Looks like an AI generated image to me. Lots of strange artifacts an artist wouldn’t create. And there’s something uncanny about the stippling pattern I’ve seen before in AI images.
Not the same
Submitted 3 months ago by lena@gregtech.eu to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://gregtech.eu/pictrs/image/52abc58f-e171-4040-983c-f21ff806b806.png
Comments
pennomi@lemmy.world 3 months ago
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Uli@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
Yeah, somehow it looked AI before I clicked into it for the high res version, something about the way the guy’s face was drawn. And when I saw the high res, it was really obvious, because the pupils are askew in a way a true artist would not have chosen. And as you say, the stippling pattern is typical of AI. Weird that our brains seem to be some of the best competitors in the arms race between creating and identifying AI images.
barsoap@lemm.ee 3 months ago
The top right one is definitely not drawn by a human, it’s right out hexagons. Noone cross-hatches like that because you can’t cross-hatch like that there’s no lines going straight through.
The rest could be artistic choice, compression artifacts, or other stuff though. Well, some minor stuff, the topmost book on the left pile on the desk on the right is sus, and there’s way too many sponges at the base of the chalkboard. But none of them are dead tells like the hexagons.
spookex@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Idk about that, I used to sometimes work for a group that translates manga and have seen similar patterns to that
DogWater@lemmy.world 3 months ago
How did you spot that? I’m good at spotting real life images but I didn’t even blink at this one. I saw one thing when I went back after reading your comment, but it took me a minute to find it
pennomi@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I work a lot with AI images, you just get a sense for it over time. It is getting harder over the years as things improve however.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 months ago
This looks shopped — I can tell from some of the pixels, and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.
RedSnt@feddit.dk 3 months ago
I was thinking so as well. Mostly because of the left pupil not looking like the right pupil, but also the style. The style of shadow below the chalkboard looks like a really odd choice.
lena@gregtech.eu 3 months ago
Hmm, maybe. I honestly can’t tell.
pennomi@lemmy.world 3 months ago
It’s certainly better than most! For instance the text looks excellent. Look at the scientist’s eyes for a clue - one of them has a suspicious white circle while the other doesn’t, and the asymmetry does not seem to be intentional.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 months ago
I like the meme, but I don’t think it actually works. The implication here is that there’s a correlation between confusing correlation with causation and dying. But there isn’t such a correlation. You are statistically equally likely to die either way
credo@lemmy.world 3 months ago
THATS THE JOKE
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 months ago
No, it’s not. The joke is that there is a correlation, but that actually correlation doesn’t mean causation. But here we have a situation where there is neither correlation nor causation.
The problem is that the joke suggests that correlation is when A -> B (or at least it appears as such). Implication (in formal logic) is not the same as correlation.
RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 3 months ago
This is why you never check the comments on a joke you initially thought was funny.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 months ago
You are statistically equally likely to die either way
That just adds an additional layer to the joke without undermining the intended punchline about people confusing the two.
borokov@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Leave this here: www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Wow, I nearly ignored your link - glad I didn’t!
rowanthorpe@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
I think some of the expandable GenAI “made-up explanations” and “images” on that page are the icing on the cake.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I knew a guy who did that one time. Know what happened? He’s DEAD.
ZeffSyde@lemmy.world 3 months ago
His name was Jimi Hendrix!
doingthestuff@lemy.lol 3 months ago
[deleted]MutilationWave@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Dihydrogen monoxide?
TheBrideWoreCrimson@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
admin@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 3 months ago
That’s the joke…
Mad_Punda@feddit.org 3 months ago
I absolutely got whooshed there.
admin@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Yeah is like they confused that
Worx@lemmynsfw.com 3 months ago
I’ve never confused correlation with causation and I’m not dead. I think I know why
Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Brilliant!
BevelGear@beehaw.org 3 months ago
Here’s a website dedicated to spurious correlations
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Me: 'It sure looks like rising CO2 levels are bringing climate change."
Them: “coRreLaTIOn dOes Not MEan cAusaTIon!”
umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
water cures covid
stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
you almost had me dying for this one
yesman@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Image
mister_flibble@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Alternatively:
Image
Nelots@lemm.ee 3 months ago
The way he holds that laptop in the second panel horrifies me.
lugal@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
Maybe the causation is the other way around. People are only willing to attend a statistics class once they are on the way (but not fully aware yet) to understand that correlation doesn’t imply causation.