[dennis_moore]

This made me think that we, as a society, ought to have some sort of convention to mark AI-generated images as such, like a small watermarked symbol in a corner.

[keiferski]

Doesn't really seem necessary unless one is claiming that the image is real. For the image in this post, it seemed obviously fake to me, so I didn't feel the need to label it as AI-generated.

[tlb]

In a factual article, the default assumption is that the pictures are real. You should tag generated images.

[ofrzeta]

Whether it's obvious or not seems to depend on a lot of factors. For instance I've seen a lot of Wittgenstein so that made me think it's made up. Someone else might think it's real.

Anyway I think you did a great job with Midjourney. Even the coarse clothes correspond to clothes Wittgenstein wore. Would you like to share your prompt?

[dokem]

This will solve literally nothing.

[rantallion]

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask to know the difference between fact and fiction. Articles on astronomy are clear when they share an artist's depiction of some distant phenomenon so readers don't mistakenly believe that our telescopes picked up that impressive image.

With AI tools getting better and better, it's already getting to the point where viewers will struggle to differentiate. Where's the harm in labelling the images?