One GenAI image; Ten Errors
We recorded 3 claims from this post. 1 was checked against evidence. 2 can’t be checked. 1 more is held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (3)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“These physical (and in one case conceptual) errors are of a piece with hallucinations and near-plagiarism, too.”
Our reading: The physical errors (and one conceptual error) in the Midjourney image discussed in the post are of a piece with hallucinations and near-plagiarism.
No horizon
Scope: the errors in the Midjourney image discussed in the post
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“What unifies all of the above is that current systems are good at local coherence, between words, and between pixels, but not at lining up their outputs with a global comprehension of the world.”
Our reading: Current systems are good at local coherence, both between words and between pixels, but are not good at lining up their outputs with a global comprehension of the world.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Support is qualitative and depends on the stated behavioral interpretation.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“I’ve been worrying about that emphasis on the local at the expense of the global for close to 40 years, and still don’t see a great solution to it.”
Our reading: Marcus says he has been worrying about AI's emphasis on the local at the expense of the global for close to 40 years and still does not see a great solution to it.
No horizon
Qualifier: in his own assessment
Held from this post (1)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.