There's a second one of the same vintage which was just as obviously fake.
No, allowing some “psychic truth” isn’t a justification for permitting AI bullshit to permeate the market and completely override actual, factual truth.
This shadow banning has been happening regardless whether the comment is about A.I., politics, or anything. Google/Youtube shadow bans comments of various kinds and like the original poster, you only find out when you check from another browser (of have cookies cleared).
It's hard to find compilation videos now that don't include A.i. material.
And then there are videos with people standing and looking at you talking about something (like cleaning techniques, for example) who are not real people but A.I. generated.
Tell me about it; I've used completely innocuous words - without accompanying threats or other belligerent/contentious behavior - only to find my comment(s) hidden and/or account quietly blocked. We humans truly are insecure creatures...especially those of us unwilling or unable to openly enter into the arena of ideas.
Last edited:
Yeah. I have a pic of my Dad from his WWII pilot training. I ran it thru my AI colorizer, and the damn thing changed his helmet and goggles to the British style. WTF?? Even when you ask it to just colorize, it also editorializes!
No, you can't.
Lucy DID open the door for Star Trek…had someone drawn the tribute…
Chesterfield Kings…Lucky Strikes were for wimps
He made it to his 70’s…how, I don’t know.
The most deceptive thing I have seen (apart from a virtual Feynman saying Human Mars missions were impossible)—is this:
A person who doesn’t know better might think that was an actual practical effect…
—the SFX equivalent of that scene in INTERVIEW-where a stage play featured vampires pretending to be humans pretending to be vampires.
...And I'm betting your dad also did not smoke the filter ends of his cigarettes.
Chesterfield Kings…Lucky Strikes were for wimps
He made it to his 70’s…how, I don’t know.
The most deceptive thing I have seen (apart from a virtual Feynman saying Human Mars missions were impossible)—is this:
A person who doesn’t know better might think that was an actual practical effect…
—the SFX equivalent of that scene in INTERVIEW-where a stage play featured vampires pretending to be humans pretending to be vampires.
Last edited:
I've has good luck with ChatGPT colorizing old photos. You do have to tell it to correct colors sometimes.
Overpainting black and white photos with color isn't a new practice. I've studio pictures of my parents wedding and some childhood photos where it was done.
Human painters didn't do a more plausible job of it than generative AI does. I've seen a lot of blue-eyed babies from the 1940s who grew up to have brown eyes.
Overpainting black and white photos with color isn't a new practice. I've studio pictures of my parents wedding and some childhood photos where it was done.
Human painters didn't do a more plausible job of it than generative AI does. I've seen a lot of blue-eyed babies from the 1940s who grew up to have brown eyes.
Yup. My grandmother was good at using "photo oils" to color B&W portraits. Gave it a nice painterly look. I've tried colorizing in Photoshop, but I'm really bad at it. I'm pretty happy with the way my cheap AI program does it. Here are my great-grandparents, probably around 1920.
Attachments
Yeah it take some experimenting with commands sometimes. In this particular case, telling it the model of the goggles and helmet he is wearing should help it stay true to the original image.
the A.I. use fundamentally undermines what he is doing. it means that noone can trust what he's saying or showing onscreen.
Is this one more accurate than the one of your dad?
Yes, this time it only colorized, and didn't change anything.
Not at all, since he ONLY uses it to animate himself as the presenter. The facts are factual, and images of the subjects are unaltered. His most recent one had an incorrect fact, but that was due to his own mistake, and he made a short video apologizing.
That can be true, but no one knows that, hence the term undermining.
Erm, are you sure you have watched the linked video? He did not “only use it to animate himself as the presenter”. Basically all stills from the show he’s using and also some of the promotional toy photos are run through some AI upscaler, introducing countless AI hallucinations and mistakes. All the texts are mangled and 30 year old David McCallum gets the wrinkled skin of a 40 year old. Unless you want to tell me Del Floria’s Tailor Shop is actually offering “CLEANING & PRESSNG” and Napoleon Solo’s name is actually “MAFOLOON SOLA” working for an organization called “E.S.E.L.E.”. It’s annoying when you are meant to believe you are looking at historical photos, but when you look at how the AI for example mangled what I assume is some US Navy patch on toy manufacturer Reuben Klamer’s jacket into some random mess, it’s anything but a historical photo. Hi-res photos might look prettier in a HD YouTube video, but when you want to create something that has value as a historical medium they should be your last concern.
