ekZepp@lemmy.world to DuckDuckGo@lemmy.worldEnglish · 18 days agoWho is a good Duck? You Are! 🦆 🫲 💕 (Hide AI images in search results)lemmy.worldimagemessage-square5linkfedilinkarrow-up153arrow-down10file-text
arrow-up153arrow-down1imageWho is a good Duck? You Are! 🦆 🫲 💕 (Hide AI images in search results)lemmy.worldekZepp@lemmy.world to DuckDuckGo@lemmy.worldEnglish · 18 days agomessage-square5linkfedilinkfile-text
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/i-didnt-snap-this-photo-at-a-coffee-shop-microsofts-new-ai-tool-created-it/ You can also flag the ai images in the result. Perfect solution? Not even close. Still… -
minus-squarekrypt@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up6·18 days agosince when could search engines differentiate ai content from original? Obviously they can filter out low-effort content - but llm content that has “value” can rarely be detected unless data poisoning, afaik
minus-squaregaiety@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up4·18 days agoif im not mistaken a lot of it is via manual reporting
minus-squarekrypt@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·17 days ago… That can go wrong in so many ways though
minus-squareGladaed@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up1·17 days agoThe idea that filtering any and all ai containing images is good is insane anyway. You usually mean: block the things without merit.
--
since when could search engines differentiate ai content from original?
Obviously they can filter out low-effort content - but llm content that has “value” can rarely be detected unless data poisoning, afaik
if im not mistaken a lot of it is via manual reporting
… That can go wrong in so many ways though
The idea that filtering any and all ai containing images is good is insane anyway. You usually mean: block the things without merit.