| |
| ▲ | antononcube 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Again, good to know. Although, my AI-generation was a response to an interesting comment. You do not think readers are interested to see how the Chernobyl snow-globes look like?! (Looking at AI generated images or store links.) | | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | But we wouldn't know what it looks like, we would only know what your AI thinks it looks like. So no, we're not interested in filling up our heads with vaguely related AI slop. If you had actually posted the store link that would be an entirely different question, which you've somehow tried to conflate with generated images. | | |
| ▲ | antononcube 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It is wrong to assume/state that people do not want to see these AI-generated images. At this point, ≈40 people have seen that _hidden_ Imgur post. | | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a ton of people in this thread, and there are always a few who will click out of curiosity. That doesn't make it useful. | | |
| ▲ | antononcube 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't know... It seems to be fairly entertaining, judging by the number of image album views and the number of comments here. | | |
| ▲ | cr3ative 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Causing annoyance by posting AI slop then having to justify it should not be mistaken for entertainment, it’s closer to trolling. | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | And I've gotten a lot of upvotes for explaining why it's annoying. Perhaps these are not the measures of truth you are looking for. | | |
| ▲ | antononcube 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, that is a part of the measure I have in mind. Let me be more concrete. Terms: - P: Number of positive votes (of any comment) - N: Number of negative votes (of any comment) - V: Number of views of the image album - C: Number of comments in the thread Formula: w1 * P + w2 * N + w3 * V + w4 * C
My weights: (w1, w2, w3, w4) = (1, 1, 1, 3)
(Comments are harder to do than votes.) | | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 3 days ago | parent [-] | | This is a formula that optimizes for trolling. If you insist on using it, expect more downvotes in the future. | | |
| ▲ | antononcube 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The formula is generic; my weights are for measuring engagement. (And, yes, I am very scared by the future downvotes.) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | blueflow 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I clicked on it at least twice and found it disgusting. If more people were like you, thinking this is a good idea, i would stop posting my IRL stories to the internet. | | |
| ▲ | antononcube 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sorry. If I knew you will have such a negative reaction I would have not posted my reply to your IRL story. | |
| ▲ | Gracana 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Please don't stop. I want to hear more about "said a meme to my wife." | |
| ▲ | Evidlo 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How are the images any more or less disgusting than the original snowglobe itself? | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Although, my AI-generation was a response to an interesting comment. Yes, that's why the comment it was in response to was not downvoted. But being interesting and HN-appropriate isn't something responses automatically inherent from their parent comment. > You do not think readers are interested to see how the Chernobyl snow-globes look like?! Actual Chernobyl snow globes... maybe a link to that would be appropriate. AI hallucinations of what they might look like? Maybe if the context was a discussion of the capacities of different AI models and it was offered as a demonstration of the one that generated it, but not in the context it was presented, no. | | |
|
|
