this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
1062 points (99.3% liked)

Fuck AI

8202 readers
1466 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kawakeiko@sh.itjust.works 4 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Jigna Zhang has a strong stance against using AI in her works, going as far as creating Cara, an alternative platform for artists to share their work, no-AI. Cara is moderated to prevent AI portfolios from being uploaded to the site, with the goal that the community remains always human-first. I've been following Jigna's work since the 2000's when she was already a notorious photographer, with a portfolio that got her to work with big brands, being featured in editorials in relevant magazines, and having her solo expositions.

This is to say that the photo being shown in the post was a work very much finalized by 2013 and she has no business re-editing it now, much less applying AIslop on top of her work.

Also worth to point out what other commenters said, that instagram and other AI detecting tools has been giving false positives for legit human-made work. We can't take what AI says as the truth lol they're very prone to error and allucination

[–] nelly_man@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I think they were suggesting that the service she hosted the image on used some AI tool for compression which modified it in such a way to be flagged by the scanner. They were not suggesting that she used an AI tool herself.

[–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 10 hours ago

Actually I was suggesting that the service having compressed it with some AI-based tool ironically made the scanner's report correct.
The actual scanner was probably BS anyway and would have even flagged the original.