Indeed, I saw the watermarks. It's clearly a testament to his skill that his consistency is so unbelievable. Maybe that's common in macro photography but I'm genuinely floored by it.

> Plenty of worries if those images are AI-generated.

What would be so worrying about someone using AI to generate images for their site?

The whole point of the site is the images and facts.

If that's all it takes then cnn.com or foxnews.com must be excruciatingly worrying. It's worse than AI imagery. There are people who are knowingly distributing misinformation, and sometimes being paid to do so.

I think something that's at play here is that the site looks like it is meant to be authoritative and genuine, and could be unexpectedly deceptive, while many other sites are expected to be deceptive and that is accepted and doesn't cause plenty of worry. Kind of strange though. A random internet site might have some fake images on it, which causes plenty of worry, but we're okay being lied to 24/7 by official channels. Or maybe we're plenty worried about that too? Doesn't seem like people are plenty worried about it.

It’s an informational and photography site. If the images were faked, it would be a lie.

AI generated images are not appropriate for source or reference material.

It's not the Encyclopædia Britannica. I could see if this site was expected to be source or reference material as you suggest. Maybe I'm missing something and it's supposed to be authoritative. But I don't see why someone would be full of worry that a random web site on the internet is posting information that may or may not be accurate. Happens all the time.

Thanks for the explanation. I honestly wasn't sure what could be causing "plenty of worries" in this context. At least now I know what the issue might be.

The encyclopedia is not the only one. Anyone who says something is a photo would be lying if it was AI-generated instead.

Knowingly posting lies is not ok.

In my own experience, whenever I detect something AI generated I lose the ability to evaluate how much I can "trust" something. Compare an article on Medium with a published book on the same topic; both are human-originated but the substance of one implies authority, quality etc. Generating a website and pictures with AI requires very little effort and care, and I have no interest in carelessness. Like most humans, I can't help but evaluate the author alongside the art.

I don't mind it at all for decorational images, but in this case I would mind. I suppose I would mind the inaccuracy, the worry that the creatures might not look exactly like the real world ones look.

Not that it actually matters but if those images were generated it would feel pointless to me, even if I can't tell the difference.

> Not that it actually matters but if those images were generated it would feel pointless to me

I also very much felt like it doesn't really matter, perhaps too much and without considering other potential points of view, that's why the "plenty of worries" seemed so strange to me. How could you experience plenty of worry over an internet site being disingenuous about facts or images? You'd be freaking out all the time. But I can see now that it could be serious for some people in this case.

It can matter to you without it being a grand philosophical, ethical or commercial concern.

That's where I'm at with this stuff, and I think I am in good company.

The image represents a facsimile of seeing the real world with my own eyes, which an AI image does not. That is important to me in this context, that of learning about the real world by literally observing it.

Such a good-faith question!! Your colleagues must love seeing your face <3