Troubling. Dozens of HN readers upvoted this. Does this mean people are blindly upvoting "sciencey"-sounding stuff, or did some of them actually read it and were fooled by the AI-generated content?
If HN can be fooled by it, and genAI is in its infancy, it's going to get real bad in the future.
I suppose the image is genai, but they don't credit it as such, despite crediting the images on all the other articles below it as genai. However, they don't provide any image credit on the linked article, so presumably they just forgot to add it.
It's sickening that a science website uses genai specifically for images of things that are ostensibly real in the context of news about that thing. E.g. this stinkbug, and some kind of fruiting plant in a lower-down article. As opposed to only using it for clearly artificial renderings.
Yeah it looks very AI, which is disappointing because I wanted to know what they really liked like. The picture looks like a more vibrant and reddish version of the kind we have in the Midwestern United States
The article feels like LLM output, too. (And they don't actually credit an author in the byline.) Is there another source out there that this was based on? Can we read that instead, and skip the extra layer of interpretation/distortion?
Here's an actual article, which you can find by following the DOI: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp6699 -- unfortunately not open access, so it's not feasible for me to check if anything in the HN link is actually true, or just LLM guesses.
Flagged -- image and text produced by generative AI. Not a real article.
Troubling. Dozens of HN readers upvoted this. Does this mean people are blindly upvoting "sciencey"-sounding stuff, or did some of them actually read it and were fooled by the AI-generated content?
If HN can be fooled by it, and genAI is in its infancy, it's going to get real bad in the future.
Indeed. See the tags at the end of the page.
I suppose the image is genai, but they don't credit it as such, despite crediting the images on all the other articles below it as genai. However, they don't provide any image credit on the linked article, so presumably they just forgot to add it.
It's sickening that a science website uses genai specifically for images of things that are ostensibly real in the context of news about that thing. E.g. this stinkbug, and some kind of fruiting plant in a lower-down article. As opposed to only using it for clearly artificial renderings.
Yeah it looks very AI, which is disappointing because I wanted to know what they really liked like. The picture looks like a more vibrant and reddish version of the kind we have in the Midwestern United States
The article feels like LLM output, too. (And they don't actually credit an author in the byline.) Is there another source out there that this was based on? Can we read that instead, and skip the extra layer of interpretation/distortion?
Here's an actual article, which you can find by following the DOI: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp6699 -- unfortunately not open access, so it's not feasible for me to check if anything in the HN link is actually true, or just LLM guesses.
How do I turn this headline into a LinkedIn corporate thought leadership post?
This company lets bad employees stay to beat the regulators!
It's simply too good.
https://gemini.google.com/share/35203d3eb43d
It makes me want to barf just like real LinkedIn corporate thought leadership posts!
The only two people I know in real life who consistently posts leadership nonsense on there are:
1. Consistently "underused" at every job and "stifled" by management that doesn't understand that talent comes with diva attitude.
And
2. Unemployed but calling it self employed.
Relate it to AI somehow
warning: scrolling on this site will flood your browser history with page spam