Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
Stumbled across a particularly odd case of AI hype in the wild today:
I will say it certainly does look different than standard AI slop, but like AI slop, its nothing particularly impressive - I can replicate something like this pretty easily, and without boiling an ocean to do it. Anyways, here's a sidenote:
In the wake of this bubble, part of me suspects physical media (e.g. photographic film) will earn a boost in popularity, alongside digital formats which LLMs struggle to generate. In both cases, the reason will be the same - simply by knowing something came on physical media or "slop-hardened media", you already have strong reason to believe the piece is human-made.
Film photography is my hobby and I think that there isn't anything that would prevent from exposing a displayed image on a piece of film, except for the cost.
Depending on film it might not be easy to tell exposing an image from a real picture.
The "hybrid" digital instax cameras work this way, it's just a digital camera that has a way to internally expose the picture on the instant film.
It's trivial to do analog prints from digital images too, just requires an inkjet printer and a special film to print out the "digital negative".
The only way in which it may succeed as a deterrent is that it actually costs some money (film and processing is not cheap) and requires actual work to do those extra steps.
I expect the "requires actual work" part will work well in deterring AI bros - they're lazy fucks by nature, anything more difficult than "press button for instant gratification" is gonna be a turn-off for them.
Well, the other thing is that except for the instant film, there's no instant gratification in this hobby. Even when one processes at home, the typical time form a photo to a print is measured in hours.
Glass plates it is, then. Good luck matching the resolution.
In all seriousness though I think your normal set up would be detectable even on normal 35mm film due to 1: insufficient resolution (even at 4k, probably even at 8k), and 2: insufficient dynamic range. There would probably also be some effects of spectral response mismatch - reds that are cut off by the film’s spectral response would be converted into film-visible reds by a display. Il
Detection of forgery may require use of a microscope and maybe some statistical techniques. Even if the pixels are smaller than film grains, pixels are on a regular grid and film grains are not.
Edit: trained eyeballing may also work fine if you are familiar with the look of that specific film.