI is bad is because of the effect it has on how people perceive reality. Like you deciding that a real photo of Biden and Trump is actually fake, and deciding that it would be stupid to investigate whether the picture is real.
If it’s the AI detector part you object to, it’s simple enough to google the source name and reverse image search the photo.
If you literally do not care whether what you say is true or not and don’t care to find evidence on whether it is then I can’t do anything about that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's not a matter of it being fake or real, it's that we've already passed the threshold where it's not remotely worth the time to figure out: you are on the wrong side of the value proposition as it relates to time. 4 years ago it was preposterously easy to detect AI slop. Now? Now not so much. It's 10x easier to make and 10x easier to detect, and seems to have been doubling in difficulty about every 6-8 months. Simple enough to"just Google and do a bunch of research to confirm something is or isn't AI garbo"? No, that's what an idiot would do. Or what someone who either a) doesn't value their time, or b) their time has no value.
It's not worth the effort whatsoever. Simply rejecting at a higher rate is a much better strategy. Sometimes you'll have false positives, but such is life. It is far less costly and has the same if not better outcomes.