>French fusion reactor sets record>Holds plasma for 1337 secondsKEK
>>16788506Why does modern science look exactly like stable diffusion image slop?
>>16788509That's a very good question, anon!
Well here's another picture...now does that look like, um, ai?
>>16788535>it's not X, it's YCommon LLM pattern. French government doing damage control?
>>16788509I think OP's image, from the article below, actually is AI, because I'm not finding any pics that look like they could be the same reactor. It's like the AI generator tried to apply a fisheye lens distortion effect and it made the yellow walkway part look all bent out of shape and violating all of the safety codeshttps://www.earth.com/news/france-breaks-record-by-keeping-a-fusion-plasma-reactor-running-for-22-minutes/
>>16788509It's a fake image, the actual reactor looks nothing like that. It's not modern science, it's shit-tier news sites.>>16788536The actual press release doesn't have that image.
>>16788540>www.earth.comWhat the fuck is this? An alien phishing site?
>>16788513Composition is weak and lacks coherence, with the arrangement of stars failing to establish a natural visual flow of gesture that complements the figure’s structure.The drapery is placed inconsistently, and the positioning of the legs appears misaligned.Irises are depicted at noticeably different sizes, and the left ear shows signs of deformation, as does the right-hand pinky.Furthermore, the color palette contrasts harshly with the background, would benefit from warmer tones. The collar is also deformed, contributing to the overall lack of refinement.These shortcomings collectively justify the dismissive characterization of the work as "ai slop."
>>16788544It appears to just be a content farm that's trying to recapture the magic of "I Fucking Love Science" from the early social media days, and is doing a poor job of it so far
>>16788574It's an AI-Slop website retard.
>>16788854Not really worth arguing over, but no it's not. They used an AI image in that article about the fusion reactor, perhaps mistakenly, but their articles are pretty clearly written by humans with significant online footprints who can be tracked to other places, and the site has been around since before 2022 when ChatGPT came out and the current AI boom started
>>16788857I'm not going to read the article or visit your website but neither of your arguments actually mean that the article has to be human made. Sites that previously employed humans switched over to AI spam just as readily as entirely new spam sites so age has nothing to do with it and authors that write for such sites can be tracked and and be "definitely real" journalists or what ever but still use AI to write their articles or at least the least important articles these days
>>16788509Never seen what a zero point reactor does to its immediate surroundings?!
