Hi, I was thinking of adding AI-generated descriptions of the objects I capture, but I first wanted to determine if that's considered acceptable by the community. I feel a kind of disgust when I see AI slop images and videos getting monetized on the internet, but I don't have strong opinions when it comes to descriptions of cosmological objects. I'm not monetizing anything here. I've done so for my Eagle Nebula image. This was written by ChatGPT: The Eagle Nebula (Messier 16) is a star-forming region located about 7,000 light-years away in the constellation Serpens. It spans roughly 70 light-years and is part of a larger H II region known as IC 4703. The nebula contains dense clouds of gas and dust where new stars are forming, including the structure known as the Pillars of Creation, made famous by Hubble imagery.
This image was captured using narrowband filters in the SHO palette: sulfur-II mapped to red, hydrogen-alpha to green, and oxygen-III to blue. Stars were captured separately using LRGB filters, then color-calibrated and combined with the narrowband data. Mostly I want these descriptions so when I share my images with my friends, they have a description of what they're looking at. To be honest, I just don't want to spend the time writing that stuff by hand.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I would just add at the end which AI generated it. I don’t see a problem provided the information is actually correct. AI can hallucinate and make all kinds of stuff up, so double check the accuracy.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I think it's fine. Regardless of anyone's opinion of AI, a lot of the content we see will be at least somewhat influenced by AI. A lot of times you won't even know it.
I do think there's a right way and wrong way to use AI. The right way is by guiding AI with a detailed prompt and giving it some background/context. The wrong way is to just lazily ask it to write something for you with little to no original direction in your prompt.
As said above, always double-check it for accuracy.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
No, I would never do this in my own descriptions. But I'm not overly concerned about this in other peoples' images.
I know it's a little hard to make a enthusiastic, and interesting description, especially if you don't know astrophysics (at least, it's a bit hard for me), but I never "cheat", I deal with it and try to focus on making a good description. I have been recently trying to avoid verbosity also.
I don't agree because it just seems wrong to replace a human with AI, when a human is full capable of making a description. AI also has a detectable pattern to it; I can recognize ChatGPT in an instant.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Brian Poole:
I think it's fine. Regardless of anyone's opinion of AI, a lot of the content we see will be at least somewhat influenced by AI. A lot of times you won't even know it.
I do think there's a right way and wrong way to use AI. The right way is by guiding AI with a detailed prompt and giving it some background/context. The wrong way is to just lazily ask it to write something for you with little to no original direction in your prompt.
As said above, always double-check it for accuracy. Yeah when I generated the eagle description, that was my fourth response as I kept refining the prompt. It's responses ranged from too flowery to too clinical, until I got something I was happy with.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I've thought about it. I'm not a very creative writer at all and I figured AI could do it better. I've never actually done it yet though. I say it's fine as long as you credit it.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Oscar:
but I never "cheat" Is it "cheating" if you get the object distance from Wikipedia instead of calculating it yourself? Let’s not be elitist about it. This is a useful tool that: - Saves you the trouble of a Google search.
- Understands your questions in natural language, making it easier to find what you're looking for, unlike Google, which often throws unrelated results if you use more than six keywords.
- Helps with writing, or improves your text if English isn’t your first language.
- Can generate multiple versions of a description for different audiences. For example, a post on Astrobin can be more technical than one meant for your family on Facebook.
As always, double-check the facts. I’m not a poet either. My interests are science and data processing. And after spending eight hours processing an image, the last thing I want to do is write an essay from scratch. The poor English in this post was corrected using AI. |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
It's kind of the way I feel about Grammarly, the ability to write is becoming a lot art and a lost skill. The thing is, if you actually use a little bit of effort and creativity you can probably come up with something a little more fun and engaging than the dry facts an AI might spit out. I know this is the way things are going but I don't think we are better off for it.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi Amy,
I view AI as a tool to help those that struggle with composition to write more fluently. Just another step on the road from spell checkers and grammar checkers - albeit a larger one.
I have a very good friend who has achieved great things locally in protecting the environment but struggled to promote the outcomes because of his dyslexia. Since discovering ChatCPT he has now been able to promote his successes more widely, with much greater community take-up.
Like all tools, it absolutely depends how you use it. Careful usage to better communicate your thoughts or experiences with the image and its observation is fine in my book. Indeed I would far rather have that than someone who has simply "cut and pasted" from wikipedia.
CS Brian
PS I don't use AI tools - not because I think I can write well (I can't) - but because it is another thing to learn how to do well and I have other learning priorities at the moment.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
If I'm not tired (as I post my latest image at 3am after an 8 hour process session), I will often write a bit about the shoot or data set and then add a short AI section about the target. I always edit the AI part to be more my style of writing, but like to start with some of the info quickly versus going through various Google searches and coming to the same conclusion. I then credit the AI method.
I say it is fine if you let people know you are using it.
T.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Using AI tools to write a description is not going to show anything that anyone could not do themselves. If I use AI on a topic I'm going to get the same information as anyone else would get on the same target–unless you ask it very creative questions, so the result is totally unique to you.
This may seem harsh, but is taking an AI description of a target any different from taking say an AI generated image of the target as your own?
Photography of any kind is about putting you in the picture, both in the image and what interests you about it. AI is the whole internet talking, so your own views tend to get lost.
Using AI to enhance images on the other hand, is fine as long as you are controlling the process, if you use AI enhancement to get the image you want, and not just to accept whatever the AI gives.
If I see you in the image, I will be impressed!
CS
Rick
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Programmers: We've created a truly stupid virtual human that is wrong about everything.
Tech CEOs: Cool! Let's put it in every product!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I have mixed feelings about it. First, nothing I post has or will be written by AI. Yes, I look up facts and figures but I never plagiarize something that I find on the web and claim it as my own. The notion that looking up the distance to an object rather than measuring it yourself might be somehow "cheating" is absurd, but if you want to be super clean, you reference your sources. I think that it is intellectually lazy to simply have AI churn out a simple description, but if you must to do it, I think that it's important to reference where it came from. The term for claiming someone else's work as your own is "plagiarism" and in my view that applies whether the source is another writer or inserting something generated by ChatGPT. Pushing the button doesn't count. It's simple. If you didn't write it, don't claim it as your own.
I have to digress for a minute and provide a broader perspective about my concern about this stuff. I started out as a science geek in school who couldn't write my way out of a paper bag. I'll never forget the first problem set that I turned into my dissertation advisor, Jim Wyant when I took one of his classes. He returned it with red circles around every spelling and punctuation mistake...and this was mostly a math assignment! That's how bad I was at writing. I immediately got the message that you simply don't turn in anything in grad school with misspellings, poor grammar, or incorrect punctuation. I grew to fear any assignment that involved significant writing tasks and it came as a shock to discover that my job after grad school involved a LOT of writing. I had to write scientific papers, user manuals, white papers, emails, letters, contracts, employee reviews, articles, and a million other things. And the more I did it, the better I got at it. Then along the way, I was asked to write an article for Plane and Pilot magazine. The next thing I knew, I was being given writing assignments from the magazine and I became a contributing writer for the magazine. They were actually paying me for my writing skills (and letting fly some very cool airplanes as well)! Holly smokes...how did that happen? But the more I did it, the better I got at it, and the easier it became. Now, I don't shy away from writing at all and sometimes it's even fun--and occasionally very profitable. I'm not a great writer by any means, but now I'm totally comfortable with it.
This story illustrates what alarms me the most about using AI to write anything...including image descriptions. It takes away the opportunity to be intellectually curious, to learn to do your own research, and to become a better, more fluent writer. The only way that I got better at writing was to do it and if you don't write, you'll never get better at it.
John
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
If you don't know about it don't write about it, simple as that. Write what you know, don't write what you don't know. And never use AI. Like ever.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
This adds to the discussion i started on separating Remote Image capture where you do not maintain nor own the equipment only pay for data . others do the heavy lifting
You simply process the purchased top of the line data
At what point do you stop calling your self and astophotographer and start calling your self a DATA processor
If you start using AI to add descriptions then are you really vested in the image you capture or just pumping out pictures, and letting AI tell us and you about it.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Aaron Lisco:
This adds to the discussion i started on separating Remote Image capture where you do not maintain nor own the equipment only pay for data . others do the heavy lifting
You simply process the purchased top of the line data
At what point do you stop calling your self and astophotographer and start calling your self a DATA processor
If you start using AI to add descriptions then are you really vested in the image you capture or just pumping out pictures, and letting AI tell us and you about it. Uh, what? No I certainly did not purchase "top of the line data". I'm an astrophotographer because I take pictures of the night sky and process those pictures into something pretty. I would stop calling myself an astrophotographer when I stop doing that. If I don't write descriptions at all, I would still be an astrophotographer. What nonsense.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
AmyWarble:
Uh, what? No I certainly did not purchase "top of the line data". I don't think Aaron meant to imply that's what you do. I think he was just drawing a parallel between the practice of letting someone else capture data and letting a machine write descriptions. It's not quite the same, however. With purchased data, the original owner is fully compensated for the use of his or her work. AI composites content others have created--generally without compensation or attribution. The process is similar to what we do with our brains--reading, watching, learning. But in the latter case, we tend to compensate creators in some way by buying their books, paying a fee to see their work, or shelling out directly for instruction.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I don't see an issue with it. AI provides an efficient way of doing the research and providing the information in a coherent form. Whether you troll the internet or other sources yourself or AI does it for you, makes no material difference. In both cases care needs to be taken to ensure the infromation is accurate.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I think the question is deeper than that, have you read a good book lately?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
To clarify what was going on in my head when I wrote "I never cheat":
I meant I have never taken AI assistance at all, and if I ever want to use it, I wont use it where it's not needed, and it's probably not going to be ever needed for me.
Whenever I do know something about the DSO, I write what I know, even if it sounds unprofessional; whatever I don't know, and want to know or copy, I go to Wiki or a similar website, and I give necessary credit for it in my description; AI will likely never be used)
Where I don't need assistance is in the obvious things:
"this nebula is full of HA",
I don't want AI to turn that into something monstrously verbose and devoid of human personality, like "this magnificent tapestry of nebulous wisps, make up an amazing (blah blah blah) of beauty, and is filled with (blah blah blah) HA". No normal person talks like that irl.
And I understand AIs these days can even imitate accents and styles and limit verbosity, but I just don't see the point in needing AI to write the obvious. Call me biased against AI chatbots if you want.
This also sounding like a lazy thing to do, to me, is why I called it "cheating", but I guess I didn't word my sentence right.
I understand a person may be mentally exhausted after processing for a long time, but there are things called naps, and a certain thing that takes up a third of our lives called sleep. I don't find mental exhaustion to be an excuse to run to an AI to do the work for you.
And when I said, "I know it's a little hard to make a enthusiastic, and interesting description, especially if you don't know astrophysics", I meant people here like images that have descriptions explaining astrophysical details; would I turn to AI to explain astrophysics to me and would I copy it? no. If anything, like basic stuff (distance, etc..), I'll just go to Wiki to learn or copy. AI chatbots are unreliable, they create nonsense sometimes.
This is just my view, no one needs to blow up if they disagree.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I am flatly against the monetization of any kind of AI content (which has been termed "AI slop"), but when it isn't monetized, I feel like there's a little bit of wiggle room. Let me explain:
My Dungeons and Dragons group uses ChatGPT to quickly write Bard songs on-the-fly and we've started telling the story of our adventures using cute little AI images. I'm a fan of our bard, he's a terrible singer but it's fun to listen to him sing a quick ballad. He's not a songwriter, and I have zero talent when it comes to drawing. Songwriting and drawing are things the AI can do, and we can't, so it adds to the experience. None of that is shared outside the group, but it enriches our game play and makes it more enjoyable.
An argument could be made that us generating our character avatars using AI takes money out of the hands of real-world artists, but this is countered by the fact that none of us have ever done that despite playing D&D for a decade or longer (in my case, ~25 years). For the first time, we can have cool avatars, but the amount paid to real artists has not changed. It's still zero, the way it always has been. So we can add to our personal experience of the game without causing harm.
Besides my Eagle Nebula, none of the images I've uploaded to Astrobin have descriptions of the objects in the image; it's just not my thing. If I don't use AI, I'll simply default to not writing descriptions, something I find to be tedious. So I feel that using the AI tool to write brief, non-flowery descriptions -- which can be validated against NASA or Wikipedia for factual accuracy -- adds to the Astrobin experience somewhat by letting me do something that I otherwise would not do. It's not really about saving time or being lazy. At the end of the day, I just don't enjoy writing, but I can quite happily spend time validating its content for accuracy. AI hallucinations don't negatively impact my D&D group whatsoever, but adding bogus info to Astrobin definitely hurts the community.
I seek to find a balance between ethical responsibility and providing good value to the community. And that ethical responsibility is principally what this forum thread is all about. This AI stuff is all so new that I'm not completely clear on the ethics around it. Monetization of slop is bad, but that doesn't quite apply here, so I wanted to see what others thought as I come up with an ethical framework I can work with. The votes indicate to me that ChatGPT is a tool I can ethically make use of, I just need to make extra steps to practice good ethics.
That's kind of where I'm at. Right now I think I can do a back-and-forth with ChatGPT until I get something that reads well before verifying its accuracy and adding attribution to the tool.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Miguel T.:
Oscar:
but I never "cheat"
And after spending eight hours processing an image, the last thing I want to do is write an essay from scratch. First, I should say that what one does is a personal decision. I think for some people, it says what it is that they are getting out of astrophotography. If one is a pure photographer and really has little understanding of the subjects they photograph, it may be essential for them to find a source of information to attach to their images for the benefit of those who look at their product. Whether that is AI or wiki or whatever. To me, as was stated elsewhere, AI seems a bit of a lazy route. But I understand that it takes a bit of sophistication to understand even a wiki entry enough to be confident in using text from wiki, so... For others, such as myself, who has done amateur astonomy at the eyepiece since I was 12 (now 68) and also always wished I had studied astrophysics rather than biochemistry, I take a completely opposite view of the quote above. "after spending sometimes 3 months of processing a bone crushing project, the first thing I want to do is research the subject at hand and write an essay from scratch." In fact, during my processing, I often stop the processing and spend time reading about the subject. And often learning about the subject will color and affect the way I process the subject! Not to be critical of the quote above, but just to highlight the difference depending on what one's reason for doing this hobby. Just getting the shot is probably the last thing on my list of objectives. Discovery and gaining a lasting understanding of what I see is almost always primary.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
AmyWarble:
Right now I think I can do a back-and-forth with ChatGPT until I get something that reads well before verifying its accuracy and adding attribution to the tool. The part of this statement that speaks to verification takes the "lazy" out of the process. For people who want a caption of limited information to go with their product but who cannot write well or are uncomfortable to speak to facts they do not fully understand, this makes sense. After all, going to wiki and copying, line for line, does not take any more intellectual effort than doing AI without any verification. As I said above, to me, it seems reasonable for people to do so, since my wiki example illustrates that it has been going on for years here anyway. What is interesting to me, is what appears to be a good number of people who show only interest in getting an image. That speaks to a very tough row to hoe for someone in this hobby for solely that reason. Of all the photo-related hobbies one can choose, why would someone choose astro- as their hobby where: the subjects almost never change, are plainly limited in numbers, where most if not all major subjects have been photographed thousands of times over, where the fields shot are largely limited to a limited number of minor differences because of the limiting number of optics available, where the photographer cannot get a different perspective because they cannot walk, hike, swim, fly around the subject, where creativity largely is left to one's ability to select a color palette that is different, etc, etc, and choose to do so without having much in the way of curiousity about the subjects they are shooting? If that is true, I am going to start my own social media site, not with photos but for finger painting.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Alan Brunelle:
Miguel T.:
Oscar:
but I never "cheat"
And after spending eight hours processing an image, the last thing I want to do is write an essay from scratch.
First, I should say that what one does is a personal decision. I think for some people, it says what it is that they are getting out of astrophotography. If one is a pure photographer and really has little understanding of the subjects they photograph, it may be essential for them to find a source of information to attach to their images for the benefit of those who look at their product. Whether that is AI or wiki or whatever. To me, as was stated elsewhere, AI seems a bit of a lazy route. But I understand that it takes a bit of sophistication to understand even a wiki entry to be confident in using text from wiki, so...
For others, such as myself, who has done amateur astonomy at the eyepiece since I was 12 (now 68) and also always wished I had studied astrophysics rather than biochemistry, I take a completely opposite view of the quote above. "after spending sometimes 3 months of processing a bone crushing project, the first thing I want to do is research the subject at hand and write an essay from scratch." In fact, during my processing, I often stop the processing and spend time reading about the subject. And often learning about the subject will color and affect the way I process the subject! Not to be critical of the quote above, but just to highlight the difference depending on what one's reason for doing this hobby. Just getting the shot is probably the last thing on my list of objectives. Discovery and gaining a lasting understanding of what I see is almost always primary. I really don't understand how you can assume it has to be one or the other, or worse, that someone might be using AI because Wikipedia is too complicated for them. I’m both an astrophotographer and someone who understands the subjects I photograph. It would be a waste to spend three nights capturing SII on an object that doesn’t emit any, right? I still have no intent to share anything personal about my journey through the captures, a processing tutorial, or what I ate before taking the telescope out. A LLM is more than capable of accurately drafting basic object information in the same format I would’ve written manually. If using AI to save 15 minutes of drafting few bullet-points to attach to my facebook post relative to my average 25 hours integration time and typical 8 hours of processing is considered lazy then there's nothing that will convince you. AI is going to be the physical books vs. internet debate all over again, just 30 years later. Modern tools have always disrupted habits, and some people always had obscure principles against them.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Miguel T.:
Alan Brunelle:
Miguel T.:
Oscar:
but I never "cheat"
And after spending eight hours processing an image, the last thing I want to do is write an essay from scratch.
First, I should say that what one does is a personal decision. I think for some people, it says what it is that they are getting out of astrophotography. If one is a pure photographer and really has little understanding of the subjects they photograph, it may be essential for them to find a source of information to attach to their images for the benefit of those who look at their product. Whether that is AI or wiki or whatever. To me, as was stated elsewhere, AI seems a bit of a lazy route. But I understand that it takes a bit of sophistication to understand even a wiki entry to be confident in using text from wiki, so...
For others, such as myself, who has done amateur astonomy at the eyepiece since I was 12 (now 68) and also always wished I had studied astrophysics rather than biochemistry, I take a completely opposite view of the quote above. "after spending sometimes 3 months of processing a bone crushing project, the first thing I want to do is research the subject at hand and write an essay from scratch." In fact, during my processing, I often stop the processing and spend time reading about the subject. And often learning about the subject will color and affect the way I process the subject! Not to be critical of the quote above, but just to highlight the difference depending on what one's reason for doing this hobby. Just getting the shot is probably the last thing on my list of objectives. Discovery and gaining a lasting understanding of what I see is almost always primary.
I really don't understand how you can assume it has to be one or the other, or worse, that someone might be using AI because Wikipedia is too complicated for them. I’m both an astrophotographer and someone who understands the subjects I photograph. It would be a waste to spend three nights capturing SII on an object that doesn’t emit any, right?
I still have no intent to share anything personal about my journey through the captures, a processing tutorial, or what I ate before taking the telescope out. A LLM is more than capable of accurately drafting basic object information in the same format I would’ve written manually. If using AI to save 15 minutes of drafting few bullet-points to attach to my facebook post relative to my average 25 hours integration time and typical 8 hours of processing is considered lazy then there's nothing that will convince you.
AI is going to be the physical books vs. internet debate all over again, just 30 years later. Modern tools have always disrupted habits, and some people always had obscure principles against them. I certainly did not intend to be personally judgemental in my post. But it just so happened that it was your quote that made the point. Your response makes it clear that you have no intent of sharing much and though you have an understanding of the subjects it's just so easy to use a single click solution. And be done with it. I certainly made a number of arguments that stated that AI might be fine. And that AI might not really differ than a copy paste of wiki. Astrobin is a site for astrophotography. I follow a good number of individuals who post nothing, or only purely photography-related summaries. I value what they do. As I started off saying, what one does is a personal decision. Its their choice. If one feels guilty using AI, then maybe they don't use it. If they don't then they might.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
