The problem is the use of AI. It’s a reliable indicator that the author doesn’t actually care about the quality of the work, so I shouldn’t bother to read the text.
Stock photos are (generally) made by professionals, memes impart some social context. Can't say either about an AI image. So i absolutely hold an AI image in less esteem, especially when someone clearly just used the first draft spit out by the model where all of the text is wrong and the image doesn't even resemble what it purports to illustrate.
> Stock photos are (generally) made by professionals
GenAI models are made by professionals. But in both our cases, it’s a different set of professionals to the ones who chose which images to use in their articles.
> memes impart some social context
The “social context” here is just regurgitating an unrelated viral joke. I’d hardly say that requires more respect of the readers than a purpose generated image that is intended specifically for context of that article.
Plus you can use GenAI to generate a meme too if you really wanted.
> Can't say either about an AI image
I literally just did ;)
> So i absolutely hold an AI image in less esteem, especially when someone clearly just used the first draft spit out by the model where all of the text is wrong and the image doesn't even resemble what it purports to illustrate.
And this is exactly why I said “The problem isn’t the use of AI. It’s the lack of editorial effort to use AI well.”
What you’re complaining about isn’t how the image came to be, it’s the shoddy workmanship. And that’s a different problem.
Lazy people will choose images lazily regardless of the tech. The problem here isn’t the use of AI, it’s the lack of editorial care.
Or to put it another way, if the author used a bad stock photo or offensive meme, then we wouldnt be blaming the tech. But when they use GenAI to produce the same shoddy output we do blame the tech. That screams like our own biases affecting who we blame the for crappy image rather than an inherent problem with the technology.
And if we then acknowledge that the problem isn’t inherent in the tech, then we are back to agreeing with my original point.
No if they used a bad stock photo it wouldn't be worth noticing and if it were an offensive meme it would have been chosen with intent. A bad AI image is so bad to be worth noticing and serves no other purpose than to fill up space hoping nobody notices how bad it is (which, yes, is what stock image are for, but those are made by IMAGE MAKING PROFESSIONALS so even the bad ones are inoffensive. Doctors and mechanics are both professionals so you'll get Dialysis from a Jiffy Lube?)
> No if they used a bad stock photo it wouldn't be worth noticing
Surely that depends on how bad the stock photo is? I’ve seen plenty of people comment on bad stock photos in the past. And plenty more moan about the use of memes in articles.
> and if it were an offensive meme it would have been chosen with intent.
…which is better why? It’s still offensive. Except now you saying the author being a dick is better than an author failing to use a decent image generation model?
Personally I’d rather scroll past a crappy image than an offensive one.
> A bad AI image is so bad to be worth noticing and serves no other purpose than to fill up space hoping nobody notices how bad it is
Exactly. Bad images. BAD!!
You’re comparing good stock photos with bad AI images and arguing that AI is the problem. And thus we are right back to my original point where I said it’s the editorial process that failed by allowing a bad image, regardless of the source.
> Doctors and mechanics are both professionals so you'll get Dialysis from a Jiffy Lube?)
Doctors don’t build dialysis machines so your analogy is wrong.
Your whole argument here ignores the fact that gen ai has been used in reporting for a while now; and used well.
This image in this specific article is crappy. But it’s also not representative of all AI images in all articles. Its crappiness is an outlier rather than an example that proves your argument about the ethics of AI generated images.
Not sure what “your own” in the title is supposed to mean if you are running a model that you didn’t train using a framework that you didn’t write on a server that you don’t own.
I think in this case "your own" means under your control, rather than a service or license you pay for. "your own" as in ownership of artefacts, not as in being the creator.
Consider the source of the idiom: rolling your own cigarettes.
Which involves taking some rolling papers, a pouch of loose tobacco (or whatever), and perhaps a little device if you're rich. As opposed to manufactured cigarettes, you're just doing some manual assembly for the end-product.
You don't need to cultivate the plants or pulp any trees to roll your own.
Slammed an A380 in my old server that doesn't even have a GPU power connector & it works pretty well for stuff that will fit on it. They're only like, $150 brand new nowadays; could be a decent option.
Not sure what "baking your own bread" means if you are using wheat grown by someone else in an oven that you didn't build that is run with electricity you didn't created from your muscles' force. You haven't even contributed to the nuclear fusion which created the oxygen for the water molecules you've been using! How dare you, standing of the shoulders of giants!
Is it "building your own oven" if you go to Lowe's, buy an oven, and installed it yourself? You've done some work, but your integrating a pre-built appliance into your kitchen, not built your own oven
I think they're expecting a daily problem set like Advent of Code. This is not a set of problems to solve, it's a series with one release per day in December, similar to an Advent calendar.
If I were to write such a text, it would have a lot more about building intuition for advanced mathematical concepts. This intuition is extremely valuable, but missing from almost all advanced-level texts. On the other hand, it’s very difficult to put into words, and probably quite personal.
I submitted it, and the word “basic” is mine, because the author doesn’t really go deep into what I would consider “advanced” mathematics. It can be a good prerequisite for advanced things, though.
As elsewhere in the thread, I'd advocate for "basic higher mathematics" or "introductory higher mathematics" (which would make clear that it's for people actively studying math as a subject and not as a standard part of primary or secondary education, or a prerequisite in an engineering major or something).
The author says that this is largely aimed at high school students who are doing self-study, which is a realistic audience but not a context where a lot of people would naturally apply the word "basic". But this material is basic for mathematicians, I guess (although even a lot of mathematicians may not have quite as broad a knowledge of mathematics as the author does!).
If you have a third-party dependency that survived for 20 years. But what if you are trying to choose what to rely on today, and to decide if it will even exist in 20 years? Certainly none of the fashionable JavaScript frameworks will.
reply