[amdivia]

I'm failing to understand the criticism here

Is it about the haphazardous deployment of AI generated content without revising/proof reading the output?

Or is it about using some graphs without attributing their authors?

if it's the latter (even if partially) then I have to disagree with that angle. A very widespread model isn't owned by anyone surely, I don't have to reference newton everytime I write an article on gravity no? but maybe I'm misunderstanding the angle the author is coming from

(Sidenote: if it was meant in a lightheaded way then I can see it making sense)

[matthewmacleod]

Other than that, I find this whole thing mostly very saddening. Not because some company used my diagram. As I said, it's been everywhere for 15 years and I've always been fine with that. What's dispiriting is the (lack of) process and care: take someone's carefully crafted work, run it through a machine to wash off the fingerprints, and ship it as your own. This isn't a case of being inspired by something and building on it. It's the opposite of that. It's taking something that worked and making it worse. Is there even a goal here beyond "generating content"?

I mean come on – the point literally could not be more clearly expressed.

[amdivia]

I mean he still does say "and ship it as your own" and he mentioned plagiarism too, all of which made me perplexed initially

[sixeyes]

did you read the article? this is explicitly explained! at length!

not at all about the reuse. it's been done over and over with this diagram. it's about the careless copying that destroyed the quality. nothing was wrong with the original diagram! why run it through the AI at all?