happytoexplain
4 months ago
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.
Steuard
4 months ago
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?
phyzome
4 months ago
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.
tsol
4 months ago
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