Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Midtown Manhattan from Weehawken September 2021 HDR.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Midtown Manhattan from Weehawken September 2021 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2023 at 01:56:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hudson Yards, Midtown Manhattan
  • OMG. Wilfredor, please stop this mixture of platitudes, half-truths, and jabber. (Who is “Kin”? The photographer is called King of Hearts. What should “combines technical precision with a perspective” mean? Yes, every photo of this kind has a perspective, that’s inevitable. And why on earth somebody needs f/8 “to let the water flow horizontally”? Water usually flows horizontally, it does not flow vertically up to the moon. Not to mention the banalities of repeating the basic camera settings and the questionable assumptions about the “minimal internal lens complexity” of a 85mm lens – there are countless 85mm lenses with very different designs, many modern 85mm lenses use not a minimal, but a high “internal lense complexity”, and some of them are very sharp not in spite of, but because of that complexity. So every item in this review is either a banality or questionable or nonsense.) At the time being, ChatGPT (or whatever has generated this text) certainly does not qualify as an artificial intelligence, only as kind of an artificial parrot. Do you want to insult us, Wilfredor, because you seem to tell us that we are so stupid that we even admire this nonsense? --Aristeas (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1, please tell us your opinion and not some computer-generated cork-sniffer imitation. El Grafo (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. --A.Savin 12:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have always been sincere, every word that is written there was me writing it myself. I think you should let me express myself how I want. When I talk about water I mean a little blurry, leave a little exposure to make it look that way. It's starting to bother me that even with my own words you can't leave me alone. I feel harassed and from this moment I refrain from participating in this section until I receive an apology. --Wilfredor (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilfredor, escrevo-te em português, pois julgo que o teu português é muito melhor que o meu espanhol (avisa-me se não for, e eu tento escrever isto em espanhol): Acho que vai ser difícil conseguires um pedido de desculpas sem primeiro seres transparente sobre como tens utilizado ferramentas de Inteligência Artificial para escreveres descrições e críticas. Se disseres qualquer coisa como "utilizei estas ferramentas no sítio A, B e C, e estas são as prompts que utilizei em cada caso" não tenho dúvidas que a comunidade te desculpará qualquer eventual abuso (eu certamente o farei). E, daqui para a frente, julgo que o melhor que tens a fazer é escreveres em espanhol sem utilizar qualquer tipo de ferramenta, como o Frank sugere aqui --Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Wilfredor, in no way I wanted to insult you, and if I did so by accident, I naturally apologize. It’s very noble-minded that you defend ChatGPT (or whatever) by taking the responsibility for the review above, but that’s not necessary. It is obvious that the review was not written by you. We all know you are far too intelligent to write such things, and the style of the review affirms the artifical authorship. So IMHO it’s obvious that my furious words, if they are an insult, insult only the so-called artificial intelligence (or maybe it’s makers) which has compiled that review … — Or was the request for apology already written by ChatGPT, too? We don’t know anymore who is speaking, Wilfredor or the AI. But that’s not our fault, it is just the consequence of you playing with us. Here you seemed to write with your own words, but right after is is claimed that this statement was authored by ChatGPT. Now you offered us a review which is obviously generated by the AI, but claim that it was written by you. Nobody knows anymore who is speaking. He who digs a pit for others falls in himself. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a personal word for you, Wilfredor, not for the AI. I appreciate you very much as a photographer, many of your photographs belong to the very best we have on Commons. I also honour your political views and social attitudes very much – many photographers are only in search for beautiful pictures, but your photos also document and accuse the inequality and injustice in our world, so your pictures even have an important mission. I am also sure, even without ever meeting you in person, that you are a honest and well-meaning person who is striving for the best ideals. So I feel really sorry if I have hurt your feelings. You just seem not to see that your passion for the use of AI has unwanted effects, effects you should want to avoid yourself, because now we really do not know anymore who is speaking, you or the AI. Being a good-natured and well-meaning person, you may sometimes not fully realize the meaning of the texts you are posting here and which were written by the AI. But that can have fatal consequences. Do you want to make yourself a mouthpiece of ChatGPT or its makers? This does not fit well into your political and ethical convictions. If you fight for freedom and justice for all people, please don’t give up your own freedom and integrity. Use your own words, express your own opinions, in whatever language your heart speaks. All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment You know what Wilfredor, all these comments about you using AI Bots, are simply done because we like to hear your voice the same way we like to see your photos and not the photos of an AI. We like your work and we care about you. But you are right, if this is the way you want to be heard and perceived, go ahead and do so. Users here will read or ignore your comments as they please. Perhaps this is all a great performance art you are doing, the next step in your artistic evolution. Who knows. Stephen Hawking used a robot voice most of his life and got quite famous for it. Myself, I'm just sorry to see you destroying your current "brand" like this (to use a contemporary expression). --Cart (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Cart, I think that sums it up quite well. @Wilfredor I'm very sorry if my comment above hurt your feelings, that was not the intention. Communicate in any way you see fit, just know that personally I very much prefer the "old", real you. El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#New York
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Midtown_Manhattan_from_Weehawken_September_2021_HDR.jpg&oldid=815379951"