Hacker News Reader

The worst thing is that they are wrong. There are images. Here is a video from the German public broadcaster RBB: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GqEr5TOIJQ8

Edit: Even better images in the few first seconds of this Der Spiegel video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apsBtgdhRfA

Or this Reuters video: https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idOV893521032023RP1

Or this New York Post article: https://nypost.com/2023/03/22/german-brewery-creates-powdere...

Amazing!

I've worked at breweries in the past and they used all sorts of computer generated imagery for products. They had me fooled too. Don't feel bad for being mistaken.

Very nice!

I have a feeling that the entire article is AI generated since it gets things wrong, there are no monks it’s just a regular brewery it’s called a Cloister Brewery because it’s located at the site of a 12th century Catholic cloister, Neuzelle is also nowhere near Munich.

Wow, with this context, some of the article certainly reads like LLM hallucination.

They didn't even get the places right. Neuzelle isn't anywhere near Munich. It's not even in the same state. It is on the other side of the country, near Berlin.

So, they insulted Bavarians and Berliners at the same time?

This is honestly idiotic and disqualifies the entire article

Without your comment I would have discarded the whole article as AI generated. If the images are obviously fake, why should I trust the text?

As you'll see from other comments, it is. Mostly true, but all the details are wrong. It's pretty sad to see such a spam post on the front page.

A photograph of an event can be very misleading and more often than not it actually is.

Take for example Elliott Erwitt's iconic image of Nixon pointing his finger at Khrushchev when debating about... cabbage soup vs meat!

It's a powerful image that got completely misinterpreted to the point that helped Nixon become president of the US.

Absolutely true, but this seems like a new level of misleading. For example, the newspaper I worked for did not allow any kind of photoshop alteration to the photos beyond lighting adjustments. The photo is meant to show reality even if it is not photogenic. This can still be manipulated through framing as you point out, but there are limits which this new technique blows right past.

They very clearly labeled it as AI generates and “purely speculative.”

With that amount of transparency, I have no problems.

It’s like a drawing.

For people who just scan the article, they aren't going to notice that its labeled as such. People subconsciously absorb a lot of information and that's what I am concerned would happen with this kind of thing.

I had the opposite impression. I thought it helped to visualise the product, brings down the cost of the article and was clearly highlighted so it's not like they were trying to hide it. For a small article like this it would seem so wasteful to send a human out to do the job.

> I thought it helped to visualise the product, brings down the cost of the article.

Does it though? First thing I thought when I opened the page and saw that image was that the granules looked quote large and that it would take some effort to make them dissolve nicely. Why have an photo realistic image if its not an actual photo, that might or might not missrepresent the product.

Why not take the bring the cost down to its logical conclusion and have AI write the story from the press release and other content on the internet?

Pictures in journalism are information, just organized differently than text. If you use a random generated image that “mimics” that information you are effectively doing misinformation or even disinformation. No picture (or a generic picture of the monastery) would have been better in terms of information content. This publication decided to go for a subpar solution because it’s what? Cool to some?. Even worse: actual images were available.

Having it written in smaller, harder to read font and positioning in the place that would typically contain photographers name which everyone usually ignores is opposite of highlighting.

If it was used to replace generic stock image with beer, I might be fine with it. As an illustration generic picture of beer cup without powder or branded packaging would have been sufficient. But being so specific it contains fake brand, powder makes it seem like it represents the actual product thus giving a misleading impression about the structure of powder and it's capabilities to produce foam.

I made very clear I am not suggesting sending a human out to do the job, so the cost argument here doesn't fly. As I said already I would be satisfied if the author used a simple google image search or wikimedia search.

What you wrote makes a huge lot of sense. Nevertheless the picture they used probably is much more selling. It just looks tasty and makes me want to take a gulp while real story-relevant pictures you describe probably wouldn't be nearly as appetizing.

It's like the use of those delicately constructed examples of burgers and sandwiches used in restaurant commercials--it may be appetizing, but it fails to represent the reality of the product we are being sold. This is one (or more) steps further removed from reality. It's misleading, and the image captions merely reduce the severity of the deception.

Yes, indeed, it's ridiculous. The shift from journalism to content made manifest.

The images in the article are misleading and tangentially misinformation. If you casually skim the article, you could be led to believe, that this is a real brand.

Definitely not proper journalism.

So I agree with this sentiment in this instance.

Anger, denial, resignation