[flagged]
Real images abound with a quick Google: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/may-25-sharks-on-a-bird-diet... https://www.bellmuseum.umn.edu/blog/meet-the-giant-beaver/ etc.
They're remarkable animals. The scale of impact of their dam-building on ecosystems is only just starting to be appreciated.
But.. OP never claimed these images were real in their post..
Since there are no giant beavers in the world today, we could have assumed they were AI generated?
This could have been an illustration or a 3D render instead.. Isn't AI image generation just another form of visualization, like those?
Both depict what are clearly supposed to be museum exhibits. Those exist: https://www.bellmuseum.umn.edu/blog/meet-the-giant-beaver/
The problem is not that people will think they still exist in the wild today. The problem is one can't trust the "size reference" an AI made up out of whole cloth.
Are we expecting everyone to say "this was AI created" on every image that is AI created?
We don't expect this from 3D rendering, Photoshop edits, etc..
Yes. The New York Times, for example, would say something at least like "photo-illustration by <so and so>" or "artist's depiction". It's not just the provenance here, though, that is upsetting. It's this bit that puts it well over the line:
> with human for size reference
Which implies the graphic is accurate and to scale enough to be used as a "reference". It is not. The human is weirdly proportioned; the beavers have different (amounts and styles) teeth; the AI comes with no scientific understanding of the real creature. It's a guess, based on a prompt unknown to us.
I think it's ridiculous to expect to hold everyone to the same standards as a globally renowned newspaper that is in the business of trying to authoritatively report the truth and where its existence relies on its credibility (let's leave aside how good/bad they are at it for now).
But that's not what happened here, someone just posted AI-generated images to give people a visual interpretation. There was no attempt at science or at credibility or authority here. They could have just drawn those images with a pencil, or MS Paint, instead.
> Which implies the graphic is accurate and to scale enough to be used as a "reference". It is not.
No, you are implying this. You are bringing your own interpretation here. "Human for reference" is just a thing people do to give a sense of scale, it's common in all kinds of imagery. At this point you're nitpicking and splitting hairs to remain upset/offended.
AI imagery is just another kind of visualization, another kind of illustration or artist's rendering to help people imagine a thing alongside words, it's just using different tools.
Yeah, that's how/why implying things works. Darkly whispering "Bob is always hanging out with underage girls and buying them expensive gifts" implies a conclusion. It is intended to cause you to "bring your own interpretation".
"Human for reference" heavily implies it should be considered a useful reference. There's no point to it otherwise!
Nah. I'll keep flagging undisclosed low-value AI posts like this. It appears others agree.
"Human for reference" is about scale. There's nothing about "human for reference" that implies any kind of authority or accuracy in the content.
If I put a human in my image standing next to an imaginary creature, or a sci-fi spaceship, or a building I rendered in Blender, am I implying that those things are in fact real?
I am not (although you may choose to assume I am). I am providing a reference for scale with something that everyone will recognize.
Look, I accept your aversion to AI imagery. I certainly don't understand it, but I don't need to understand to accept, so all good.
Yes. You're very focused on real/not-real, but that's not at all the issue.
An artist's depiction for scale (versus a real photo) is fine if it's intentionally drawn to scale. There's no reason to believe ChatGPT did anything here other than go "imagine what would a big beaver look like". The point is "can I trust the reference depiction gives me accurate information?", not "is this a real photo of a living giant beaver?"
> If I put a human in my image standing next to an imaginary creature, or a sci-fi spaceship, or a building I rendered in Blender, am I implying that those things are in fact real?
If you post your worldbuilding art with a "human for reference", assumptions about your imaginary world can be drawn from it. For example, on https://www.deviantart.com/moreorlesser/art/Spaceship-Size-C..., conclusions about the various fictional spacecraft can be drawn. The real-world ISS is put there to help understand the scale.
Does a Star Destroyer exist? No, of course not. Can I assume, in-universe, that it is probably capable of carrying more people than the very real ISS from this graphic? Yes.
> I am providing a reference for scale with something that everyone will recognize.
Sure. You are attesting "these are depicted to scale". As the artist, I must presume you hold facts/thoughts in your head about the items depicted. If you portray a skyscraper-style building as being half the size of a human, I am led to the logical conclusion that your imaginary civilization is made of very small creatures.
> Look, I accept your aversion to AI imagery.
I have no fundamental aversion to AI imagery.
I have an aversion to undisclosed bullshit invented out of whole cloth being dropped into a discussion of a real academic subject.
Something like this is much more useful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44529224
> Yes. You're very focused on real/not-real, but that's not at all the issue.
I'm actually more focused on the purpose of an image than it's provenance or accuracy.
Hence the "visualization" part. I felt like you were specifically upset about the fact that this visualization was made with AI, and I was wondering if you would have felt similarly upset if this had been visualized with a 3D render or a human-drawn illustration.
> An artist's depiction for scale (versus a real photo) is fine if it's intentionally drawn to scale.
So you trust a human artist's ability to draw to-scale more than AI? The human could be doing their best to draw to-scale and still get it very wrong. I don't know how you could measure, in aggregate, AI vs. human when it comes to ability to draw to-scale.
> The point is "can I trust the reference depiction gives me accurate information?"
Again how would a human who just draws or renders a thing next to a human be more trustworthy than AI when it comes to getting the scale correct?
> I have an aversion to undisclosed bullshit invented out of whole cloth being dropped into a discussion of a real academic subject.
Fair point in this context. I guess this perhaps answers my first question about whether this was AI-specific (which it really felt like based on your initial language) or just about the fact that the image - regardless of how it was made - was not scientifically accurate enough.
Yes. There is a pretty good chance that someone drawing even a stick figure representation of the two to post “for reference” has at least some relevant information on the sizes. People don’t tend to draw giant extinct beavers for fun out of the blue.
AI slop, in this context, is the same as a child’s crayon drawing of a dragon. It may be cute. Pretty. It may make you proud. But it offers little scientific value for assessing the size of real dragons.
AI makes convincing looking art, but that’s worse, because people fall for it in ways unlikely with crayon. And it can be done fast.