this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
279 points (87.0% liked)

Technology

59581 readers
4294 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Disney’s Loki faces backlash over reported use of generative AI / A Loki season 2 poster has been linked to a stock image on Shutterstock that seemingly breaks the platform’s licensing rules regard...::A promotional poster for the second season of Loki on Disney Plus has sparked controversy amongst professional designers following claims that it was created using generative AI.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This article is so dumb that their entire basis for the artwork to be an AI artwork rests on the fact that there are squiggly lines. Like humans have never edited any photo with squiggly lines.

According to @thepokeflutist who purchased the stock image, it was published to Shutterstock this year — ruling out the possibility of it being too old to be AI-generated — and contains no embedded metadata to confirm how the image was created.

The image uploaded to Shutterstock was 2500 x 2500. Does any AI image generator even produce those resolutions? Sure, you can use super resolution, but that seems like too much work for AI generated artwork.

Also there were Twitter users pointing out how "4" on the clock is represented as "IIII" and not "IV". Have they ever not seen clocks with Roman numerals?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

IV is the Roman numeral. IIII is like hatch marks or something, you don't usually see that on a clock.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Do an image search. IIII is often used on clock faces because visual symmetry.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wow I'd never seen that before. Also just curious on the reasoning, why would they use IIII for symmetry but not do anything about VI, VII and so on? Is it more to do with the width of the number when written down maybe?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I was taught that dividing the numbers naturally into thirds:

I  II III IIII (all I) 
V  VI VII VIII (all start with V) 
IX X  XI  XII  (all contain X) 

Visually looks more "balanced" than having an extra V

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

When Roman numerals were in use by the Roman Empire, the name of the Romans' supreme deity, Jupiter, was spelled as IVPPITER in Latin. There was a feeling that using the start of Jupiter’s name on a clock dial, and it being upside down where it fell, would be disrespectful to the deity, so IIII was introduced instead.

https://newgateworld.com/blogs/style/should-it-be-iiii-or-iv-on-a-clock-dial#:~:text=When%20Roman%20numerals%20were%20in,so%20IIII%20was%20introduced%20instead

I would have thought it had to do with aesthetics. I would have never guess it had to do with roman religion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That's really cool info

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

VI would be IIIIII which is severely over-wide. The balance is really against VIII and XII, you don't want one leg of that triangle to have a limp and IIII makes IV just a bid wider and chunkier to provide that balance. "Symmetry" was probably a poor choice of word this isn't a mathematical thing but perceptual, those three points being equal visual weight evoke an equilateral triangle standing on its side which says "yep this won't tip over, ever", because, well, things shaped such don't and the back of our head instinctively knows. Thus you get a sense of stability, and I guess this is a good example of why artists often sound like mystics or plain nuts ("this song tastes of strawberries").

The IVPPITER explanation definitely also makes sense but it doesn't explain why people continued to do it after standardisation on IV in arithmetic and the fall of Roman paganism.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

YOU don't see that on a clock. Your experience isn't universal. IIII was often used for 4. There were no reduction rules when Roman numerals were in use. The idea of IV being THE way to write 4 is a reflection of modern education.

Also, the idea the human clocks have IV whereas a computer trained on human images might write it as IIII when no training images are like that is weird.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Just ranting at the void. The fact that it hit a topic related the one I replied to is purely coincidental.

Come to think of it, it's pretty vain of you to think just because I started a post replying to your post with a big capital 'YOU' that I was talking about you. Get over yourself.

I kid, it was nothing personal.

I just wanted to point out that this is an example of anomaly hunting where one spots something is off and tries to work out how it is evidence of something. in a lot of cases, the anomaly is not in fact anomalous. In other cases, it is an anomaly, but doesn't lead to the conclusion jumped to. This was both.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

IV is used exclusively as 4 (except for clocks as someone else already commented) since the 15th century. Ancient Romans used both writing, IIII and IV.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting, are there instances of other numerals having variants or was 4 a unique situation?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

conversation about Loki

other numerals having variants

Well played.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I thought the exact thing when I typed it haha

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I have even seen, although incredibly rarely, IIV to mean 3. It's the same number of characters as III so there's no reason not really to do it.

I think it might have been done because it was more consistent with IV equalling 4.