The one used in this thread: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/12973939
Mind you, I didn’t set out to deceive anyone. It was more of a “why call attention to it” thing. It’s probably the only time I’ve posted anything AI where I didn’t explicitly call attention to it as AI. But I’ve learned in the times I did do that here that some person or other would be upset, pretty much no matter what the content was of what I posted.
I figured, one of the primary complaints about AI generated images, is essentially that they look like they’re trying to look professional but make basic errors. Which I think is a fair criticism. So I thought, what if I use stick figures. That’s closer to meme level of illustration and expectations are lower for it, so if some basic mistakes exist, that’s par for the course.
I did write the text itself as rhetoric and fictional conversation, but I didn’t draw any of the image, nor did I place the text in the image. It was received extremely well for a lemmygrad post. I’m sure it is easily the most upvoted post I’ve ever made. I don’t know what made it work so well, maybe the commonness of issues with landlords, but I can only guess as the responses didn’t tell me much about the why.
One person did say “Ai stickfigures?” which surprised me a bit. I didn’t think it looked overtly AI genned. But I asked them “why do you ask?” because I wanted to be sure whether it was confrontational or sincere interest in where it came from. They never responded, so I’m not sure.
But anyway, the fact that it was AI somehow didn’t prevent it from seemingly resonating with people. I never would have drawn any such image on my own. I could make an attempt, but it would probably look like a child’s fridge drawing and I would have especially struggled with the vividness of the facial expressions, which was where I sought to do the contrast between the feigned victimhood followed by literal mustache twirling villain. Caricature, but gets the point across.
Given how I’ve seen some react on here, I can’t help but think it would have been a shitshow if I’d called attention to it being AI generated or if it had been drawn in such a way that it looked stereotypically “AI”. Instead, as of posting this, it totaled at 111 upvotes and 0 downvotes.
It’s always hard to tell the impact things have in a virtual forum, but with the limited metrics I have to go by, it went really well. And I didn’t draw a pixel of it. This paints a picture for me that the issue with AI generated content in these spaces is not when it’s AI generated but when people believe that it is. But people can believe something is even when it isn’t. Or in this case, likely assume it isn’t when it is. Maybe I’m wrong and the 100+ people who upvoted thought “AI” and upvoted anyway, but given how things usually go here, I doubt it.
I hope no one takes this as trickery or something. Having seen more recent angst on here relating to AI, I thought calling attention to this is an opportunity to make a point. When I went to make that image, it was mainly about seeing what kind of effective agitprop I could make with AI. Maybe knowing this explicitly will inspire some people to think more about how they can use it too, beyond the hated stereotypes, with thoughtfulness of design put into it. I am still determined to aid in strategic thought and practice, no matter how much mud is slung. Liberation demands it of me.
You’re right to be mad about a lot of things. Help me help you be mad at the right people in a way that will change the world for the better.
I mean, it is a trick you pulled. You apparently usually say when AI is used in your posts, actively decided not to for that post to see if you would get more support, and then when that worked you made this follow up as somehow a point for AI generated content. Generally, I think people’s disdain for AI will go away when it stops threatening countless jobs to little benefit for most people while being peddled by all of the worst psychopaths the tech industry has ever created. The whole ‘you can never fully trust anything you ever see online ever again’ side effect of it is also probably a big sore spot, too.
If that was the hypothesis you were testing, would it not have made more sense to hand draw these four stick figures and then say that is AI generated to see what people say? As it stands, you did what most people find obnoxious of AI fans - you tried to trick people with undisclosed AI generated content and then said “See, this is why you guys should be ok with AI generated content!”
It’s reasons like these why I can’t stand blind anti-AI hate. In spite of everything I said, you’re like “no, actually you were out to deceive people! Look at how dishonest you are!”
Let me revisit the history to debunk your dishonest and well-poisoning narrative:
I first sought to see what kind of effective agitprop I could make with AI. Upon going to post it, I saw no point in drawing attention to it being AI given how things usually go on here with regards to AI. Why distract from the content of it if it’s going to turn into a shitshow back and forth that has nothing to do with the content of the image? Two weeks later, after having seen a recent thread where people witchhunted someone for posting some text that they were convinced was AI (with no proof for it), I spontaneously decided to call attention to the image in question being AI to make a point. I did not plan out some deception. Stop accusing people of things you have no evidence for! This is a common tactic of anti-AI vitriol.
The only reason I posted this thread at all is because of seeing people turn into reactionaries over some text suspected of being AI and even then, I only went through with it because I care enough to put aside my own discomfort in knowing a thread like this might bring hate on me. Do you think I’m sitting here in smug satisfaction? It exhausts me that on an already niche board, where people come here from spaces where they are treated like a pariah for their worldviews, they then get shat on by their own supposed “comrades” for having the audacity to use a tool that is not always used for good by everyone who uses it; or worse still, just for being suspected of doing it, without even evidence for it.
All I know is what you shared in this post:
I’m not saying you’re some mustache twirling villain laughing manically behind the computer, I’m explaining why some people would reasonably feel tricked by this very intentional lie by omission. So you didn’t disclose that you used AI to draw stick figures - big deal, it’s not the end of the world and no one is out to get you.
I hope you try that experiment I mentioned in the future, would be great to compare/contrast.
It’s only a lie by omission if someone has the belief that one must disclose AI use when posting something on the internet or else they are being dishonest. Which would be nonsense. I never tried to pass it off as my own; that would be dishonest if it isn’t, in fact, my own. You are misusing what “lie by omission” means to serve what you already believe about me. This is a pattern I see with anti-AI hate on the internet. Once a person is placed in the “they used AI” box (sometimes without even proof of them having used it in the first place) they are then treated like a criminal whose every word is further proof of their criminality.
If questioning the things we see online is “reactionary,” by that vein so would the Luddites. I think they actually had a pretty fuckin good point.
the luddites were reactionary. Just because they had some good points does not mean they were not reactionary. Reactionary is a technical term not just a slur for “people who don’t agree with the communist line.”
Immigration bad because it keeps the global south underdeveloped and lowers wages in the global north but that doesn’t mean the people who are against immigration because they are racist and believe in “Great replacement” theory, are not reactionary.
Yes, they were in the strict sense. the luddites were trying to preserve a pre-industrial way of life. I didn’t mean to use it as a slur. They were understandably and justifiably bitter at their jobs being replaced by dead labor and wages being cut, at becoming more and more the instruments of the machine. They were lacking in a methodology to contextualize their struggles within the social relations of capitalist production and only revolted against the instruments of capital.
the luddites were not “reactionary” in the sense of siding with the ruling class, clearly.
Idk why you are bringing up immigration here, that is clearly not the kind of reactionary tendency that is being discussed.