Hacker News Reader

Comment by madamelic | Hacker News Reader

I wonder how far into generative AI will have people developing "intractable FOMO" where they see a beautiful place but then they find out they can't visit it because it doesn't exist.

Are we seeing it already from people who are getting irrationally angry about generative AI?

View on HN

Wouldn't they experience the same "FOMO" watching a movie or reading a book that's not based here and now?

That is fair. I am not smart enough to shape it out but I wonder if there is a difference between going into a reality expecting it to be fake and being unknowingly presented a fake reality.

Maybe I am just weird but I have definitely had at least one situation where a book got its hooks into me and my brain would be thinking about events in the book like I would real events. I forget exactly what parts caught my brain but I had a few times where I had to remind myself the book is fiction when it would pop into my head.

What about paintings or artwork? Or just photorealistic CGI?

I block a lot of this stuff on social media. I don't want to develop feelings about places or people that don't actually exist, I think it's psychologically unhealthy.

Perhaps VR or simulated reality could come to rescue here, faking all the sensory input as much as it's feasible, to provide you that experience.

> they find out they can't visit it because it doesn't exist.

The Apple VR googles salespeople's ears have just perked up...

Honestly the output from this model was a little scary. I could always tell AI generated people and images prior to this

But most of the images here are just mundane enough that they could have been taken by your average smartphone user

I definitely can’t tell, even knowing that these are from AI.

GeoGuessr-like sites are going to get trolled hard with AI photos of nonexistent locations.

cityscapes and urban photography - only a handful of examples given but those images still got a ways to go

A bunch of the people images are very clearly AI though. I’d wager about 30-50% of them could be recognised as generated by people with a bit of understanding of how these models work.

nobody knows how these models work. Not even experts. These are black box algorithms where people understand these things in terms the analogy of a best fit curve in a series of data points. Outside of this analogy... nobody understands how generative AI works.

What made a model for a specific situation choose to generate a hand with 6 fingers instead of 5? Or 5 instead of 6? Nobody knows.

That's well above the threshold for destroying even the pretense of photographs having any information value on the Internet.

Even before generative AI was an issue, in the US you couldn't just tell a court "this is a photo, therefore it is evidence". There had to be witnesses would could testify about how that photo was produced, and the other side could cross-examine.

But yes, you're already seeing politicians caught doing or saying embarrassing things claiming it's all a deepfake, but in most prominent cases of this there were lots of witnesses who can confirm that yes, they did say that.

Sure, but if you were out to use these images - maliciously or otherwise - you would just filter out the 30-50% that don’t look real.

A little scary? You realize all the output generated by AI is only going to get more and more and more real right?

Follow the trend line. You'll be seeing stories, movies and works of art better than humans in the not too far future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com