Whelp. I could've looked at the source instead of taking apart the image. It says so, there.
I also checked the rules, and it says nothing about AI art. (Which in my opinion, it should be disallowed. Proper artists need to get that much needed recognition and support now more than ever.) Apologies for the incorrect report. I will just block the community and move on.
I happened across a podcast episode that was about AI, that I was listening to with friends. I don't know if you want to take away anything from it but I figured I'd mention it here in case anyone wants to. Look for Serious Inquiries Only episode 477, "Debunking Bad AI Research, and Bad Coverage of AI Research". For you it might not be super interesting, since it's trying to explain the matter to those who might not already know much, debunking some bad studies, but towards the end they talk about the environmental impact. And this is with two experts, I believe.
One thing that pops up there is that training a "moderately large" model requires produces twice the CO₂ output of an average American over their entire lifetime. They mention water usage is really bad, too. And "moderately large" refers to what a University research team might be cooking up. Big companies have magnitudes more environmental impact from training their huge models.
(There is also a part 2, with the followup episode.)
To be fair, that's why they said
in terms of security.
I didn't claim there wasn't a real person behind this. Did you check the profile you linked? They "wrote" an article titled "I asked ChatGPT how to overcome Imposter Syndrome". That already proves they use generative AI at least for some things. How do you explain the suspicious AI-like structure of the article?
It is my opinion that any "real" creator would not touch AI with a 10-foot pole, if just out of respect for fellow creators.
Well, they shouldn't. It makes them look less trustworthy.
The image is clearly AI generated, and the content looks incredibly suspicious as well considering the way it's structured.
I'm just going to report this.
I can also recommend the NoScript extension.
It breaks a lot of websites – which you then have to unbreak by re-allowing scripts for certain domains, temporarily if desired – but you end up getting a better feeling of how bad the web has become when you come across places that want to load scripts from dozens or more of different domains. Like, you're intending to tell how many other parties that I've visited this website?
I was editing my comment as you were responding. Check the issue on GitHub I linked in the edit, and maybe thumbs it up for visibility. One of the commenters mentions using a third-party tool but I'm not sure the one they linked to can grab posts. In theory another one might exist to dump your post data.
The real question is not what the algorithm pushes to you, but whether their moderation actually bans bigots and removes their posts. Any other instance would lose their "right" to federate with a queer-friendly instance if they didn't do that, so why would Threads get an exception?
I think you're wrong. Downvotes are literally meant to be to provide a community powered mechanism to push irrelevant content into out of view, as per the community's purpose. They are not going to be used as part of an algorithm to push more relevant content to you specifically. Of course, that's not how a lot of people end up using them, so whether it's an effective mechanism is another question.
Meanwhile, I'm on an instance that doesn't federate downvotes, so they don't affect ranking here, maybe for the better?
Harsh, to who? It only affects me. A community for sharing art (among other things) that allows AI garbage is not something I want on my feed. I want my eyes on real art that humans have put actual effort into.