#generative ai critical

[sempermoi]

Rant about generative AI in education and in general under the cut because I'm worried and frustrated and I needed to write it out in a small essay:

So, context: I am a teacher in Belgium, Flanders. I am now teaching English (as a second language), but have also taught history and Dutch (as a native language). All in secondary education, ages 12-16.

More and more I see educational experts endorse ai being used in education and of course the most used tools are the free, generative ones. Today, one of the colleagues responsible for the IT of my school went to an educational lecture where they once again vouched for the use of ai.

Now their keyword is that it should always be used in a responsible manner, but the issue is... can it be?

1. Environmentally speaking, ai has been a nightmare. Not only does it have an alarming impact on emission levels, but also on the toxic waste that's left behind. Not to mention the scarcity of GPUs caused by the surge of ai in the past few years. Even sources that would vouch for ai have raised concerns about the impact it has on our collective health. sources: here, here and here

2. Then there's the issue with what the tools are trained on and this in multiple ways:

Many of the free tools that the public uses is trained on content available across the internet. However, it is at this point common knowledge (I'd hope) that most creators of the original content (writers, artists, other creative content creators, researchers, etc.) were never asked for permission and so it has all been stolen. Many social media platforms will often allow ai training on them without explicitly telling the user-base or will push it as the default setting and make it difficult for their user-base to opt out. Deviantart, for example, lost much of its reputation when it implemented such a policy. It had to backtrack in 2022 afterwards because of the overwhelming backlash. The problem is then that since the content has been ripped from their context and no longer made by a human, many governments therefore can no longer see it as copyrighted. Which, yes, luckily also means that ai users are legally often not allowed to pass off ai as 'their own creation'. Sources: here, here

Then there's the working of generative ai in general. As said before, it simply rips words or image parts from their original, nuanced context and then mesh it together without the user being able to accurately trace back where the info is coming from. A tool like ChatGPT is not a search engine, yet many people use it that way without realising it is not the same thing at all. More on the working of generative ai in detail. Because of how it works, it means there is always a chance for things to be biased and/or inaccurate. If a tool has been trained on social media sources (which ChatGPT for example is) then its responses can easily be skewed to the demographic it's been observing. Bias is an issue is most sources when doing research, but if you have the original source you also have the context of the source. Ai makes it that the original context is no longer clear to the user and so bias can be overlooked and go unnoticed much easier. Source: here

3. Something my colleague mentioned they said in the lecture is that ai tools can be used to help the learning of the students.

Let me start off by saying that I can understand why there is an appeal to ai when you do not know much about the issues I have already mentioned. I am very aware it is probably too late to fully stop the wave of ai tools being published.

There are certain uses to types of ai that can indeed help with accessibility. Such as text-to-voice or the other way around for people with disabilities (let's hope the voice was ethically begotten).

But many of the other uses mentioned in the lecture I have concerns with. They are to do with recognising learning, studying and wellbeing patterns of students. Not only do I not think it is really possible to data-fy the complexity of each and every single student you would have as they are still actively developing as a young person, this also poses privacy risks in case the data is ever compromised. Not to mention that ai is often still faulty and, as it is not a person, will often still make mistakes when faced with how unpredictable a human brain can be. We do not all follow predictable patterns.

The lecture stated that ai tools could help with neurodivergency 'issues'. Obviously I do not speak for others and this next part is purely personal opinion, but I do think it important to nuance this: as someone with auDHD, no ai-tool has been able to help me with my executive dysfunction in the long-term. At first, there is the novelty of the app or tool and I am very motivated. They are often in the form of over-elaborate to-do lists with scheduled alarms. And then the issue arises: the ai tries to train itself on my presented routine... except I don't have one. There is no routine to train itself on, because that is my very problem I am struggling with. Very quickly it always becomes clear that the ai doesn't understand this the way a human mind would. A professionally trained in psychology/therapy human mind. And all I was ever left with was the feeling of even more frustration.

In my opinion, what would help way more than any ai tool would be the funding of mental health care and making it that going to a therapist or psychiatrist or coach is covered by health care the way I only have to pay 5 euros to my doctor while my health care provider pays the rest. (In Belgium) This would make mental health care much more accessible and would have a greater impact than faulty ai tools.

4. It was also said that ai could help students with creative assignments and preparing for spoken interactions both in their native language as well as in the learning of a new one.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Creativity in its essence is about the person creating something from their own mind and putting the effort in to translate those ideas into their medium of choice. Stick figures on lined course paper are more creative than letting a tool like Midjourney generate an image based on stolen content. How are we teaching students to be creative when we allow them to not put a thought in what they want to say and let an ai do it for them?

And since many of these tools are also faulty and biased in their content, how could they accurately replace conversations with real people? Ai cannot fully understand the complexities of language and all the nuances of the contexts around it. Body language, word choice, tone, volume, regional differences, etc.

And as a language teacher, I can truly say there is nothing more frustrating than wanting to assess the writing level of my students, giving them a writing assignment where they need to express their opinion and write it in two tiny paragraphs... and getting an ai response back. Before anyone comes to me saying that my students may simply be very good at English. Indeed, but my current students are not. They are precious, but their English skills are very flawed. It is very easy to see when they wrote it or ChatGPT. It is not only frustrating to not being able to trust part of your students' honesty and knowing they learned nothing from the assignment cause you can't give any feedback; it is almost offensive that they think I wouldn't notice it.

5. Apparently, it was mentioned in the lecture that in schools where ai is banned currently, students are fearful that their jobs would be taken away by ai and that in schools where ai was allowed that students had much more positive interactions with technology.

First off, I was not able to see the source and data that this statement was based on. However, I personally cannot shake the feeling there's a data bias in there. Of course students will feel more positively towards ai if they're not told about all the concerns around it.

Secondly, the fact that in the lecture it was (reportedly) framed that being scared your job would disappear because of ai, was untrue is... infuriating. Because it already is becoming a reality. Let's not forget what partially caused the SAG-AFTRA strike in 2023. Corporations see an easy (read: cheap) way to get marketable content by using ai at the cost of the creative professionals. Unregulated ai use by businesses causing the loss of jobs for real-life humans, is very much a threat. Dismissing this is basically lying to young students.

6. My conclusion:

I am frustrated. It's clamoured that we, as teachers, should educate more about ai and it's responsible use. However, at the same time the many concerns and issues around most of the accessible ai tools are swept under the rug and not actively talked about.

I find the constant surging rise of generative ai everywhere very concerning and I can only hope that more people will start seeing it too.

Thank you for reading.

[polturn]

Todays scribblings

[crystalthayer1]

A top + a bottom = a baby💕🌷

Telegram:@crystalthayer10

[hausdellamorte]

these sketches have not left my mind since i saw them because the way the subplot with zara and illario was just dropped is genuinely insane

we know from the wigmaker job that zara was after lucanis because of his work as the demon of vyrantium. it's not mentioned if she already knew illario at this point and it doesn't appear as if illario was out for lucanis' neck already. sure, he was frustrated that lucanis was the favorite but he jokingly introduced himself as "master dellamorte the lesser" and when he asks about caterina it seems like illarios anger was directed at caterina, not lucanis. the illario we see in wigmaker job and the wake does NOT seem like the illario in the game.

and that change is just... dropped? not adressed at all.

we legit never find out why illario switched up on lucanis, how he met zara, what the nature of his relationship is with zara (which knowing that she is an old blood mage who uses the blood of her slaves to get rid of stretchmarks, i think we can guess)

these scenes were so very needed, because illario is a fascinating character and to have him be the shifty, jealous cousin does not seem enough, especially after we saw an entirely different illario in the other material he was in

[unohdukseen]

BioWare uses AI in Dragon Age: The Veilguard codex cards

And I think it's not only there - most of the armor looks like the use AI for references.

But about the codex: this applies to the Grey Warden cards. First, a general view:

All cards in different styles made by different artists. But my eyes caught on this:

It's the same art that was run through AI-editor. And these cards are nearby, in the same game! Maximum disrespect for the work of the artist who made the original art (for DAI btw). The codex contains a few cards with this style, let's see the details:

They all was AI generated. I thought I couldn't be more disappointed in BioWare, but it turns out there is.

[creature-wizard]

What an AI generated website can look like

Hey folks! I just encountered a website that's obviously AI generated, so I figured I'd use it as an example to help you spot websites that might be AI generated content farms!

First, the website is called faunafacts.com. And one of the first things that sticks out to me is how low-effort the logo is:

Regardless of whether a website is AI generated or not, a lazy and low-quality logo is a big clue that the website's content will also be lazy and low-quality.

If we click on Browse Animals, we see four options: Cows, Wolves, Bears, and Snakes.

Let's click Wolves.

The first thing I want you to notice is the lack of topical focus. Sure, it's all about wolves, but the content on them is all over the place. We have content on wolf hunting, a page on animals that resemble wolves, pages that explain the alleged social structure of wolves, and pages on wolf symbolism.

A website with content created by real people isn't going to be all over the place like this. It would be created with more of a focus in mind, like animal biology and behavior. The whole spiritual symbol thing here mixed with supposed biological and behavioral information is weird.

The next thing I want you to notice are the links to pages on topics that are quite frankly bizarre: "Wolf vs Mastiff: Things You Need To Know" and "Can You Ride A Wolf? (No, Because...)" Who is even looking for this kind of information in large enough numbers that it needs a dedicated page?

Then of course, there's the fact that they're repeating the debunked wolf hierarchy stuff, which anyone who actually knew anything about wolves at this point wouldn't post.

Now let's look at what's on one of the actual pages. We'll check out the wolves vs. mastiff page, and we can soon find a telltale sign of AI: rambling off topic to talk about something completely unrelated.

Both animals are carnivores. In the wild, wolves hunt large animals like bison, deer, and even elk. Sometimes, they may also hunt small mammals like the beaver.

Mastiffs, on the other hand, are mainly fed with dog food. As a dog, a mastiff left in the wild will eat anything. However, it will have difficulties hunting, as this instinct may have already departed the dogs of today.

A mastiff is not an obligate carnivore. Dogs can eat plant matter. Some say that dogs can survive on a vegetable diet.

Dogs being made vegetarians is a contentious issue. Scientifically, dogs belong to the order Carnivora. There is a movement today to convert dogs to a vegan diet. While science has nothing against it, the fear of many is that when dog owners do this, a vegan diet will certainly have an impact on the species.

This page is supposed to be comparing mastiffs with wolves, but then it starts talking about the vegan pet food movement. This happened because large language models generate text based on on what's statistically likely to follow the last text it just generated.

Finally, the website's images are AI generated:

If you know what to look for, this is a very obviously AI generated image. There's no graininess to the image, and the details are both unnaturally smooth and unnaturally crisp. It also has that high color saturation that many AI generated images have.

So there you go, this is one example of what an AI generated website can look like! Be careful out there!

[woman-eternal]

no you didn't??? what the fuck???

[solidaritygaming-fanblog]

I don't have time to swap accounts but I just watched an ai generated coca cola advertisement and I want to kill myself

[helluvabossrewrite45]

Please Help the Animation Guild Members get a Proper Contract

Unrelated to HB but I will use it's tags in order for it to gain attention. Since HB is an indie animated show, I think it would fit at least somewhat. Say what you will about HB, but at least a human being made the entire thing.

The animation industry is currently struggling right now and it is predominantly at the animators due to corporations wanting to replace them with AI. There has been a contract to impose peace however, the contract doesn't indicate that AI will be banned. Animation is a significant passion and career for people and it shouldn't be robbed of it by machines just because corporations do not care for art like we do. Please help these animators by signing the petition.

[nyaa]

the thought of people tattooing themselves with designs made from bottlenecked ai freeware is so funny to me

[gunpowdercarousel]

Ngl, the fact that the Daggerheart website uses AI art is a pretty big turn off.

It just looks cheap.

[lesbiancarat]

want to give my two cents on the AI usage in the maestro trailer--

i think seventeen doing a whole concept that is anti-AI is very cool, especially as creatives themselves i think it's good that they're speaking up against it and i hope it gets more ppl talking about the issue. i also understand on a surface level the artistic choice (whether it was made by the members, the mv director, or whoever else), to directly use AI in contrast to real, human-made visuals and music in order to criticize it. i also appreciate that they clearly stated the intention of the use of AI at the beginning of the video

however, although i understand it to an extent, i do not agree with the choice to use AI to critique AI. one of the main ethical concerns with generative AI is that it is trained on other artists' work without their knowledge, consent, or compensation. and even when AI generated images are being used to critique AI, it still does not negate this particular ethical concern

the use of AI to critique also does not negate the fact that this is work that could have been done by an actual artist. i have seen some people argue that it's okay in this context because it's a critique specifically about AI, and it is content that never would have been done by a real artist anyway because it doesn't make sense for the story they're trying to tell. but i disagree. i think you can still tell the exact same story without using AI

and in fact, i would argue that it would make the anti-AI message stronger if they HAD paid an artist to draw/animate the scenes that are supposed to represent AI generated images. wouldn't it just be proof that humans can create images that are just as bad and nonsensical and soulless as AI, but that AI can't replicate the creativity and beauty and basic fucking anatomy that's in human-made art?

it feels very obvious this was not just a way to cut corners and costs like a lot of scummy people are using AI for. ultimately it was a very intentional creative decision, i just personally think it was a very poor one. and even if some ethical considerations were taken into account before this decision, i certainly don't think all of them were. at the very least i feel like the decision undermines the message they want to convey

i would also like to recognize that i myself am not an artist, and i have seen some artists that are totally on board with the use of AI in this specific context, so clearly this is not a topic that is cut and dry. but generative AI is still new, and i think it's important to keep having these conversations

[crooked-wasteland]

" We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective." – Michael Eisner

(And Vivienne Medrano, apparently)

This image was circulating for a brief time here on Tumblr with the explanation of it possibly being a leak of Oops' script. I didn't want to touch on it at the time because it was of dubious origin. At this point, obviously, we know this is not that script. I've seen some comments about it possibly being a rough draft or otherwise somehow legitimate.

The reason I say this is because, regardless of the authenticity, it does feel like the quality of storytelling found in the show. If a scene like this did appear, I don't think it would feel all that out of place within the context of the show. One cannot fault those who did perpetuate the idea, because the concept of it is believable.

However, I have a feeling this is actually the product of ChatGPT.

The writing and dialogue lack depth and nuance. The emotions are shallow while attempting to portray immense pain. It fails to tap into any semblance of humanity. When individuals discuss the hypothetical threat of AI taking over the artistic space and removing the need for human creativity, it comes from a place of lacking that same humanity. Social media and, unfortunately, Fandom have boiled down art to a content farm.

Algorithms mixed with huge communities seeking immediate gratification have dumbed down art into an appealing image one would admire for a few seconds. They press some buttons and immediately keep scrolling, forgetting what they just saw.

Additionally, character illustrations are the easiest image for AI to recreate. The value of fanwork is not about the emotional depth it portrays but how aesthetically appealing the image is and how identifiable the characters are to Canon. Not to say that fanworks can not showcase depth or meaning in their pieces. Only that the piece will overwhelmingly not be appraised for its cultural or metaphysical value. Instead, it will be immediately replaced.

There is an intentionality to what we call "art." How every element of an artwork was specifically designed to portray something. From the minute background details to the colors and the use of value. How the modern home of philosophy is the theater.

And that's the issue with much of the writing of Helluva Boss: The lack of intentionality as the story (or lack thereof) stumbles along. The crew does not make artistic decisions with an eye to how these events affect the future. They cycle through an unending series of unrelated ideas that are not intended to say anything of the characters or world. It is there to simply be funny, make the audience sad, token representation, etc. The idea mirroring J.J.Abrams and his mystery box mentality of monopolizing the attention-based economy through the emotional investment of the moment.

The idea that something that feels straight out of ChatGPT could just as easily be pictured as a scene in an episode shows the utter lack of connectivity to the project and the basic act of being human.

Medrano and her team are not interested in making art. They are prioritizing the consumption of their content over the quality of the artistic work itself. Given the support and platform to say whatever it was she wished to do so, she has chosen to go nowhere and do nothing with these resources. It's one of the keystone reasons I feel the series has lost as much support as it has. When given the option to make history. It isn't about the art, but rather she seeks to make it about herself. Medrano doesn't want to tell a story or make a statement. She just wanted a show.

[youtuberswithalex]

"sanders sides content feels ai generated now" ai writing wasn't even comprehensible the last time we got an episode

[bookshelf-in-progress]

It turns out you don't have to worry about bots scraping your fiction to feed AI when your brother FEEDS IT TO THE AI HIMSELF!!!!

[woafofbread]

New Year’s resolution is to post more so I’m gonna start off with critiquing generative AI.

My dad sent me this for new years. Obviously he didn’t know it was Ai and I didn’t immediately know for sure but I got the feeling. The feeling that’s like “hey something is off about this.” I wanted to talk about the process of recognition that I go through as an artist when I see something made by Ai because a lot of the time at first glance nothing seems wrong.

First thing that I notice is how after 2025 there something that is clearly supposed to be an exclamation point but it’s too small and incomplete. This immediately made me realize for sure that it’s Ai. Ai is usually bad at doing text and it would be pretty easy for a human to fix.

Then I see the rest of the inconsistencies. The n in new is disconnected. There is a stray line coming out of the h in happy. Snoopy’s hands: one has a different line weight and the other has a finger that’s way too small. The stray little lines on Snoopy’s mouth. Woodstock only having one eye brow. Then this part is debatable since it is clearly trying to replicate the style of the CGI Peanuts movie, but Snoopy’s eyes being different sizes bothers me. The ear which I didn’t even circle is probably trying to replicate the loosely colored in ears in the comic strip, but in the CGI version it’s fully colored in. The golden firework blending into the top of Snoopy’s hat. Woodstock’s hands. Woodstock’s feet. The blurriness of Snoopy’s foot that isn’t anywhere else. The lines on Snoopy’s foot which doesn’t reach the end. The blurriness at the top of Woodstock’s head.

As an artist in art school we are critiqued on every little detail of our work. These kinds of inconsistencies are not okay for professional artists to make so the idea that companies want to use Ai shows how little they cared about artists in the first place. Any company that uses Ai instead of hiring an artist is clearly is cheap and is making themselves look bad.

I know that Ai can look convincing and pretty at first glance, but I want people to look at artwork for more than a few seconds. With social media everything is so fast paced and we are conditioned to to want instant gratification, so Ai is a quick and easy way to make ‘content.’ But the things that generative Ai makes are low quality and infuriating to see as an artist. I would much rather see someone try to make art as a beginner than see a computer steal art from other people.

So when you share or like something take an extra second to see if it was made by a person because if a person didn’t even care enough to make it it’s not worth your time.

Any other artists feel free to point out anything that I missed.