496
Fascists really getting sloppy (discuss.online)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
94 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

That's pretty easily explained by the photo being taken from several stories up.

*As a rule I usually don't comment about downvotes, but for those blindly dismissing counterarguments without a thought, consider that the full danger of generated content isn't only in making up things that didn't happen, but also in providing an excuse to dismiss and delegitimize things that did happen. If we as a society are to have any hope of handling this growing era of disinformation, we need to remain vigilant against both sides of this. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's ok to claim "ai did it" and move on. You might as well stick your head in the sand if that's your approach.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    The fact about your downvotes is that your assessment is wrong. Whatever elevation this would have been taken from has no bearing on the disproportionality between the height of the person and the height of the door as depicted. (FWIW I didn't downvote you, though.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It does, but there's also her stance and distance from the wall. People are commenting like she's depicted as miniature when she's maybe 1 ft shorter than the door, so probably around 5 ft all herself.

    As another example, there's the viral photo of Noem's "stare down" targets from the other day (https://files.catbox.moe/f1e52i.png). Would you argue the woman behind the chicken man is twice his height? Or that the sign on the right is towering over the group? No, because we know that a change in vantage distorts the perception of size. Why this is just ignored here is either willful ignorance or a brash lack of knowledge.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Huh?

    There's barely any difference in proportion between those people and certainly none due to height of the vantage point, only a couple of feet worth of distance from the camera.

    I can't believe we have to have this argument. People have functioning eyeballs, right? You've been looking at objects at various distances your entire life? That's not how perspective works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    So when you eliminate the distance exacerbated by the height, the difference is negligible. Interesting. Wonder what that looks like in the OP photo: https://files.catbox.moe/g9vyzb.png

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You aren't wrong that a high altitude could cause an effect like that, but if that were the case, then neither of them should appear that large in the photo (and especially not that wide). And if it was taken from close enough that they should look that big, then the shape of the door should be warped more or the distance between the person and the door should look smaller. Basically, all of the proportions can't exist together in the photo as they are; something would have to change, whether the distance from the person to the door, the shape/angle of the door, the height/angle of the person, etc.. You can't just compare the raw heights and say they're the same without factoring in anything else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You're throwing out a lot of unconfirmable factors as if that "proves" it's generated when they could equally prove it's real. You say it "can't exist" as is without providing any actual evidence supporting that claim. All your comment does is demonstrate that we don't know enough from one photo alone.

    You can’t just compare the raw heights and say they’re the same without factoring in anything else.

    That is literally what the user I responded to did.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    You can’t just compare the raw heights and say they’re the same without factoring in anything else.

    That is literally what the user I responded to did.

    No, no, wait, you see - YOU can't, because you're going against the hive mind, and that's not cool, man!

    >:(

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    You can’t just compare the raw heights and say they’re the same without factoring in anything else.

    That is literally what the user I responded to did.

    And your original response said that it was "pretty easily explained by the photo being taken from several stories up". But now we don't know enough from one photo alone?

    And did I say a single time that it was generated? Or did I just say a lot of general things that I noticed didn't align with the argument taking place? I was just trying to get relevant info into the discussion that wasn't being included.

    All your comment does is demonstrate that we don’t know enough from one photo alone.

    Yes. That was the point.

    (Edit: separated the quotes)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent