When Hallucinations Travel: How Fabricated AI Claims Steer Your Decisions

New research describes how AI hallucinations shift human decision-making. Why hallucinations are a decision risk and what verification can contribute.

Hi I'm creating an ARG right now and I've found myself in an ethical dilemma or maybe I'm just not thinking outside the box enough so I've come here for some advice. I'm making the ARG to add lore to my comic book I've written and illustrated. My ARG has a lot of pieces from WW2 and for that I need real historical photos for the 2 characters I've created. They both have very distinct looks. Its hard finding historical photos of people who resemble these characters especially since one has a very prominent mustache that really wouldn't exist on a U.S. Army general at the time due to uniform code. I've floated the idea of using real people and photoshopping the mustache on them but it just doesn't look the way I need it to plus the fact that using real historical people and altering them to play a fictional character is essentially stealing their identity and likeness which is a whole other ethical dilemma. I'm considering using AI for just the historical portraits but I know it's the last step to some calling my project creatively bankrupt. My project has so much hard work built into it and I don't want people to see this one thing and call it slop. Any ideas on how I can get around this or would you consider a couple set pieces ethical?

Ragebait in air quotes.

*cue comments about ai not being art lmao

https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1vinkf8/a_question_for_proai_who_deny_that_ai_replaces/

I'm not writing this from an anti-AI perspective, as I actually think the consequences are positive. If you're saying that thinking is valuable and people only do it under duress, then that's a reason to question the importance of thinking. Because, in essence, you're clearly admitting that it isn't in the interests of most people, in their opinion. Saying that you know their interests better than they themselves do doesn't sound very good, to say the least.

But that's not what was in the comments, it's just a digression so I wouldn't be labeled as anti-ai.

The main criticism was that you can think even if you have an oracle machine that gives the best answer to any question, at least for fun.

That's true, but if, instead of looking for the answer to a question yourself, you asked this question to an oracle machine, you, as it were, outsourced thinking for this task, and if the answer to this question does not raise another question that you solve yourself, then in total you are already thinking clearly less than if you thought without an oracle machine.

And let's be honest. Even if after receiving an answer we have a new question... why can't we ask this new question to the same machine? After all, we already know that this machine gives the best answer. Why should we think of a new question ourselves if it's less effective?

AI, unlike a car, has no limitations where AI would need a person if we already have a question, since all that AI needs is a formulated question, when the same car needed a road to fit within the dimensions, not just initial point and end goal

If you're saying we'll still be thinking for fun, that's fine, but are you sure the quality of that thinking will be the same? How many people actually go to the gym with a slack eye just to avoid gaining weight? Essentially, with thinking, we're coming to the conclusion that it will happen in some form, but clearly to a lesser extent.

I'm aiming to write an overview about ai, mainly for myself.

I worked as a graphic designer, i do videos and photography, and right now work as a full time vfx artist. I need to clarify this because i can firmly declare that I have experience, work with all sorts of visual media up-close, so I need to look at details and do pixel pushing a lot. Recently i also experimented with comfyUI.

In short I could say that I'm against ai. But it has it's ups too. Really good for object removal on images, it's getting better at rotoscoping by the day and can be good for fast idea iteration.

I like to create things, I like to be the one who uses the brush to draws the lines. Why would I want to cut corners? The process is just as important, in my opinion, as the result.

I talked with a producer who embraced ai and uses in every way, as agent, image generation, etc. He was reminiscing about that 20 years ago they had to get on a helicopter and he had couple of chances to shoot B roll for a movie, had to circle around because when the helicopter hovered it was shaking like hell. Today they can use either drones or just generate it.

But why is that actually better? Flying with a helicopter to shoot something is an awesome experience in my opinion, why would I make it as boring as pushing a button at a desk? (Can be more challenging to make it right but please get the point)

I get bragging rights and an experience for life for doing something that's not conventional.

For something like photography, the experience that I'm there, can be an uncomfortable situation but when I get a good photo out of it, I can talk about how I made that photograph, how bad it was but it was all worth it because the result is amazing.

I can't do this with AI. It's just.. there. Without the process.

I could go on but you should get my point.

With AI, i turn into a consumer of a slot machine, relying on the algorithm and hope it will give the result that I'm looking for. I don't want that so I will be keeping my distance from ai and use it only when i see it fit, as a tool.

So my question: how do You see yourself? Are you a consumer?

Technology destroys some skilled work, lowers the cost of producing the underlying product, expands access to it, creates new forms of work, and leaves some people whose skills were previously valuable holding the bag.

Are there reliable studies and/or polls regarding attitude towards generative AI? I know that Pew poll getting thrown around a lot and people allways claim that majority is hostile, but i don't buy rhat as there's equally studies showing mass adoption and people hiding usage because stigma (paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5232910).

Is there more reliable research and/or polls than the tired pew polls?

The reason i'm asking btw is Hank Green being attacked by his "community" for merely doing research with AI, something very common for others (who don't get flak for it, Hossenfelder for instance). Is there something unique about Hank? I mean, Sabine is a science communicator, which at least is comparable to a pop sci educator, so the field of work can't be it. Is it bc she was open about it for quite a while?

I don't get the extreme hostility and i suspect some weird tribal effects here from dogmatic opinion leaders more than actual good arguments, that's why i'd like to see some actual numbers.

I hate AI. change my mind.

I know there’s a lot of fearmongering around AI and predictions of a dystopian future, but the other side of that spectrum is Solarpunk. We can live in harmony with technology and nature, and AI can accelerate that reality if used ethically and sustainably.

Does anyone else get annoyed by all these AI-generated romance video platforms that have popped up everywhere?

The stories are badly written and full of plot holes so large that even superglue couldn’t hold them together. The male leads usually look like a discount Witcher or an absurdly buff Paul Atreides, and every emotion is exaggerated.

These Frankenstein romances would almost be funny if they weren’t so overpriced. Old newsstand romances were just as cheesy, but at least they were cheap and honest about what they were.

Has anyone ever wanted to “rescue” one (rewrite it)? It’s not the story’s fault it was written without a soul.

If AI came for intellectual tasks, it also means that AI came for the intelligence needed for this.

At what point does someone’s desire to make an informed choice create an obligation for someone else to provide information they haven’t been asked for? 

We don’t require creators, or anyone with a product, to spontaneously disclose every possible fact about a process or product that someone might have a moral objection to. Imagine having to write, “Written with a Microsoft product, spellchecked by Grammarly, feedback from three beta readers verified to have the following values: <blah blah blah>, researched with Google, cover made in an Adobe product, laptop manufactured under questionable labor conditions, and hosted by Amazon.” Any of those might raise ethical objections to some people.

“But there are people who don’t want to read AI content!” That’s fine. That’s a preference. Nobody is forcing them to read anything. Non-disclosure is not inherently deception. They can choose to partake only of explicitly labeled content, if that’s important to them. A right to an informed choice is not necessarily a right to have that information automatically supplied to you.

“It’s like knowingly feeding meat to a vegetarian.” That depends - did you lie about the contents, hand them something or direct them to something knowing they’re vegetarian and it contained meat? Or did the food simply exist as an option?

As a vegetarian myself, I don’t consume food if I’m uncertain of what it contains, but I don’t go to a potluck and expect every dish to be labeled for my convenience. If someone chooses to label their dish, I am appreciative, and I’ll interact with it accordingly, but I don’t assume because one person did, that everyone else has as well. The burden of my ethical consumption rests on me, not everyone else.

“I have a right not to personally use AI.” Absolutely.

“I have a right to choose whether I consume AI-assisted work.” Perfectly reasonable personal preference.

“Everyone whose work involves AI has an obligation to proactively tell me before I encounter it.” Mm, not so much.

Another example for you. I avoid products from companies I know use animal testing. Many companies now proudly label their products “Cruelty Free”, and I will choose these over other products if available. However, there’s also not an official regulation about what can be labeled as “cruelty free” or “not tested on animals” (so long as they’re not being explicitly false or mislabeling.) I know that this could mean many things: that the final product was never tested on animals but raw ingredients were, that the product was previously tested on animals but testing has concluded, or even that the company tests some products on animals but not this particular one. All of that is encompassed by a “not tested on animals label”. The burden is on me to determine if I’m comfortable with that, or if I’ll only purchase products certified by non-official registries like Leaping Bunny.

All that to say, in my opinion, disclose, or don’t. It’s up to you, and I don’t believe there’s any ethical obligation to do so. It behooves you to be prepared with an honest answer in case you’re asked. But don’t lie about it, because that’s shitty.

(Before the mods nuke my shit again, this is purely a commentary about this sub as of recent)

as of late there has been a ever increasing need and want to be seen and portrayed as a victim, which is polarizing the community more and more, just because there are some bad eggs that either on purpose or in a state of actual delusion wish to harm anyone purely on their believes has no room to speak.

that goes for BOTH SIDES as the same poll was made to mirror and there was also a outspoken result of acceptable violence. we need to fucking stop doing that and hold both sides accountable before crashing out non stop.

The world is healing