Found it first here - https://mastodon.social/@BonehouseWasps/111692479718694120
Not sure if this is the right community to discuss here in Lemmy?
Why bother looking anything up when you can just make it fresh right now. I figured this might start happening once I heard of people using chatGPT as a search replacement (tell me lies, pretty pretty lies).
Internet was already unreliable source of information (for some stuff) without AI, just wait
Reality:
I mean, they would have started appearing in there from the first moment that someone created one and hosted it somewhere, no? So it’s already been a thing for a couple years now, I believe.
rip google search results
I’ve been seeing this for about a month.
Google is a search engine, it shows stuff hosted on the Internet. If these AI generated images are hosted on the Internet, Google should show them.
Except is VERY heavily weights certain sources.
That’s a completely different topic though.
Its arguably the same topic and part of the problem. Sites that host digital copies of originals are underweighted relative to “popular” sites like Wikipedia or Pintrest or Imgur, which are more likely to host frauds or shitty duplicates.
Just wanted to point out that the Pinterest examples are conflating two distinct issues: low-quality results polluting our searches (in that they are visibly AI-generated) and images that are not “true” but very convincing,
The first one (search results quality) should theoretically be Google’s main job, except that they’ve never been great at it with images. Better quality results should get closer to the top as the algorithm and some manual editing do their job; crappy images (including bad AI ones) should move towards the bottom.
The latter issue (“reality” of the result) is the one I find more concerning. As AI-generated results get better and harder to tell from reality, how would we know that the search results for anything isn’t a convincing spoof just coughed up by an AI? But I’m not sure this is a search-engine or even an Internet-specific issue. The internet is clearly more efficient in spreading information quickly, but any video seen on TV or image quoted in a scientific article has to be viewed much more skeptically now.
Provenance. Track the origin.
Provenance. Track the origin.Easy to say, often difficult to do.
There can be 2 major difficulties with tracking to origin.
- Time. It can take a good amount of time to find the true origin of something. And you don’t have the time to trace back to the true origin of everything you see and hear. So you will tend to choose the “source” you most agree with introducing bias to your “origin”.
- And the question of “Is the ‘origin’ I found the real source?” This is sometimes referred to Facts by Common Knowledge or the Wikipedia effect. And as AI gets better and better, original source material is going to become harder to access and harder to verify unless you can lay your hands on a real piece of paper that says it’s so.
So it appears at this point in time, there is no simple solution like “provenance” and " find the origin".
And as AI gets better and better, original source material is going to become harder to access and harder to verify unless you can lay your hands on a real piece of paper that says it’s so.
One of the bright lines between Existing Art and AI Art, particularly when it comes to historical photos and other images, is that there typically isn’t a physical copy of the original. You’re not going to walk into the Louvre and have this problem.
This brings up another complication in the art world, which is ownership/right-to-reproduce said image. Blindly crawling the internet and vacuuming up whatever you find, then labeling it as you find it, has been a great way for search engines to become functional repositories of intellectual property without being exposed to the costs associated with reprinting and reproducing. But all of this is happening in a kind-of digital gray marketplace. If you want the official copy of a particular artwork to host for your audience, that’s likely going to come with financial and legal strings attached, making its inclusion in a search result more complicated.
Since Google leadership doesn’t want to petition every single original art owner and private exhibition for the rights to use their workers in its search engine, they’re going to prefer to blindly collect shitty knock-offs and let the end-users figure this shit out (after all, you’re not paying them for these results and they’re not going to fork out money to someone else, so fuck you both). Then, maybe if the outcry is great enough, they can charge you as a premium service to get more authentic results. Or they can charge some third party to promote their print-copies and drive traffic.
But there’s no profit motive for artistic historical accuracy. So this work isn’t going to get done.
I noticed this with Bing as well.
Why wouldn’t they?
Not as bad as the AI-generated articles showing up in search results. Some websites I get driven to make absolutely no sense, despite a lot of words being written about all kinds of topics.
I’m looking forward to the day when “certified human content” is a thing, and that’s all search engines allow you to see.
The winning search engine will link to useful and relevant content, whether they are ai generated or not.
It’s more likely that the winning search engine will be the one that generates the most ad revenue via clicks.
Eventually all content will just be AI generated on the fly. No need to keep dumb content on precious storage that could be used to increase model size.
Eventually all comments will be AI-generated too, carefully crafted to ensure humans follow a paid narrative.
It’s still pretty easy to tell the difference. You have to have a pretty low level of media literacy to not be able to easily spot it. Unfortunately we already know that most people don’t have a clue when it comes to mass media, and even if they did, we also know that people tend to believe whatever reinforces their priors.
They’ll just make certification so expensive only the wealthy will qualify.
You’ll never hear another perspective again.
Or, you know, we go back to the time when the news media had real gatekeepers and not just any random jackass could churn out some bullshit copy and broadcast it to the world, let alone have it get published by their local paper.
It’s nice that the Internet has democratized access to a national or even global audience, but let’s not pretend for a moment that it hasn’t caused a ton of problems in the process such that now many people have no idea of what to believe while others believe whatever they want.
if you look up anything rooting or custom related, those sites seem to be half of what comes up
Yeah, a lot of repair sites come up with pages that have just hundreds of Q&A’s, but often times they don’t make sense or aren’t even related to the topic! Once you realize how much time was wasted on these garbage sites, you don’t even feel motivated to keep looking for answers.
Well, of course. The search algorithm has no way to know the difference.
AI generated images often contain model and prompt metadata so in fact it could potentially tell the difference. Not that that should necessarily mean the image should be excluded.
Why would they not? There’s no way for such a system to know it’s AI generated unless there’s some metadata that makes it obvious. And even if it was, who’s to say the user wouldn’t want to see them in the results?
This is a nothing issue. It’s not like this is being generated in response to a search, it’s something that already existed being returned as a result because there is assembly something that links it to the search.
There’s no way for such a system to know it’s AI generated unless there’s some metadata that makes it obvious.
I agree with your comment but just want to point out that AI-generated images actually often do contain metadata, usually describing the model and prompt used.
By the time a user has shared them, 99% of the time all superfluous metadata has been stripped, for better or worse.
To put it bluntly: this is kind of like complaining a pencil drawing on a napkin showed up in the results.
AI generation sites about to become Pinterest 2.0 for clogging up search results.
Have been for a while. Pretty annoying and I wish you could filter them out.
The Google AI that pre-loads the results query isn’t able to distinguish real photos from fake AI generated photos. So there’s no way to filter out all the trash, because we’ve made generative AI just good enough to snooker search AI.
A lot of them mention they’re using an AI art generator in the description. Even only filtering out self-reported ones would be useful.
That still requires a uniform method of tagging art as such. Which is absolutely a thing that could be done, but there’s no upside to the effort. If your images all get tagged “AI” and another generator’s doesn’t, what benefit is that to you? That’s before we even get into what digital standard gets used in the tagging. Do we assign this to the image itself (making it more reliable but also more difficult to implement)? As structured metadata (making it easier to apply, but also easier to spoof or scrape off)? Or is Google just expected to parse this information from a kaleidoscope of generating and hosting standards?
Times like this, it would be helpful for - say - the FCC or ICANN to get involved. But that would be Big Government Overreach, so it ain’t going to happen.
