Commons:Deletion requests/File:Faszination Wissenschaft.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope: Nonsense AI illustration - the background math is gibberish The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete Low quality, not useful, misgeneration, and gibberish text. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- To address points below, it's not a good illustration of shortcomings of AI tools since there are better images that do so and Wombo AI is relatively low-quality with this image not being a good representation of AI art at the time but would misrepresent just how good AI tools were at the time. The abstract concepts aimed communicated in the image can be better illustrated with higher-quality images so I'd encourage the user to maybe also try other AI tools and regardless of which tool is used maybe try another time. The pencil is held wrong and mathematics does not equal science like the non-English file-title suggests. Lots of illustrations that were first in their category / the only of their type have been deleted without any or much opposition and this image honestly is just much less illustrative than these. It's not a telling example of fundamental shortcomings, since these are not fundamental shortcomings and the image was below common quality even at time of creation. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- The image serves to illustrate people being fascinated by abstract theories. The symbols being unintelligible is quite adequate, as it underlines the abstractness. People are often fascinated by symbols they do not know.
The image should also be kept as a documentation of the state of the art of generative AI in its early years. Rhetos (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC) - A good reason for deleting the image here are the misgenerated arms. I can see that. However, as AI improves misgenerated images can give some insight into the learning processes of AI.
In an aviation museum, some dead-end developments of early flying machines might be of some particular educational value, especially to experts in the field. - Please give this thought a consideration. If such misgenerated images are kept in categories limited to "bad images" or specific AI software, they won't clutter other categories and yet be useful for future analysis.
Therefore, removing controversial images from categories might be a good alternative to deletion. Rhetos (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC) - IMO, this image might be suitable as a telling example of the fundamental shortcomings of AI-generated images (at least at this stage). --Túrelio (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
