How Does AI Affect Your Online Shopping?

[Libertad]

If we are talking about AI in terms of Large Language Models and machines trained on art that don't compensate the writers/artists in question, I am against it and do my best to not patronize such products.

 

[Deset Gled]

False positives and hallucinations are still a problem with AI uses in law enforcement and other forms of identification .

The information being presented on the okstupid site is not AI generated. The AI was a chat bot that interacted with the other members, who shared their personal info. What's being presented is the data that was then provided via the dating site, such as profile data and EXIF data from images people shared.

IOW, the genAI was the key to getting access. It is not the source of the data. Also, no law enforcement is involved and key personal data like names has been redacted.

 

[Incenjucar]

Which is why, again, I'm talking about people using AI to do editorial work on their own written work, and then go over it.

I mean, you can keep telling me it doesn't happen if you want, but I used to do editing for a living, so I think I'm qualified to recognize a competent job from not.

And I currently deal with AI for a living and find errors in books that have been professionally edited on a regular basis. My job also involves a lot of editing. We can agree to disagree, but I'm not the right audience for that particular fallacy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And I currently deal with AI for a living and find errors in books that have been professionally edited on a regular basis. My job also involves a lot of editing. We can agree to disagree, but I'm not the right audience for that particular fallacy.

Yet you're perfectly willing to tell me I haven't seen what I've seen. I was very clear that these were creative works that were then being massaged with AI, then gone over by their producers; they weren't factual works. So the question was whether they changed the meaning and tone, and/or altered the story or scansion involved in a harmful way. They did not.

So I have to conclude you're either telling me I'm lying or incompetent to judge. If there's a third case I'd be happy to hear it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't disagree, but introducing variation in the AI output isn't the same thing as creating a new image.

To an outside observer, its liable to be indistinguishable if the person creating the new image was trying for the same basic monster. There are only so many ways people are going to draw minotaurs or beholders, unless they're going out of their way to be baroque.

I mean, just do a quick Google image search for any Fortnite character. Take note of how many of them use the same color palates, the same poses, the same view angles, etc. You can find plenty that look different from one another, but you won't find as many that look interesting or creative...and as time goes on, you'll find fewer and fewer.

The problem here is, if someone is trying to draw an extent character, I find that's true anyway.

That's the difference I'm talking about. Introducing variation is not the same as creation.

That's quite true. But I'd question how many people are trying for genuinely new creation in the first place. In the vast majority of cases they've been influenced by other images they've seen of things, even if they aren't quite the same thing, and if you're familiar with them, the resemblence will probably be notable. Artists rarely spring forth ex nihilio in their style and topics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, sure. You can make "an orc but with one eye" or "a dragon with 2 heads". That's not creating. You can't make anything new.

Again, this seems like it assumes "something new" rather than a variation is common in the first place. I'd go look in the D&D AI art thread and look the cases when someone input attempts with similar prompts multiple times and see how different they sometimes are. That's as much or more variation than you see in most human artists attempting something conceptually similar.

As a particular example in this post (D&D General - AI Art for D&D: Experiments) the three glitchling examples are as or more varied than a human artist would do producing conceptually similar figures.

Like most creative things, genuinely new art is rare; the vast majority is, and has in the 20th and 21st Century become even moreso because of cross-exposure, variations on themes. Sometimes worthwhile variations, but still variations.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I’m a busy guy. I can’t respond to every post.

Give me a break. Lots of us are busy. You made a comment without performing due diligence. It happens to me all the time. Being 'busy' is not an excuse. It's okay to say 'oops', no one is going to judge you.

 

[The Firebird]

From my point of view, we need to stop paper mills from flooding the journal industry with fake papers. I am working on a project where authors would use an online editor to write there paper for a publication where every edit is captured in the xml.

This is an interesting concept. I'm very sympathetic to the goal but at the same time the idea of using an online editor worries me. I'd probably want to write it myself and then upload, which I guess would look suspicious.

The best solution ime is to know the authors and their work and then know if they are trustworthy.

Well, sure. You can make "an orc but with one eye" or "a dragon with 2 heads". That's not creating. You can't make anything new. That's why creativity dies. We just end up with the same stuff regurgitated for the rest of eternity by an AI snake eating its own tail and puking it up for us to see.

Hmm, I get this standard but also by this standard I wonder how creative a lot of post 1974 stuff has been. Like, every setting has orcs which are more or less minor variations on existing orcs.

Tolkien was creative by this standard. The risk imo is that artists need to practice by making more derivative things to get to a point where they can make those creative moves. And AI will crowd them out and kill their development. I find that a plausible and dangerous scenario.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The information being presented on the okstupid site is not AI generated. The AI was a chat bot that interacted with the other members, who shared their personal info. What's being presented is the data that was then provided via the dating site, such as profile data and EXIF data from images people shared.

IOW, the genAI was the key to getting access. It is not the source of the data. Also, no law enforcement is involved and key personal data like names has been redacted.

I didn’t post anything from okstupid- don’t even know what that is- so I’m not sure what you’re responding to here.

I posted:

1) a Forbes article (with same facts posted elsewhere) about a new law enforcement AI claiming a LEO became a frog during a test, and made OTHER errors during a subsequent test. If that’s state of the art AI facial rec, why should we trust it to ID hiding Nazis (as you posited )?

2) a reporter’s results from an AI search for a particular, known human being of note that was about as inaccurate about race as could be- literally a black & white error.

 

[Deset Gled]

I didn’t post anything from okstupid- don’t even know what that is- so I’m not sure what you’re responding to here.

I posted:

1) a Forbes article (with same facts posted elsewhere) about a new law enforcement AI claiming a LEO became a frog during a test, and made OTHER errors during a subsequent test. If that’s state of the art AI facial rec, why should we trust it to ID hiding Nazis (as you posited )?

2) a reporter’s results from an AI search for a particular, known human being of note that was about as inaccurate about race as could be- literally a black & white error.

The white supremacist tracking example that I linked to, including okstupid.lol and Cybernews, went into more detail on their methods. No facial ID or AI based search results were used.