File:Cybersaprobiont (Müllberg).jpg

Original file(928 × 1,513 pixels, file size: 1.17 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

Captions

Captions

Cybersaprobiontic humans scavenging on a heap of cyberwaste

Summary edit

Description
Deutsch: In der dystopischen Vision der Globalmaschine (Machina sapiens) von Kazem Sadegh-Zadeh wird der Mensch zu einem willfährigen Cybersaprobionten, einem Fäulnisbewohner der digitalen Welt degeniert sein.

Quellseite: https://www.rhetos.de/html/lex/cybersaprobiont.htm

Zur Lizenz: das Bild wurde mit Hilfe der KI-Software WOMBO hergestellt. Auf der Webseite von WOMBO heißt es zu den Lizenzrechten: Users own all artworks created by users with assistance of the Service, including all related copyrights and other intellectual property rights (if applicable). Users must, as individuals or in a group, contribute creative expression in conjunction with use of the Service, such as in creating or selecting prompts or user inputs to use with the tools offered by the Service. Users acknowledge that artworks generated without creative expression from the user may not be eligible for copyright protection. Link zur Lizenz: https://www.w.ai/terms-of-service-wombo-dream


English: A specimen of badly created computer art. Mark the wrongly shaped bodies and the distorted bodies.

Do you consider suggesting this image for deletion? If so, please consider the following pros for keeping this (and many other) AI-generated images.

  1. Images created by AI in its early infancy - such as this image here - might be of educational or even scientific interest in the future.
  2. As AI progresses, typical miscreations like slanted noses or tripled limbs will probably become less numerous.
  3. Gibberish, meaning unrecognizable symbols and language, is also often used as another argument for deletion. If that argument was valid, many old science fiction films and series should not be shown on TV or elsewhere. The English series UFO or the German "Raumpatrouille" as many other, often show meaningless computer code or childish geometries to add an air of science and technology. No one cares. It is not meant for the expert but to add atmosphere. The same goes for the gibberish produced by AI. If it adds atmosphere it serves its purpose.
  4. Also, together with information on the prompts used, images in statistically significant numbers may reveal something about biases AI has unwittingly taken over from human made material it learned on.
  5. Wikimedia is an ideal place for archiving such images. It allows for specific categories lumping together, for instance, images with miscreated bodies or gibberish symbols. There is no need or risk of cluttering other categories with "out of scope" images.
  6. Wikipedia ensures that all uploaded images are properly licensed, which makes the ideal for future academic usage as sample material.
  7. Alternative places for uploading images like Tik tok, Instagram usually do not provide the means for proper documentation and long-term persistence.

I sometimes have the impression that Commons contributors who make suggestions for deletion do not take the time to read the file descriptions or they do not translate them from German to their language. Descriptions often tell you what the author of an image considers significant. I write most descriptions in German only. So please put in the effort to translate any file description you do not understand.

One more point: "out of scope" meaning not serving any educational value, is often used as an argument for deletion. In my case at least, I can say that most if not all AI generated images were prompted by me to illustrate a very specific and often abstract idea like Laplace's Demon, Manichaeism, the clockwork-universe or Philosophy for Children (P4C). It often took me up to twenty tries and up to half an hour to have a single image created to fit its purpose. I doubt anyone can recognize the purpose a particular AI-image without having asked the human co-author.

So, to sum up, if you still consider marking this image for deletion, please contact me first. I have sometimes consented and even supported to have single images deleted. Possible copyright issues are a case where I'd rather have images removed than take any risk. But in general, if an image is not blatantly racist, pornographic or otherwise inacceptable, and if it does not obviously infringe on copyright, please give it a second thought.
Date
Source Own work
Author Rhetos

Licensing edit

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:
w:en:Creative Commons
attribution
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

File history

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/TimeThumbnailDimensionsUserComment
current18:39, 19 October 2022Thumbnail for version as of 18:39, 19 October 2022928 × 1,513 (1.17 MB)Rhetos (talk | contribs)Uploaded own work with UploadWizard

There are no pages that use this file.