Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente artigo parte de uma pesquisa realizada a partir de observação online e coleta manual de comentários e imagens para analisar as dinâmicas sociais no interior de um grupo de compartilhamento de imagens criadas com inteligência artificial generativa. Debruçamo-nos principalmente sobre uma categoria de imagens designadas pelos membros do grupo como Found in the Wild: imagens geradas por IA encontradas por acaso na Internet, num contexto original de utilização em que aparentam ser imagens “reais”, não produzidas por inteligência artificial. Analisamos as imagens ali compartilhadas e seus comentários para discutir a forma como os membros do grupo decidem se uma imagem é ou não produto de IA generativa. Estas imagens, muitas vezes objeto de debate, põem em evidência a capacidade dos indivíduos de discernir a sua origem artificial, ou a falta desta, e os tipos de conhecimentos mobilizados nesse processo.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".