this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2026
875 points (98.9% liked)
Fuck Cars
16877 readers
624 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Afaik this actually isn't necessarily true, but yeah AI detectors aren't reliable and it's concerning that people are trusting the programs known for hallucinating to detect themselves.
Who said I was trusting the result?
There's a difference between being skeptical, and just being a contrarian. Saying you can't trust a tool because it isn't perfect, just shows you don't understand that no tool is ever perfect. It doesn't need to be perfect, it 's providing an additional data point for you to make a determination. That's why the tool gives a confidence score.
We know the sign exists in that location, it's on Google Maps. And I've personally seen similar phrasing on these types of signs in real life before. Given those two facts, there's little reason to assume the AI detector is wrong here, even if it's not 100% accurate. It's just one additional data point, and probably more trustworthy than a random online comment saying "it's fake, trust me bro".
People are stupid, especially random online commenters. How many times have you seen a comment that would look like it could be accurate to most people, but you have actual knowledge in the field and know that it is 100% wrong? It happens to you all the time, you just don't actively notice it because you don't have the personal experience in every topic to see when it happens.
You're correct, and I apologize for the misinterpretation, but the phrasing of your initial comment ("This particular image is real" while citing only the AI detector tool as a seemingly authoritative source) definitely reads as if you are trusting it.