Dave Rust:
Careful, now. How do you know it’s AI?
I have a little bit of a following, so I write somewhat elaborate descriptions that (I hope) are casual and fun to write. Every paragraph is rooted in my own research of verified sites , like NASA, and scientists’ own view into new data from Hubble and Webb. I add an attribution if the info is highly specific or extremely new, but otherwise don’t if I’ve oversimplified (then just saying, “many scientists now think…”) because it’s a generalized essay, not a research paper. It’s supposed to be entertaining.
I guess now someone is going to now accuse me of using a machine’s words merely because the prose has attitude and is grammatically correct. Even if you used AI, you still add your own details to your descriptions and that's what matters to me. My post is directed to those descriptions that don't seem to have a single word coming from the author.
|
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.
Mods, just delete all my posts, and make a few people happy again….
|
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, don’t! You just uncorked some feelings that had probably been building up over contemporary developments. Still a worthwhile discussion. I certainly don’t hold that against you.
|
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.
TBH I have no Interest in a discussion that blasts someone for using an example to explain something.
Also re the OP,
if people really have an issue with imagers using info on a specific target that was from AI or cut and pasted from wiki, and then adding there own capture details and equipment used, then i only wish that was all I had to worry about in life, and as I said before they should get one, it’s absolutely ridiculous that this OP even got a reply, it’s a joke.
Every man and his dog would search the info off the web, and cut and paste it, or get it from AI, if they wanted to have detailed info on a target, and then add there own custom text with capture info and kit used, and anyone who says they don’t is not being truthful.
Unless they know it all off by heart and can write it all from memory..
so the OP is moot.
|
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.
Dave Rust:
No, don’t! You just uncorked some feelings that had probably been building up over contemporary developments. Still a worthwhile discussion. I certainly don’t hold that against you. Thanks, but this thread is a kindergarten playground spat, in text form.
|
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.
AstroShed:
TBH I have no Interest in a discussion that blasts someone for using an example to explain something.
Also re the OP,
if people really have an issue with imagers using info on a specific target that was from AI or cut and pasted from wiki, and then adding there own capture details and equipment used, then i only wish that was all I had to worry about in life, and as I said before they should get one, it’s absolutely ridiculous that this OP even got a reply, it’s a joke.
Every man and his dog would search the info off the web, and cut and paste it, or get it from AI, if they wanted to have detailed info on a target, and then add there own custom text with capture info and kit used, and anyone who says they don’t is not being truthful.
Unless they know it all off by heart and can write it all from memory..
so the OP is moot. Nobody forced you to read, reply or even less agree. I shared my point of view and asked for others' thoughts on the subject, I appreciate yours. CS.
|
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.
Franco Grimoldi:
I'm seeing it very often: really beautiful photos... with descriptions that seem to be a copy-paste from ChatGPT.
It's not that there's anything wrong with the shared information but I feel that they lack the factor that make those images unique: the creator's input.
Any of us can find/create such descriptions with a few clicks/prompts. I wish that all astrophotographers cared to spend a couple of minutes writing something about their image, what makes it special, how did they end up selecting the target, framing, capturing, editing... or just about anything, but something from them.
Thoughts? I have one word for all this AI generqted comments and decriptions: cringem and biring ah
|
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 no problems with people using AI to decribe a DSO. But I find DSO descriptions really boring. Much rather know how you chose the shot, executed the observations and processed the data.
For me, I can learn something. For the rest, I can google it.
This is a craft- not science. Tell me about your craft
|
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.
Well, this is a conundrum. Most of those who regularly consume my pics are family and friends on social media, like FB and instagram. A few astronomy club members say they appreciate them, too. They prefer my stories about what it is we are really looking at because most have never had Astronomy 101 and a lot of basics have never been passed along. I've developed an informal way of writing about the subjects of our photography. Friends say they find it easier, more approachable, than the explanations online written by physicists. Of course, I've looked up many of those same science articles, absorbed what I could, copy/pasted a few notes, and then rewritten everything from scratch. My friends get this informal summary. On occasion. I'll ask the head of IU's Astronomy Dept. to help me wrap my head around a concept. But, wow, her replies take some time to digest! Fortunately, AstroBin members aren't looking for attitude, nor funny prose (it takes a lot of time to compose stuff that is actually educational AND entertaining), so are we talking about something more like contemporaneous notes on the shoot? I don't try reproduce my all of my stories here, but there are a few, like this one (fond on that page down below, in the comments section) https://astrob.in/0ofbnr/0/ , or this one https://astrob.in/lfa43d/0/ |
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.
Dave Rust:
I don't try reproduce my all of my stories here, but there are a few, like this one (fond on that page down below, in the comments section) https://astrob.in/0ofbnr/0/ , or this one https://astrob.in/lfa43d/0/ ... and you end up mentioning a tune from one of my all-time favorite Brad Mehldau's records. It doesn't get any better than that!
|
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 Boyle:
This is a craft- not science. Tell me about your craft Quite True, at least for AB members. Probably quite a bit less so for most of the other audiences but I agree that number of people that want a large amount of science detail is probably pretty small. So maybe the best would be: 1) Basic science details on the nature of the object. 2) Quite a lot of detail on acquisition and processing but more of this where something out of the ordinary was needed or done and less for garden variety LRGB (for example). 3) Links to external sources of information on either object or acquisition and processing where available.
|
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 seems as if AI generated information about an object is replacing direct plagiarism of Wikipedia pages, which used to be (and maybe still is) very common. I don't approve of either approach. After doing some research, sometimes involving reading some papers, I write my own entries for each image that I post. Then I write my own story about how l gathered the data and processed my image. I write that stuff mostly for myself but I'm encouraged by feedback from readers to try to make it useful and/or interesting to read. I personally have to have some way to remember what I did for each image because as the years roll by, I'll never remember it all!
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.
John Hayes:
... After doing some research, sometimes involving reading some papers, I write my own entries for each image that I post. Then I write my own story about how l gathered the data and processed my image. I write that stuff mostly for myself but I'm encouraged by feedback from readers to try to make it useful and/or interesting to read. I personally have to have some way to remember what I did for each image because as the years roll by, I'll never remember it all! It doesn't get any better than this!
|
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.
Dave Rust:
Well, this is a conundrum. Most of those who regularly consume my pics are family and friends on social media, like FB and instagram. A few astronomy club members say they appreciate them, too.
They prefer my stories about what it is we are really looking at because most have never had Astronomy 101 and a lot of basics have never been passed along.
I've developed an informal way of writing about the subjects of our photography. Friends say they find it easier, more approachable, than the explanations online written by physicists. Of course, I've looked up many of those same science articles, absorbed what I could, copy/pasted a few notes, and then rewritten everything from scratch. My friends get this informal summary.
On occasion. I'll ask the head of IU's Astronomy Dept. to help me wrap my head around a concept. But, wow, her replies take some time to digest!
Fortunately, AstroBin members aren't looking for attitude, nor funny prose (it takes a lot of time to compose stuff that is actually educational AND entertaining), so are we talking about something more like contemporaneous notes on the shoot?
I don't try reproduce my all of my stories here, but there are a few, like this one (fond on that page down below, in the comments section) https://astrob.in/0ofbnr/0/ , or this one https://astrob.in/lfa43d/0/ I very much enjoy your writeups Dave. As @John Hayes states in his comments, I also write mine mostly for me. For a failing, or future failing memory, for the process of researching the work and the object (which I enjoy as much as the imaging). Because it is not my desire to image very many objects as a personal goal, I like spending the time digging deep within the literature on most of the images I do. I also get supporting commentary from a few followers on what I write. If I take that as a signal that those responders represent some fraction of those who do not comment but still read, all the better! As an example I'll offer up my most recent image: 
An ExtraGalactic Traveler's™ View of M31 - The Andromeda Galaxy - Including a View From Earth This being an example of my typical, much too long Description. And also an example of one that gets into more scientific detail: 
SNR G111.7-02.1 in OSC and NIR >950 nm - And More on Dust! |
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,
I usually try to write my own description. Sometimes I use wikipédia for the object distance and nature…
But another point : please think about those who are making some efforts to write in english when it is not their language. I use translators and now some AI tools to help correcting my mistakes.
These tools sometimes might produce incorrect sens.
My 2 cts
JF
|
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.
AstroShed:
I don’t really think using AI is an issue for writing the image description, I am more concerned about the fast pace of AI processing tools, that will make any cheap telescope with not so great optics, produce “image of the day” quality images, is this not a worry to you guys..?
more than just using to write the scientific details of an object..
Lol, maybe it’s just me 😂 No...
|
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 Boyle:
I have no problems with people using AI to decribe a DSO. But I find DSO descriptions really boring. Much rather know how you chose the shot, executed the observations and processed the data.
For me, I can learn something. For the rest, I can google it.
This is a craft- not science. Tell me about your craft The new default viewer for images, especially if you go to IOTD archive doesn't show the descriptions and is biased towards hardware. 1) Some people share on astrobin to share with an audience beyond astrophotographers. 2) Some people share on astrobin to share with astrophotographers 3) Some people share on astrobin to compete with astrophotographers. I'm in the sharing side of #1 and #2  Providing details that can reach any audience.
|
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.
Byron Miller:
Brian Boyle:
I have no problems with people using AI to decribe a DSO. But I find DSO descriptions really boring. Much rather know how you chose the shot, executed the observations and processed the data.
For me, I can learn something. For the rest, I can google it.
This is a craft- not science. Tell me about your craft
The new default viewer for images, especially if you go to IOTD archive doesn't show the descriptions and is biased towards hardware.
1) Some people share on astrobin to share with an audience beyond astrophotographers.
2) Some people share on astrobin to share with astrophotographers
3) Some people share on astrobin to compete with astrophotographers.
I'm in the sharing side of #1 and #2 Providing details that can reach any audience. OH MY GOD, you mentioned IOTD, I was totally lambasted for that and, people wanted me hung drawn and quartered….how dare you…😂😂😂
|
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.
The new default viewer for images, especially if you go to IOTD archive doesn't show the descriptions and is biased towards hardware. @Byron Miller , Of course it shows descriptions, did you try scrolling down? And it shows the list of hardware involved as AstroBin has always done. Am I missing something? Thanks!
|
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.
Salvatore Iovene:
The new default viewer for images, especially if you go to IOTD archive doesn't show the descriptions and is biased towards hardware.
@Byron Miller , Of course it shows descriptions, did you try scrolling down?
And it shows the list of hardware involved as AstroBin has always done.
Am I missing something?
Thanks! Yea you are missing something, you are not allowed at all to mention IOTD, so be very careful indeed, as I found out, it’s a very sore subject apparently…😂😂
|
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.
Salvatore Iovene:
The new default viewer for images, especially if you go to IOTD archive doesn't show the descriptions and is biased towards hardware.
@Byron Miller , Of course it shows descriptions, did you try scrolling down?
And it shows the list of hardware involved as AstroBin has always done.
Am I missing something?
Thanks! It's de-prioritized big time. It's hidden in a side bar to scroll down which is an anti-pattern for anyone who has ever built a website. It's essentially "way below the fold". Filling in hardware isn't the secret sauce... It used to be when the default viewer had it centralized, it at least showed up as part of the initial page, but now with the image front and center and description it on side bar, you have to know to scroll the side bar. which may be great for the image focus, but it definitely minimizes the descriptions and if the only folks who will read descriptions are other astrophotographers i guess it doesn't really matter as they will bend around the design but its worth sharing feedback.
|
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 Byron, thanks for the feedback! I just checked a few random images and I always have to scroll more in the classic view to find the the description. Here's a few screenshots where I zoomed the pages way down to 50% so you can see how deep the description area is. Every time, the image is bigger and the description is higher up, requiring less scrolling than before.     |
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.
Byron Miller:
you have to know to scroll the side bar It's possible that, randomly, depending on information and the screen size, there's a situation in which nothing is cut off so it's not evident that you need to scroll. I'll add a gradient at the bottom so it suggests that there's scrolling to be had! |
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.
Salvatore Iovene, I think it works either way, just something to get used to. One thing that could make it easier for someone that wants to view the Classic view is maybe instead of these three dots,  have it say, "click here for Classic view".
|
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.
Salvatore Iovene:
Hi Byron,
thanks for the feedback! I just checked a few random images and I always have to scroll more in the classic view to find the the description.
Here's a few screenshots where I zoomed the pages way down to 50% so you can see how deep the description area is.
Every time, the image is bigger and the description is higher up, requiring less scrolling than before. I find myself always going back to the "Classic view", I find it easier to view/read/navigate... but I'm old, grumpy and have severe difficulties with change/progress 😅.
|
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.
