Way too much AI-generated content in this post

MoltenMan 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think this post reads as AI at all. It has none of the tell-tale signs either (em dashes, common constructions like 'not just ____ but ____, bullet points, headers, etc.)

▲

FreakLegion 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The images are AI-generated. This makes them automatically bad in some people's view, but I think they're reasonably fitting here. With a little bit of work (e.g. attention to consistency between frames, blending into the site background) they could even be good.

▲

bryantwolf 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I’d love some thoughts here on the consistency. I thougt I actually did pretty well! But I can see how I might be blind to mind own work here.

What ruined it for you?

	▲	FreakLegion an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You did do pretty well! I don't think the final result was ruined at all. Not many people will notice things like his pants only being brown in the first image, or their eyes only having whites in the third image, or his jacket sometimes having a hood and sometimes not. Compared to what we see on most blogs, even patio11's, this is capital-A Art.

▲

outlier99 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Pangram says fully human written https://www.pangram.com/history/02d6eff5-f782-4978-9e60-bb02...

▲

DiscourseFan 2 hours ago | parent [-]

So the art isn't AI generated either? Idk why people trust these "AI checker" sites when they have been shown time and again to be inaccurate at best, often defamatory at worst.

	▲	bryantwolf an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I too am skeptical we’ll really be able to catch everyone. By making public tools we just create evals to beat the tools etc. Still, right now I think we can tell, so I focused on making sure they were my words, but I let an llm help edit and I think it honestly made it much more readable