Spider tingles are good, but you need some training.
People take the story from Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink all wrong (including Gladwell). The story is that some art forgeries passed all the objective tests of forgery but that every expert thought they were fake but couldn’t quite put their finger on what was fishy about it.
The lesson is NOT we are all amazing intuitive and we should always trust our instincts over our intellect, but that people who TRAIN their intuition with their intellect have insights they might not be able to express in words.
It would be good to keep a library of older, more obvious AI images to analyze and train people on.
Because people who pick out forgeries explain how they could tell…
And forgers paid attention to those things.
Same with AI, people going on about six fingers means we can’t just count fingers anymore.
Anything quantifiable, will be what the slop experts focus on fixing.
We’re just gonna be left with the ineffable, a collection of a whole bunch of small signs were not consciously aware of and even if we try to describe we’re just coming up with post fact rationalizations.
Like, if you showed me an AI pic right now, I’m fully confident I could tell
But if you asked me to explain how, I’d just be making shit up like an AI would. I might say real signs that I consciously noticed, but anyone walking around with a checklist will at best gain a temporary ability that the slop will out pace.
It’s gotta be “gut feeling”. But because most people don’t understand what those actually are, they refuse to trust it. But I bet they won’t ignore a reaction to duck if someone throws a wrench at their face.
It’s the same thing, your mind/body deciding something without going thru the hassle of your conscious brain. It’s a bandwidth thing, you don’t need to “see the math” because that would take too long. You just gotta trust the flashing red light that says “this isn’t real”.
Spider tingles are good, but you need some training.
People take the story from Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink all wrong (including Gladwell). The story is that some art forgeries passed all the objective tests of forgery but that every expert thought they were fake but couldn’t quite put their finger on what was fishy about it.
The lesson is NOT we are all amazing intuitive and we should always trust our instincts over our intellect, but that people who TRAIN their intuition with their intellect have insights they might not be able to express in words.
It would be good to keep a library of older, more obvious AI images to analyze and train people on.
Because people who pick out forgeries explain how they could tell…
And forgers paid attention to those things.
Same with AI, people going on about six fingers means we can’t just count fingers anymore.
Anything quantifiable, will be what the slop experts focus on fixing.
We’re just gonna be left with the ineffable, a collection of a whole bunch of small signs were not consciously aware of and even if we try to describe we’re just coming up with post fact rationalizations.
Like, if you showed me an AI pic right now, I’m fully confident I could tell
But if you asked me to explain how, I’d just be making shit up like an AI would. I might say real signs that I consciously noticed, but anyone walking around with a checklist will at best gain a temporary ability that the slop will out pace.
It’s gotta be “gut feeling”. But because most people don’t understand what those actually are, they refuse to trust it. But I bet they won’t ignore a reaction to duck if someone throws a wrench at their face.
It’s the same thing, your mind/body deciding something without going thru the hassle of your conscious brain. It’s a bandwidth thing, you don’t need to “see the math” because that would take too long. You just gotta trust the flashing red light that says “this isn’t real”.