Not just giant beavers, there were all kinds of giant animals before humans arrived. Great sloths, mastodons, etc. etc. New Zealand had these huge birds, Moa, there are sites where they've found piles of bones and fireplaces obviously made for eating Moa, which went extinct quite soon after humans arrived.
Yep. The evidence may not be completely conclusive, but I'd bet on the side of humans (plus climate to a degree) as the primary cause of the Quaternary megafauna extinctions in North and South America. Buffalo, passenger pigeons, and old growth forest extents make me think us humans destroy almost everything.
QUICK: Name the animal whose industry is most visible from space.
Day or night?
That was a trick question. Day.
Easy. The Beaver. If it were not for beavers evolving beside us, the Eastern US and much of the world would very nearly resemble the driest American Southwest of today, with rain being gathered after a brief overland wash into deep river gorges, with little water left behind close to surface. Past a certain age of erosion even introducing beavers would not help. Shallow masses of water diverted overland is crucial to sediment distribution and the formation of oxbow lakes. If beavers had arrived late their industry would be slowing rivers already confined by steep gorges and the violence of waters would carry them away and destroy them and their families.
When beavers are gone and what is left is the flaky erosion patterns of human desire the future landscape will be a crap shoot... for humanity could never match the attention and focus of the beaver.
Good Q. Since there are many wetland plant species and willows that are beaverlike you could ask how would they become established in the first place, and how would their growing mass and persistence compare to a beaver's after a catastrophic event? And after all, why does the dry deep-gorge Southwest look like the Southwest anyway? THAT could be the outlier and its depth and dryness would seem the result of a 'jump start in erosion' bestowed over geologic time. I think even the Southwest may have been on course to be as green as the East and would have been -- had it not been for some truly horrific floods that eclipse anything in the modern era when the plugs for Glacial Lake Missoula and Bonneville gave way.
Drainage paths in the West ( https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/10/21/16/3995911F000005... ) were more narrow and violent, the same in the East were not. A minimum of sudden deep erosion and therefore sideways diversion of blocked watercourses would be necessary for beavers to get established and shape the landscape so in the East they did. Other places in the world like the Amazon may have been shaped by vegetation impeding erosion more so than gnawing creatures.
> If it were not for beavers evolving beside us, the Eastern US and much of the world would very nearly resemble the driest American Southwest of today, with rain being gathered after a brief overland wash into deep river gorges, with little water left behind close to surface.
The rainfall patterns are very different in those two areas. I don't doubt that beavers have important erosion and sediment retention impacts that over time do have a massive impact on the ecosystem and landscape. However, sediment rention is far from only reason why the american SW looks so different from other parts of the country.
The eastern US pretty much wiped out beavers as most landowners view beavers as pests. Does not look anything like the southwest. If we introduce beavers to nevada, do you think nevada will look like upstate ny?
> much of the world would very nearly resemble the driest American Southwest of today
Most of the world doesn't have any beavers. Most of the world does not resemble the american southwest.
Rather than beavers creating the environment, it's the environment that created the beavers. Beavers exist in areas with plentiful rain/water for a reason. Look up rainfall patterns in the US and you'll see how illogical your argument is.
The only evidence of any animals activities visible from the Moon, is a clear cut 100miles by 150 miles in norther BC, as seen by humans on the moon.....
There are two species of Beavers left, the well know aquatec version and a "woods beaver", rare.
Beavers are making a comeback, and I see dams and lodges regularly, and hit a very large one driving, which I put in the back of the truck and took to a friend and we scun it, and he stretched the hide old style, easy to see why the fur was in such high demand, it's glorious, nothing synthetic can match the feel.The tails are a culenary delicacy.
Not long ago Beavers and other species were still faceing an onslaught of human depredation, as there was a larger ,more vigerous rural human population, and guns and dynamite were hardware store items. Hyway departments still remove beaver dams where flooding threatens roads, but as flooding is becoming more damaging overall, the response is often to build MUCH larger drainage and bridge structures and then be able to let nature do it's thing.
In the middle ages there was a big debate in the Catholic church about whether beavers were fish (nobility hated eating no meat except fish on fridays and were looking for some variety).
It was argued that their tails are scaly like a fish', and of course they live in water. But on the other hand there's all the fur and so on.
So eventually it was decided that beaver tails count as fish, not the whole animal.
This led to it being hunted to local extinction in quite some places.
Beaver is genuinely delicious, and I don't like most game meat. In frontier times it was commonly used as a ready substitute for fatty pork like bacon.
These days you are unlikely to have a chance to try it unless you are friends with a trapper.
“So, the first inhabitants in this land would have been encountering the giant beaver.”
...and killing them.
It's curious how megafauna extinctions coincide with human arrival... Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, and other "First Peoples" were just as deadly as later European settlers.
> It's curious how megafauna extinctions coincide with human arrival... Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, and other "First Peoples" were just as deadly as later European settlers.
That's one possible, maybe even likely scenario.
But humans started moving around at that time for a non-human reason; the end of the Ice Age. There's some evidence for populations of large mammals dying out before humans are believed to have showed up in those places, like Australia.
(As with most changes of this magnitude, the true answer is probably "more than one thing".)
Also, we tend to think of human effects and the change in climate to be mutually exclusive, but even if the end of the ice age had zero effect on the ability of megafauna to eat or reproduce, and an increase predation from the introduction of humans was the sole cause of their extinction, the presence of those humans itself would be an effect of the ice age ending.
> It's curious how megafauna extinctions coincide with human arrival... Native Americans, Australian Aborigines
Native americans and australian aborigines arrival coincided with drastic climate change. Or put another way, climate change was a major driver of human migration.
> were just as deadly as later European settlers.
Unless natives and aborigines had guns, railroads, mass farming, etc, I highly doubt it. Not to mention the population boom due to modern medicine and mass migration.
If you consider the relatively small native american and aborigine populations, the technology involved and how gigantic america and australia is, it's absurd to think natives or aborigines wiped out the megafauna.
Species extinction has two major causes - climate/environment change and loss of habitat. Were the natives and aborigines sophisticated enough to cause climate/environment change or develop farming to a degree that deprived the megafauna of their habitats? I highly doubt it.
They say it "could have weighed up to 200 pounds". How do they know? Are they just guestimating based on modern animals about the same size? Or maybe weighing/measuring a modern beaver and scaling up size and weight?
There's some debate over how useful this is for dinosaurs, but something that died out 10k years ago with closely related existing species is probably easier.
> Stable isotopes suggest that Castoroides probably predominantly consumed submerged aquatic plants, rather than the woody diet of living beavers. There is no evidence that giant beavers constructed dams or lodges. The shape of the incisors of Castoroides would have made it much less effective in cutting down trees than living beavers. It was likely heavily dependent on wetland environments for both food and protection from predators.
A generic image-generator can't do the necessary math for relative heights and perspective, and since conveying that information accurately is the entire point of the visualization... :/
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?
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 hate to break it to you but some random Internet forum like HN is not the New York Times.
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.
I feel like we're having 2 different conversations here. I never said you should not feel what you feel about AI imagery.
"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.
> I feel like we're having 2 different conversations here.
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.
>> I feel like we're having 2 different conversations here.
> 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.
> So you trust a human artist's ability to draw to-scale more than AI?
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.
Not just giant beavers, there were all kinds of giant animals before humans arrived. Great sloths, mastodons, etc. etc. New Zealand had these huge birds, Moa, there are sites where they've found piles of bones and fireplaces obviously made for eating Moa, which went extinct quite soon after humans arrived.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unn... is a pretty fun read about how we've destroyed everything in our path.
They all had a fatal flaw: they were tasty and slow.
Yep. The evidence may not be completely conclusive, but I'd bet on the side of humans (plus climate to a degree) as the primary cause of the Quaternary megafauna extinctions in North and South America. Buffalo, passenger pigeons, and old growth forest extents make me think us humans destroy almost everything.
the Houston Museum of Natural Science has a Eremotherium (giant ground sloth) on display -- I'd hate to have one of these guys invade a campsite!
https://blog.hmns.org/2017/04/the-founding-father-and-the-fi...
QUICK: Name the animal whose industry is most visible from space.
Day or night?
That was a trick question. Day.
Easy. The Beaver. If it were not for beavers evolving beside us, the Eastern US and much of the world would very nearly resemble the driest American Southwest of today, with rain being gathered after a brief overland wash into deep river gorges, with little water left behind close to surface. Past a certain age of erosion even introducing beavers would not help. Shallow masses of water diverted overland is crucial to sediment distribution and the formation of oxbow lakes. If beavers had arrived late their industry would be slowing rivers already confined by steep gorges and the violence of waters would carry them away and destroy them and their families.
When beavers are gone and what is left is the flaky erosion patterns of human desire the future landscape will be a crap shoot... for humanity could never match the attention and focus of the beaver.
Beavers are only endemic to North America and parts of Europe. So why does the rest of the world not overwhelmingly resemble the American southwest?
Good Q. Since there are many wetland plant species and willows that are beaverlike you could ask how would they become established in the first place, and how would their growing mass and persistence compare to a beaver's after a catastrophic event? And after all, why does the dry deep-gorge Southwest look like the Southwest anyway? THAT could be the outlier and its depth and dryness would seem the result of a 'jump start in erosion' bestowed over geologic time. I think even the Southwest may have been on course to be as green as the East and would have been -- had it not been for some truly horrific floods that eclipse anything in the modern era when the plugs for Glacial Lake Missoula and Bonneville gave way.
Drainage paths in the West ( https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/10/21/16/3995911F000005... ) were more narrow and violent, the same in the East were not. A minimum of sudden deep erosion and therefore sideways diversion of blocked watercourses would be necessary for beavers to get established and shape the landscape so in the East they did. Other places in the world like the Amazon may have been shaped by vegetation impeding erosion more so than gnawing creatures.
> If it were not for beavers evolving beside us, the Eastern US and much of the world would very nearly resemble the driest American Southwest of today, with rain being gathered after a brief overland wash into deep river gorges, with little water left behind close to surface.
The rainfall patterns are very different in those two areas. I don't doubt that beavers have important erosion and sediment retention impacts that over time do have a massive impact on the ecosystem and landscape. However, sediment rention is far from only reason why the american SW looks so different from other parts of the country.
> the Eastern US
The eastern US pretty much wiped out beavers as most landowners view beavers as pests. Does not look anything like the southwest. If we introduce beavers to nevada, do you think nevada will look like upstate ny?
> much of the world would very nearly resemble the driest American Southwest of today
Most of the world doesn't have any beavers. Most of the world does not resemble the american southwest.
Rather than beavers creating the environment, it's the environment that created the beavers. Beavers exist in areas with plentiful rain/water for a reason. Look up rainfall patterns in the US and you'll see how illogical your argument is.
The only evidence of any animals activities visible from the Moon, is a clear cut 100miles by 150 miles in norther BC, as seen by humans on the moon..... There are two species of Beavers left, the well know aquatec version and a "woods beaver", rare. Beavers are making a comeback, and I see dams and lodges regularly, and hit a very large one driving, which I put in the back of the truck and took to a friend and we scun it, and he stretched the hide old style, easy to see why the fur was in such high demand, it's glorious, nothing synthetic can match the feel.The tails are a culenary delicacy. Not long ago Beavers and other species were still faceing an onslaught of human depredation, as there was a larger ,more vigerous rural human population, and guns and dynamite were hardware store items. Hyway departments still remove beaver dams where flooding threatens roads, but as flooding is becoming more damaging overall, the response is often to build MUCH larger drainage and bridge structures and then be able to let nature do it's thing.
By that logic, I'd vote for worms. Forestation is only possible after worms create enough humus to support trees.
[dead]
I wonder if they were tasty. You never hear of people eating beaver.
In the middle ages there was a big debate in the Catholic church about whether beavers were fish (nobility hated eating no meat except fish on fridays and were looking for some variety).
It was argued that their tails are scaly like a fish', and of course they live in water. But on the other hand there's all the fur and so on.
So eventually it was decided that beaver tails count as fish, not the whole animal.
This led to it being hunted to local extinction in quite some places.
And now we have two questions:
- How does beaver taste?
- How does beaver tail taste?
I don't know about beavers, but their tails tastes like any other fried dough drizzled in syrup.
Beaver tails taste a lot like bear claws.
and 3rd question : does beaver tail taste anywhere close to beaver tail (the pastry) https://beavertails.com/products
[dead]
Beaver is genuinely delicious, and I don't like most game meat. In frontier times it was commonly used as a ready substitute for fatty pork like bacon.
These days you are unlikely to have a chance to try it unless you are friends with a trapper.
The fifth grader in me chuckled.
Not beaver, but muskrat was historically was a Catholic loophole to get around abstinence from meat (and more likely due to food availability).
https://www.detroitcatholic.com/news/the-history-of-detroit-...
And more recently, alligator
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/02/alligator-is...
clearly slang evolves over time
Well, initially, beaver ate you.
I have a cousin who is a trapper who says they are delicious.
It is an acquired taste.
Agreed, the appeal increases with the years.
A shame really, youth is wasted on the young.
“So, the first inhabitants in this land would have been encountering the giant beaver.”
...and killing them.
It's curious how megafauna extinctions coincide with human arrival... Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, and other "First Peoples" were just as deadly as later European settlers.
The Once and Future World by J.B. MacKinnon eloquently describes our disastrous impact on Nature: https://www.jbmackinnon.ca/the-once-and-future-world
> It's curious how megafauna extinctions coincide with human arrival... Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, and other "First Peoples" were just as deadly as later European settlers.
That's one possible, maybe even likely scenario.
But humans started moving around at that time for a non-human reason; the end of the Ice Age. There's some evidence for populations of large mammals dying out before humans are believed to have showed up in those places, like Australia.
(As with most changes of this magnitude, the true answer is probably "more than one thing".)
Also, we tend to think of human effects and the change in climate to be mutually exclusive, but even if the end of the ice age had zero effect on the ability of megafauna to eat or reproduce, and an increase predation from the introduction of humans was the sole cause of their extinction, the presence of those humans itself would be an effect of the ice age ending.
These animals survived multiple climate changes before that. Nope, it was humans.
We're the reason the North American continent has _no_ large predators except bears.
Again, it’s probably both.
We humans nearly bought it during the same period; we bottlenecked at ~1,000 individuals for millennia. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487
The other hominins didn’t make it.
By your argument, if a species survives multiple climate changes it can never go extinct /except/ by human intervention.
Not true.
Sure. A couple of species will go extinct.
But somehow ALL the megafauna in Australia, Asia, and North America went extinct at approximately the same time humans arrived.
> It's curious how megafauna extinctions coincide with human arrival... Native Americans, Australian Aborigines
Native americans and australian aborigines arrival coincided with drastic climate change. Or put another way, climate change was a major driver of human migration.
> were just as deadly as later European settlers.
Unless natives and aborigines had guns, railroads, mass farming, etc, I highly doubt it. Not to mention the population boom due to modern medicine and mass migration.
If you consider the relatively small native american and aborigine populations, the technology involved and how gigantic america and australia is, it's absurd to think natives or aborigines wiped out the megafauna.
Species extinction has two major causes - climate/environment change and loss of habitat. Were the natives and aborigines sophisticated enough to cause climate/environment change or develop farming to a degree that deprived the megafauna of their habitats? I highly doubt it.
> it's absurd to think natives or aborigines wiped out the megafauna.
Aside from the plausible scenario of driving whole herds off cliffs (because it was safer than trying to separate one or two from the herd).
They say it "could have weighed up to 200 pounds". How do they know? Are they just guestimating based on modern animals about the same size? Or maybe weighing/measuring a modern beaver and scaling up size and weight?
It's not perfect, but there's a very close correlation to the size of the femur with overall body mass in modern animals we use to extrapolate.
See the chart in https://phys.org/news/2020-08-dinosaur.html
There's some debate over how useful this is for dinosaurs, but something that died out 10k years ago with closely related existing species is probably easier.
Allometry, its a whole field of study.
It's 2025, chatgpt confidently told them the answer
I wonder how similar their diet was to modern beavers, especially if they also ate bark and cambium?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoroides
> Stable isotopes suggest that Castoroides probably predominantly consumed submerged aquatic plants, rather than the woody diet of living beavers. There is no evidence that giant beavers constructed dams or lodges. The shape of the incisors of Castoroides would have made it much less effective in cutting down trees than living beavers. It was likely heavily dependent on wetland environments for both food and protection from predators.
A conibear #330 isn't going to even dent that. I'd need a #3300 and farm jack to set it.
I knew the movie Hundreds of Beavers was a documentary
This could imply trees were larger back then.
Mandatory reference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvWfbIe4X_4
I thought this was going to be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYDfwUJzYQg
But were they dangerous?
Disappointing there was no picture for scale, here's a good one.
https://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/castoroides/
Reviveable.
[dead]
[flagged]
What utility does an AI-generated image with a weirdly proportioned fake human give here?
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.
A generic image-generator can't do the necessary math for relative heights and perspective, and since conveying that information accurately is the entire point of the visualization... :/
So about 2x as big as a normal North American beaver.
They're remarkable animals. The scale of impact of their dam-building on ecosystems is only just starting to be appreciated.
Yep. It is a [Keystone species](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species)
[dead]
If yo use AI then please say so. I dont want or like fake bullshit shown to me as if genuine.
First off, I'm with you on the "don't try to pass off AI imagery as real"...
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?
> Since there are no giant beavers in the world today, we could have assumed they were AI generated?
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.
Again I'm not asserting the validity of the image.
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..
> Are we expecting everyone to say "this was AI created" on every image that is AI created?
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 hate to break it to you but some random Internet forum like HN is not the New York Times.
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.
> You are bringing your own interpretation here.
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.
I feel like we're having 2 different conversations here. I never said you should not feel what you feel about AI imagery.
"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.
> I feel like we're having 2 different conversations here.
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
>> I feel like we're having 2 different conversations here.
> 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.
> So you trust a human artist's ability to draw to-scale more than AI?
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.
... as opposed to the bear-sized tiny beavers?