This made me think that we, as a society, ought to have some sort of convention to mark AI-generated images as such, like a small watermarked symbol in a corner.

Doesn't really seem necessary unless one is claiming that the image is real. For the image in this post, it seemed obviously fake to me, so I didn't feel the need to label it as AI-generated.

In a factual article, the default assumption is that the pictures are real. You should tag generated images.

It's also useful to give sources for pictures you didn't generate yourself.

Either because they are from a camera or from someone else.

(Just like it's useful to give sources for almost any other piece of media or factual claim or even exercise you are using.)

Whether it's obvious or not seems to depend on a lot of factors. For instance I've seen a lot of Wittgenstein so that made me think it's made up. Someone else might think it's real.

Anyway I think you did a great job with Midjourney. Even the coarse clothes correspond to clothes Wittgenstein wore. Would you like to share your prompt?

Thanks, sure the prompt was:

*Wittgenstein in the front row of a movie theatre, 8k, hyper realistic --q 2 --v 5 --s 750*

I had to do a few re-runs as it kept putting him in a suit and tie. In reality he rarely wore one.

> we, as a society, ought to

Read: I want to force everyone else to do what I want.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask to know the difference between fact and fiction. Articles on astronomy are clear when they share an artist's depiction of some distant phenomenon so readers don't mistakenly believe that our telescopes picked up that impressive image.

With AI tools getting better and better, it's already getting to the point where viewers will struggle to differentiate. Where's the harm in labelling the images?

Reasonableness of your demands do not change the fact that you only want other people to do what you want. Wanna make world a better place, do it yourself. I personally despise online slacktivism of any form: "oh, the world would be a so much better place if everyone did this one thing I just came up with."

I was not advocating for "online slacktivism", I was merely giving my opinion of what rules or laws ought to be introduced to the effect, akin to copyright laws or open-source licenses (it is not "online activism" to give correct attribution according to the terms of a license). Shouldn't we be able to have this debate, or do you think that this decision-making should be confined to policymakers?

Whats the difference between your behavior and theirs? You're both trying to influence other people's behaviors with words. How you seek to claim the moral high ground does not seem like an important discriminator.

The difference is I'm not saying what everyone should do, but rather expressing dislike for people who like to fantasize about ordering everyone around.

This will solve literally nothing.

Done

There's some kind of parallel here to the need for including </sarcasm> in internet comments. The lack of shared context makes it harder to assume something that "obviously" everyone knows.